Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 16:52, 13 December 2006 editKjkolb (talk | contribs)Administrators20,834 edits →Should admins be held accountable for false info and copyvios in user sandboxes they help [] to articlespace?: comment← 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
	{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}
			|algo = old(7d)
			|counter = 367
			|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
			|maxarchivesize = 700K
			|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
			|minthreadstoarchive = 1
			|minthreadsleft = 0
			}}{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude><!--S
			{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
			|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
			|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive
			|format=%%i
			|age=48
			|index=no
			|numberstart=255
			|minkeepthreads= 4
			|maxarchsize= 700000
			}}
			--><!--
			----------------------------------------------------------
	<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}}<!-- This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-2 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive65--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
			New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
			----------------------------------------------------------
			--><noinclude>
	__NEWSECTIONLINK__
			==Open tasks==
			<noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}}
			{{Administrators' noticeboard archives}}
			{{Clear}}
			{{Admin tasks}}
	__TOC__		__TOC__
			</noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove-->
	==One second blocks==		== ZebulonMorn ==
			{{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)}}
	This topic was briefly (very briefly) discussed ], but there was no final opinion on the matter. I have a serious problem with admins beginning to issue one second blocks for something like removing warning templates. The templates can still be found in history, and admins should (and I believe do) check the history of a user before issuing a relevant block. A one second block, as implemented by ] seems like more harassment/intimidation that any template warning ever did. I'd like to get some admin opinions on this before 1 second blocks begin to be implemented Wiki-wide, but was unsure of the proper place. If there's somewhere better...let me know. -- ''''']'''''] <small>20:32, 4 December 2006 (])</small>
			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)
	:I agree that one-second blocks are not a good idea. I frankly don't see much point in a one-second block. Logging "warning removal" seems unnecessary -- the user contribs will show that. --]<font color="green">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 20:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
	::It is not a log of warning removal. It is a log of the behavior which has apparently been generally ignored after he was last blocked in July. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 22:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::It is a log of "warnings". Since the user removes warnings, admins don't know how to block. This shows up in the log and gives them a note of past problems, it is much like a "dummy edit". ] 22:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
	: There are two valid uses of 1 second blocks- 1 sometimes they can be used to help clear out autoblocks. 2) Noting that a previous block in the block log was erroneous. Users sometimes prefer such notes who are senstive about their block logs. Either of these uses are fine. Using them as a form of warning doesn't serve any real purpose. If you need to warn a user about something use the user's talk page. ] 21:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
	::It is not a warning. It is a log. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 22:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I don't think 1 second blocks clear autoblocks any more.] 23:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I agree. You can't put on a block if there is already one in place. ]|] 00:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	His behavior is blockable in itself. Him threatening to block other users because he disagrees with article content is unacceptable; revert warring and removing others' comments from ''article'' talk pages is also unacceptable. Him removing a warning so that it is not easily searchable and likely ignoring it and previous warnings does not create a time-consuming obligation on my part to monitor his contributions endlessly, nor to require that I look through all his contributions to determine whether he has been ''entirely'' disruptive or whether there is some benefit to having him around and some hope of remediation; or to determine exactly how many warnings he has gotten previously and their validity; or to determine whether he is actually a sockpuppet of banned ]. He has the opportunity to amend this behavior, but that does not equate to a misleading clean slate; he has been given that opportunity before. If another administrator encounters this disruptive behavior on his part in the future, they should recognize that he has already been told repeatedly to stop. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 22:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
	:One second blocks tend to be used as punishments- "I did this and I'll do more if you carry on". Blocks '''aren't punishments'''. And moreover, the block log is a log of blocks, not a place to put little administrative notes. --] <small>]</small> 23:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
	::] pretty much summed up my position on this subject. A block log is to be used as a ''log'' of a person's blocks. It is not a place for admins to make notes on a user's behavior and an editor should '''never''' be blocked, regardless of the duration, unless a block is warranted. Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive; a one second block doesn't prevent anything. -- ''''']'''''] <small>23:07, 4 December 2006 (])</small>
	:::The behavior if it is not stopped warrants banning. The one second block prevents him from continuing this behavior without it being noticed. This is not a punishment. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 23:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::The block does not stop him doing anything since it is for one second. If you want to warning him he'll get banned, tell him. --] <small>]</small> 23:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::That was already done. The entry in the block log is a note to other administrators that he has already been repeatedly warned for this behavior, so that future disruptive behavior will receive an informed response, ending the ability to be disruptive if necessary. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 03:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	My feelings on the matter are summed up , and Bishonen that she agrees with me. The history of ] from at 22:53 on 3 December right up to less than an hour later shows a very unseemly and unbecoming edit war in which three users descended on his talk page and began to repeatedly remove that silly practical joke banner, restore warnings, etc. Then Centrx, one of the three users, blocked him for one second, so that it would be in the block log.
	I consider that block to be inappropriate, and potentially counterproductive. The idea of giving one-second blocks to users who remove warnings was discussed ]. It was suggested by Centrx. I and another user opposed it, and then the thread was archived. Nobody had supported it. I do not suggest any impure motives on the part of the blocking admin, but such blocks seem designed to "show" the user that the blocking admin is more powerful. Additionally, the removal of warnings is discouraged, but not prohibited. And, idiotic though that practical joke banner is, it's not something that "must be removed at all costs", so why make an issue of it and cause bad feeling? There is absolutely no compelling reason to have a record in the block log, and there are very good reasons ''not'' to (potential for ill will, and impossibility of changing your mind later). The very troublesome users attract admin noticeboard attention regardless of block logs. If a user is slightly disruptive (and I have no idea if this is the case here), there's no urgency. If you feel a record is necessary, you can keep one (with diffs) on your hard disk without humiliating and frustrating a fellow editor until such time as you feel that his behaviour needs to be brought to the noticeboard. ] ] 00:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I think Ann's summary puts it as succinctly as can be, and I fully agree. I would only add this: blocks ''are'' sometimes punitive. I know that people often claim they aren't but it seems to me I've seen more than a few cases where editors were blocked long after the incident that precipitated the blocking had passed. I don't necessarily have a problem with this, but I wish this status quo were either acknowledged or changed. It's a bit confusing otherwise. <font color="green">]</font> 00:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::There is '''some''' truth behind this punishment/preventative thing that you say, IronDuke. I guess one could say "If a punishment stops someone from vandalising due to fear of being blocked again, then the block was preventative" but that ground is perhaps a little weak. --] <small>]</small> 00:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	So, what do you propose instead? Our options are:
	*We watch all his contributions for several months (Are you going to do this or is this my burden?);
	*Let his behavior continue to be under the radar as it has been, accruing endless warnings, perhaps hoping that he will go beyond the pale or that a more aggressive administator will simply block him when he threatens to ban the admin;
	*Simply block him now as this is disruptive behavior for which he has previously been warned (Would anyone have objected if I had simply blocked him for 24 hours rather than 1 second?)
	—]→]&nbsp;&bull; 02:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Why not just work out a way to record warnings properly? Only allow admins to issue these warnings, and still, obviously, allow the template sort of warnings to be used by any user. Bit like a yellow card and then red card in some sports. ] 02:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I've been pondering for some time the idea of having a "warning log", which would be similar to a block log. It would be a permanent record, so to speak, so that admins could see what other admins had done in terms of warnings given. But it wouldn't be as hurtful or apt to cause disruption as an entry on someone's block log. Don't know if that's feasible with the software, though. <font color="green">]</font> 02:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::A 1 second block is obviously merely a note analogous to a warning log. I don't see why it would be less "hurtful". Also, having this feature would lead to "yellow card" warnings being put in the permanent log, where before they would be temporarily on the talk page, which would be more disruptive if the block log is. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 03:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::It could be a good idea, but it would need to be technically implemented in the software (you could create a protected Warning page but you would then need to link it from the user page—a link which would then be removed by the user). Given that it is a minor feature request and the block is nearly functionally identical, I doubt it would be implemented soon, and until such time we are left with these options. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 03:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::The talk page history generally makes for a pretty good "warning log". It doesn't take long to check it. -]<sup>(])</sup> 06:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	Yeah, I , as Ann says, when I noticed all the activity on ]'s page. Gangsta is not the pattern of editorial virtue, but I'm convinced he has a strong ambition to be a good and respected wikipedian. Centrx, like Ann, I believe that your actions were performed in good faith and with good intentions, but please let the man keep a little dignity here. I have experience of how much better he responds to that. He's ''very'' sensitive about his block log. On the general issue, using one second blocks in this manner, I'm totally against it. One second blocks are very useful for acknowledging blocking error, as Joshua says—I thought it was a brilliant idea the first time I saw it done, which as it happened involved the same editor. Please don't use them for anything else. ] | ] 02:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
	In regard to the recent heated exchange between admin ] and myself, I decided to make a concise explanation of the entire matter from beginning to end. First thing I need to clarify is I didn’t know Centrx is an admin until I checked his logs after Bish calmed us down. I was actually quite surprised he is a sysop for a number of reasons. The reasoning behind my post on his talkpage was not because I disagree with the page move on ], but because he failed to read the previous discussions on the possible page move in the relevant talkpage; thus he is moving it out of process (without consensus or discussion, factual accuracy). I have actually invested quite a bit of my time improving that particular article. Whether ] is an ethnic slur is debatable and the misconception of the use of word is widespread among people who do not understand hip-hop culture (some white rappers are self-proclaimed wiggers), so redirecting wigger to ethnic slur without prior discussion on talkpage seems to be rather POV.
	The only thing I probably shouldn't have done was to post on his talkpage. I do admit my reflective response on his talkpage is not optimal. This immediately provoked Centrx’s violent response. Rather than start a meaningful discussion on ], he decided to post a warning on my talkpage as well as removing my joke banner from my userpage and talkpage, which has nothing to do with the content dispute. The joke banner could also be found on another user's userpage(whom I encountered on His excellency’s arbitration case). And it has been up there for quite a few months now and no one complained about the so-called “deception” or “non-joke”. All of these hatred toward my userspace seems to be out of personal vendetta.
	In addition, Centrx also reverted one of my edits on ] (an area he was previously uninvolved in)]. which was later reverted back by admin ]. Once again, he demonstrated he is being rather personal (one of wikipedia’s policy is to comment on the contributions not the contributor).
	Many other users have posted similar warnings on my page, many of them baseless and unjustified such as ] and ], both of whom have been indef. blocked.
	1 second block is a great way to admit administration error, like the link Bish provided above. Alex apologized to me about the unjustified 3RR block he imposed on me, which was brilliant. But it is hard to picture that happening here in the near future.
	In regard to several unjustified accusations above, whether or not I disagree with the content is irrelevant, the point I am making is Certrx is redirecting out of process. I did not, of course, remove anybody's comment from article talkpages. Please provide evidence. The most outlandish accusation out of all is my connection to ], I'm not going to provide a diff. here (it's my bedtime). But if anyone is interested take a look at, Cute 1 4 U's talkpage and the previous thread about her on AN/I, I was actually one of the main advocate to have her blocked. The accusation is absolutely ridiculous. It is insulting.
	On a side note, if anyone is interested to come to a resolution, I will be holding a discussion on my talkpage. All involved parties are welcomed to participate. Thanks--] 07:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	***Ha, you think we don't see through your "participate"? All you want is for people to come to your talkpage so you can trick them into clicking on the joke banner! {{smiley}} ] | ] 12:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
	*I fail to see the point of a one-second block. If behavior is disruptive enough to warrant it, do a regular block; if not, don't block. We don't need to keep permanent records of any user's behavior that was "just shy of disruptive", least of all in the block log. (]) 10:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	*Please do not use the block log as a notice area for admins. If the behavior does not warrant a block, don't block. If the behavior is problematic in a long-term way, someone will notice it eventually, at which point blocks can be issued or a user RFC started, where the behavior can be analyzed in detail. ] ] 10:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	*If you want a bulletin board, use the page history, not the block log. ] 10:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	*This seems like the latest manifestation of an ongoing divide in 'conflict philosophy' amongst the community. One school of thought holds that we should label and warn and record so that users don't 'get away with' anything without it being easily and immediately visible to everyone. The other view is that such 'scarlet letter' notices are insulting/embarrassing, serve to increase conflict, and may be abused for harassment or issued questionably in anger. I belong very much to the latter group and think that this edit warring to enforce display of warnings / one second block to record it does more harm than good. A warning was issued. It was read. If the warning is valid and the actions prompting it are repeated then a block can be issued. If not... then the warning served its purpose and is no longer needed. If the same problem occurs a few weeks later the warning can be dug out of the history to show that the person knew about it. I don't think people 'get away' with misbehaviour because past incidents are overlooked very often at all. Generally they get blocked in very short order and if there are continual problems they are out the door. Barring some epidemic of people who commit dozens of disruptions and magically never get blocked I thus don't think any of these 'record-keeping' efforts serve a positive purpose... whether it be edit warring/talk page protection to force display of warnings, 'suspected sockpuppet' tags and the like on the pages of non-blocked users, one second blocks to record things in the block log, or what have you... it is guaranteed to annoy the user, easily lends itself to abuse/harassment, and accomplishes little or no positive benefit. It is natural to want to make a record of things you disagree with and make sure people know that 'this person is trouble'... but it is also inherently un-wiki. We need to try to cooperate with and support even the people we disagree with in order for collaborative encyclopedia building to work. Warnings exist not to note that the person is 'bad' with an eye towards blocking or banning them, but rather to ''help'' them get along with others. IMO any time your motivation is more akin to 'make sure they get what is coming to them' rather than 'try to help them avoid further trouble' you are headed in the wrong direction... down a path which '''increases''' conflict rather than helping to end it. It is a ridiculously easy trap to fall into, with all the best intentions of 'protecting Misplaced Pages from the bad guy', but in practice it does little except make matters worse. --] 13:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	Centrx, you seem not to understand that an entry in a block log is a slap in the face. If I broke 3RR, I'd much rather have the article protected for 24 hours than be blocked for 24 hours, even if that article were the only one I was interested in editing. Most people ''don't like'' having their block logs soiled. Removing warnings is not forbidden, and honestly, the way you and two other editors descended on Certified.Gangsta's page repeatedly restoring the warnings and removing the practical joke banner did amount to harassment. In the last year, I have been in dispute with two very disruptive non admins, both of whom made numerous personal attacks against me. (They're both indefinitely blocked now.) They both had that silly, irritating banner on their talk page, but it never even occurred to me to start harassing them by removing it. As Bishonen says, let users keep a little dignity. If something is mildly silly but is not harmful to the encyclopaedia, and fighting it is going to cause a lot of bad feeling, then ''just leave it''.
	You say that his behaviour is potentially blockable. If that's really true, I wouldn't object to a proper block from an ''uninvolved'' administrator. But I don't know, as you didn't give diffs. I did a little research, since you spoke of him threatening to block other users, and I saw entry on your talk page. He simply says, "Next time you move a page without consensus, you will be blocked from editing." That's not a threat that he'll block you. Lots of non admins send warnings that say "next time you . . . you ''will'' be blocked", even though they don't have the power to enforce it. At worst, his massage to you is an inappropriate warning. I've sometimes removed spam or nonsense or copyright violations, and have received vandalism warnings. I've even (gasp with horror) '''''removed''''' those warnings from my talk page. But I have never considered blocking the user who sent them, except where the user was engaging in vandalism or other clearly disruptive behaviour.
	You say that his removal of warnings might create a "time-consuming obligation on part to monitor his contributions endlessly", and suggest that an alternative to your one-second-blocks idea is that "we watch all his contributions for several months". If he's a very disruptive user, then he will come to admin attention without anyone having to watch him for several months. If he's not, then there's no particular need to watch him for several months. Noticeboard archives are full of threads concerning Mistress Selina Kyle or Blu Aardvark or Alienus. A user who does a bit of edit warring (and remember, I don't know if that's the case here) or sends an annoying warning to another user is not such a threat to the encyclopaedia that we need to keep a record of it displayed on his talk page or in his block log.
	A warning is intended to make a user &mdash; especially a new user &mdash; aware that he's violating a policy which he may not know about. Once he removes it, you know he's seen it, so you can keep the diff if you need it for an RfC or an RfAr. If you want a record, then put something like "disruption warning" in the edit summary &mdash; '''''once'''''. It can then be easily found in the history. (I always put "Test2 warning" etc in edit summaries for vandals.) If you want to go further than that, then you need to ask yourself if you are treating the warnings as genuine warnings (with the advantage of having a record for other admins through the history) or as a black mark that a user is obliged to display as a punishment for being naughty.
	Finally, ''please'' remember that the block button is to be used sparingly. Regardless of what your intentions actually were, it should never be used to send the message, "I'm more powerful than you, so if you refuse to leave my warnings publicly displayed on your talk page, I'm going to put them in your block log, because there's nothing you can do about that." I don't imply that that was your motivation, but it is certainly the effect. ] ] 13:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	God, Bishy, you think I'm the type? Anyway, in order to show genuine good-faith and my true intention to reach a constructive resolution to the incident, I have removed the joke banner on my talkpage (personally I think the banner's hilarious, but if y'all think it's obnoxious I gotta give it up).
	It is really refreshing to see all these intellectuals having a constructive, meaningful, and intelligent discussion about an important issue on wikipedia. There is still a lot hope in the project.
	And by the way, Bish, guess what? you don't see through me. :)--] 21:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Run, Gangsta! ] 03:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
	===Policy edit===
	'''Policy edit. '''It seems to me that this thread expresses consensus that blocks are not to be used for the purpose of making notes in the block log of a user, with the sole exception of putting in something like a note of apology for a wrongful block. Centrx alone disagrees. I'm going to ask Centrx to oblige the consensus demonstrated here by discontinuing the practice, even though he himself thinks it's a good idea. Gangsta also urgently wants another note from Centrx (are you following me...?) in his log, to disavow the first. People do feel humiliated by this kind of thing, and I for my part would be happy to see him get what he wants. I've also made the following addition to the ]:
	:"''Very brief blocks, for instance of one second, are sometimes used for the purpose of recording warnings or other negative events in a user's block log. This practice can be seen as humiliating, and is not approved, except for making notes that are in the user's own interest. For instance, when a wrongful block has originally been placed, a one-second block can later be added by the same admin in order to record an apology, or acknowledgement of mistake..''"
	Thoughts?''' ] | ] 03:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
	*I like it. It reflects current practice, which is what policy ought to do. I might quibble with "is not approved," because it implies a body which ''could'' approve it, which seems misleading. How about this: ''This practice has not found wide acceptance within the community and is discouraged, save when the notes..."-- ] ] 04:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	*Sounds good, but why should we use a one second block when an unblock would do the same trick? --]|] 15:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	**Conti, an unblock will do the trick if the original block is still active, but if it isn't, the one-second block has a use. 's an admin who made certified.gangsta very happy by apologizing for a mistaken 24-hour block after two weeks. Or, do you remember Carnildo's notorious indefinite blocks of three people for "hate speech"? They were quickly unblocked by others; but Carnildo could undo some of the damage with appropriate notes via one-second blocks, if he chose. ] | ] 16:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
	***Thanks for the clarification, that certainly makes sense. --]|] 17:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	*Support. No need to have a "scarlet letter" mentality. I support Mackensen's verbiage also, for the reasons he gave as well as for the reason that "This practice can be seen as humiliating" seems to imply that is the only reason not to do it, and there are others. Not qualifying leaves it open. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	*Fully support this proposal. One second blocks should never be used as ''administrative notes'' and this addition to the policy would help clarify that point. Thanks, ], for taking charge on this. ''''']'''''] <small>19:37, 9 December 2006 (])</small>
	*'''Strong support''' for Bishonen's edit. (Wish I'd made it myself!) ] ] 11:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Absolutely''' Bish hits it squarely on the head. &nbsp;]] <span style="font-size:130%; background:yellow; border:1px solid black;">&#x2622;</span> 11:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Support''': Very well said and very well done. We mustn't let our worries with vandals lead us to petty wars, brush fires, and vindictiveness. This is not a war of white and dark hats, Jedi and Sith. One second blocks are an attempt at demonstrating power, of nasally threatening to make a black mark on your permanent record. It's quite distasteful: block for abuse ''after talking'' or talk without blocking (even better). ] 16:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	== ] and ] ==
	I've run across a couple of accounts which seem to be used for nothing but keeping a personal collection of nudie pics. The accounts {{user5|NudeGalsRSexy}} and {{user5|Hotgirlsarehot}} only have edits to their own user space and only to create or move around links to photos. The tie that binds the two accounts togther is some edits by {{IPvandal|166.70.74.177}} to both user's pages. As this is not MySpace, is there any reason to leave the accounts around or should they be blocked for good? --] 22:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Their pages should be deleted... ] 22:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
	==Trolls try to get entries on bloggers deleted==
	{{see also|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive18#GNAA_and_WP:AFD|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive62#.22War_on_blogs.22|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive24#GNAA_.22War_on_blogs.22_campaign}}
	Interesting article on about how Misplaced Pages trolls are trying to get entries on bloggers deleted. I've tried to clean up the mess as best as I can. --] 03:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I was just about to post about this issue to get some second opinions. I agree with your actions. —]]] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 03:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Just to be clear, probably quite a few of the entries on bloggers ''should'' be deleted. However, the users I blocked claimed to be part of the GNAA, etc. etc., and were blatant trolls. There's also claims of vote fraud, etc., but I did not look in to that very deeply. --] 03:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	*I have undeleted and unblocked. Yes, Timecop is GNAA. He also seems to have Misplaced Pages's interests at heart in this case. At the very least, discussion should take place about this issue, not a single admin taking this into their own hands. --]''']'''] 03:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I could not disagree more that he and others involved in this 'crusade' have Misplaced Pages's best interests at heart. This is clearly a personal vendetta against blogs without any attention paid to Misplaced Pages's guidelines for notability. Reading their contributions and userspaces, no measure of notability is significant enough for them not to attempt to have every blog-related article deleted. Just spend two seconds looking into it, and you'll see what I'm talking about. I'm not going to continue the revert war that you've started, however, and would like to see this discussion continue. —]]] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 04:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I agree with Bbatsell. Please look at ] to see their <b>The criteria for marking a BLOG-related article to be deleted</b> which is, in my opinion, complete garbage. --ccanni1028 <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 04:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
	:Humblefool, why undelete Timecop but not Femmina? ] 08:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Why would anybody have a "personal vendetta" against blogs? ] 09:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	In my opinion, the way ] is presented is not appropriate even for user space (e.g. "BLOGS UNDER TERMINATION FROM US QUEERS", "shit inane garbage blatantly promoting the said blog", etc.). That said, I am not convinced the project is entirely without merit. Timecop's deletion requests do often seem to be successful at AFD, and a review of his contributions did show at least one recent instance where he improved a blog (]) rather than AFD'ing it (apparently having found that blog to be notable, or at least accepting the previous keep AFD as reason not to try again). My opinion right now is that I would be okay with keeping a project to clean up Misplaced Pages's blog-space if it were to be rewritten to have a serious tone and avoid throwing around intentionally abrasive language. Bloggers are real people, and as a serious encyclopedia project we should treat them with respect even if their work is non-notable and deserves deletion. I don't know enough about the vote-stacking and other issues to comment on those concerns. ] 04:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:P.S. I went ahead and the top part of his page, based on my opinion that it was wholly inappropriate. ] 04:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:: I'd like to chime in on the presentation/attitude issue. I agree that there's a specific need to police blog related articles, but this "War on Blogs" is being conducted in a way that is obviously lacking on the NPOV front and contributes to the public perception that Misplaced Pages is solely populated by ego driven elitists. The childish language used in the proposed criteria removes Timecop's campaign of any credibility that it might otherwise have (especially with new/non-editing users), making it appear to be a campaign of one lone misanthrope, rather than a coordinated effort by multiple editors, which is what any effort to police blog related content should be. I for one, feel that any AfD nomination made by Timecop, GNAA or anyone else involved in this effort should be looked at with suspicion, based upon their stated motivations and their inability to articulate their position outside of their "blogging is worthless" perspective. If a project like this is going to be successful it needs input from people who have a better understanding of the blogging field than Timecop has. ] 13:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	I've said this before and I'll say it again. If the GNAA wants to get vanity articles deleted in an orderly fashion according to Misplaced Pages's policies, more power to them. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 09:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	* Precisely. That was exactly the conclusion I recall we reached last time this was mentioned. As long as Timecop goes about it the Misplaced Pages way, with reference to policy and guidelines, what is the problem? And ''keep'' !votes based solely on the identity of the nominator are unlikely to get much weight either. Few bloggers are as notable as they may think. Writing about yourself every day is not a guarantee that your perception of society's need for your words is in line with reality, is it? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	*Just to concur with the above, the objections (last time around it was ] who got very upset) made respecting the effort to bring blog entries of questionable notability to AfD is entirely in keeping with overall principles and policies. The "problems" cited above seem to be completely contrived - that AfD nominations that are not as civil as they might be or that bloggers are not being treated with respect... What is that? And how are those grounds to issue blocks against users whose efforts have in effect been endorsed by the larger opinion of the community (if one reviews the list of nominations brought to AfD, many have been successful. It's too bad that Wil Wheaton is upset, but then... doesn't he exist on blogging...? Blocking ] and ] on grounds of trolling, when the bulk of their AfD participation has received sanction from other, uninvolved editors is absurd, against policy, and should be forthwith reverted. ] 13:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	**Last time around it was ]. ] was the time before that. ] 15:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	Hi, Tony Pierce here. This might be surprising coming from me but I agree with those of you who think that timecop should stay. Every society needs a garbage man, a cockroach, a cop. And those roles are oftentimes looked down upon. If in his heart timecop feels he's doing the right thing focusing on bloggers and if the editors of Misplaced Pages agree with him, then he is doing good work in making this place even better.
	Not everyone, however, who does good things does them in a friendly, polite, or even decent way, however, and I think that's where timecop and the GNAA do themselves a disservice. For example I tried to politely ask timecop to that he found to a resume of mine from 2000, as well as delete the lie that I hadn't ever been employed for one full year from the AfD page and he refused. After I reminded him that knowingly keeping something posted that you know (from the resume) is false is tantamount to lying (and possibly worse: libel), he basically told me to piss off. That's a bad cop, despite his possible initial good intentions. And it lends to critics' arguments that someone with an agenda against blogs fails the Misplaced Pages standard of . If somehow you can get timecop to play by the rules I think you'll have a really dedicated editor who is passionate about Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately there's very few worse things than a bad cop. And if you're just as diligent about getting rid of bad entries, why wouldn't you also be just as rigid about getting rid of bad editors?
	With that said, there are two things that I have learned from the two discussion pages in regards to my case. The first is, as you can see from the information gleaned in the debate, there is far more information about me and my career in blogging that was ever on my Wiki entry. Sometimes it might be that the entry is lacking, not the subject. In which case it's unfair to debate the entry until it's complete. I'm not saying that's the case here, but it could be, and it could be the case for some one else down the road. Several people said "Delete, he has only appeared on G4TV? Big whoop" before seeing the information that I've been quoted in newspapers around the world, and that my award-winning post has been translated in several languages. Therefore I am grateful that mine wasn't one of those Speedy deletions. And I'm also grateful that the story was published this Sunday which made me check in on my entry to see if I was in the same boat as the band in the WaPo article - and sure enough, I was. And I was lucky that it was on Digg, and I was lucky that there was time afforded for an intellectual discussion. I say "lucky" because I simply want a fair discussion based on facts, not a hurried debate based on a poor entry.
	The other thing is there really needs to be, in my humble opinion, a better test than there currently is for determining the notability of a blogger and/or a blog. This too was brought up in the current discussion. The media has also had to struggle with this one while debating if bloggers are journalists, whether blogs are credible news sources (something we share with Misplaced Pages), and if blogging is merely a fad. Many of those questions are no longer debatable since bloggers have been granted access to attend and report on political conventions, a few blogs have broken news stories or severely changed political discussions, many newspapers now have blogs, and some blogs are hiring full time bloggers and editors.
	I'm not saying that I know what should be included in the test of notability but things like Technorati's rankings, mentions in major newspapers, longevity, money made off blogging, or blogging professionally are the types of things that could be determined in separating the average blogger from the notable one.
	There is a strong relationship between bloggers and Misplaced Pages, and I dare say that we are probably the source of more links and more traffic to your site than any other place. And if we're not we're way up there. Therefore the likelihood of more blogs being nominated for entry/deletion will be high. If that's true, it means a good standard specifically for blogs is something that I believe should be set at some point since we are (sadly) different than other forms of media.
	Regardless of the fate of my entry, even if I disagree with it, I'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have in the future, if there ever are any, regarding blogs, bloggers, and blogging and its history, and I can be reached pretty easily in the comments of the , , or via email at busblog @ gmail. Best regards, Tony ] 10:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	: Pardon my irreverence, but I don’t think a link to the resume of an individual whose Misplaced Pages article is being discussed is totally off-topic. Also, why do you insist the link be removed and at the same time continue to serve the image from your website? ] 15:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	the resume is irrelevant and off topic because it spans years up to 2000. i hadn't started blogging until fall of 2001. also the point of him linking to it was to expose me as someone who hadn't held a job for over a year, which if it were true, would also be irrelevant to what i have achieved in blogging, but it is a false claim. if you or he can justify linking to my pre-blogging, 2000 resume as a way to prove or disprove that i deserve a wikipedia entry go for it. but the claim that i havent held a job for over a year is not only a poor argument for a Delete vote, but it's untrue based, ironically, on the resume timecop linked to. therefore keeping the statement that i have not held a job for over a year is a blatant lie and possible libel since its sole intention is to defame me based on something that he knows to be untrue. tony pierce ] 21:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Autoblock tool down ==
	The autoblock tool seems to be down at the moment. I'm going to bed, can someone else please kick it? --] 04:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:It looks like the whole toolserver is down. <strong>]]]</strong> 11:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::According to wikitech-l, all the European-hosted Wikimedia servers were down a while ago, and the developers are currently trying to bring them back online. This includes the toolserver. --] 11:46, 5 December 2006 (]]])
	== Breaking Foundation-level news ==
	Technically this doesn't need administrators' notice, but I'm sure you all will agree it's important enough that everyone will want to read it anyway. --] 05:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	===Board meeting in Florida===
	:''From , by Anthere''
	----
	We had to 1) replace Tim Shell, 2) plan next elections, 3) make
	decisions over how to expand the board
	It was a set of issues I expected would be problematic, but we actually
	rather easily and quickly settled down on an agreement.
	A very detailed resolution will make that plain official, but the basic
	ideas are these ones:
	We will work toward a progressive expansion of board, up to a number of
	probably 11, to be expected in july 2008.
	2 new members will be added (by appointment) before the end of the year
	on the board, until next elections in july 2007.
	Tim Shell will be replaced before the end of the year, by appointement,
	for a term of one year.
	All appointements will be for one year from now on, which means Jimbo
	and Michael Davis terms will expire in a year. Appointements may be
	renewable.
	Elections will take place every year for 3 positions (3 positions in
	july 2007, 3 positions in july 2008). Elected seats is for 2 years term
	and may be renewed. Elections will stay direct elections, but procedures
	and rules (such as requirements for candidacy or voting system) may
	evolve. The board is apparently opened to the concept of appointing in
	the future, a member which would be warmly recommanded by chapters.
	Last, the board pledged the majority of the board would be from the
	community (through appointements or elections)
	To be very specific
	The board was also concerned by the risk of instability at next
	elections, due to the important influx of new members (possibly very
	knowledgable about the Foundation, or possibly not) and important
	departure of current members (Erik, the two new temp members and
	myself). The board consequently suggested that I, be appointed to the
	board from july 07 till june 08, which I accepted (OMG).
	The board came up with names for the three newly appointed members, but
	we first need to check whether they agree :-) You'll be informed once
	agreement is given. Stay tuned !
	----
	===Discussion===
	Wow ... those are some very big changes. What do you all think? --] 05:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:One thing I think is that the math doesn't add up. If you have 11 board members serving two year terms, yet only elect 3 each year, you are only rotating 6 positions. —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 06:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::What I'm most interested in is these three new board members who are going to be appointed. What was the point of the elections then? For every one that is elected, three more are appointed? I don't see how that leaves us, the community, with very much control. --] 06:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::: The way I read it, it's a temporary move. A possible timetable:
	:::* February 2007: 7 members- 3 appointed, 2 voted (Florence and Erik), and Jimbo and Michael Davis.
	:::* July 2007: 7 members- 5 voted (though Florence would stay until 2008), and Jimbo and Davis, assuming both are reappointed.
	:::* February 2008: 11 members- 4 appointed, 5 voted, and Jimbo and Davis, assuming both are reappointed.
	:::* July 2008: 11 members- 6 voted, 3 appointed, mainly from the various foundation chapters, and Jimbo and Davis.
	::: This is obviously a guess, but I imagine something similar would be done. ] (]) 07:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::It reads to me that Florence will become an appointed member starting in July 2007, so we would have 4 elected (Erik + 3 new) from 2007 to 2008, and 6 from July 2008 on. Converting elected members into appointed members is not a bad thing, preferable to plucking chapter members who have never demonstrated any broad support in the greater community. We should elect them first, then convert those that prove to be excellent board members into appointees. ] 11:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I think that one of the Village Pumps would be a better place for this discussion. --]<sup>]</sup> 12:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::: Agreed, but I wouldn't know which one. Feel free to move this there... ] (]) 16:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::], I think. --] 16:16, 5 December 2006 (]]])
	== New block reason for accounts - ] ==
	{{tl|Unb-c}}<br>I keep getting emails from accounts I've indef'd because their username resembles that of a company, so I created a more specific version of {{tl|Usernameblock}}. I'm not really bothered whether I end up being the only person using this, but I think it's useful for people to know about. -- ] 13:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	== My Account ==
	You can block this open proxy later, but first please unlock this: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Leaderofall I did not do vandalism. I was unfairly blocked. 85.17.45.23
	== Need help with ] ==
	Somebody (using both a logged-in account and anon ip) has repeatedly put copyvio material on ]. I've asked them not to do that, and eventually just sprotected the page to keep it from happening again. Now that they can't edit the page anymore, they've just gone ahead and put the copyvio material on ]. I don't want to get dragged into a one-on-one battle over this. Could some other admin take a look at this? Thanks. -- ] ] 14:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	== IP Address Blocked ==
	I am a Safety Officer working with Dubai International AIrport. I registered myself on this site as it provides huge amount of useful information in terms of safety and safe airport guidance.
	For past several days, whenever I log in, I keep getting the message "Your IP Address has been Blocked". If this keeps on continuing then I will be forced to cancel my subscription from this website and a bad rep for Wikepedia.
	It would be highly appreciated if you could resolve this issue at the earliest.
	Thanks.
	Regards,
	Ali Asghar Ali
	Safety Officer
	Dubai International Airport <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
	:Hello. In order for us to help you, you need to tell us your IP, as told by the page which is telling you that you are blocked. ] - ] 17:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Wait, you were able to post this text here with your username, which is not possible for people who've been blocked. I suggest you clear your browsers cache and try editing again. Also, if you just want information from WikipediA, that can be done even if you are blocked. ] 00:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Subscription? ]|] 03:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:: ''There is no subscription necessary to use Misplaced Pages'', other than the general cost to access the Internet. If you are paying a separate subscription, it sounds like you are being scammed. —]]] 05:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
	The community is encouraged to continue working to achieve an acceptable formulation of ], or an alternative, which addresses problems presented by disruptive users, while avoiding the creation of a hostile atmosphere for children who are editing in good faith. Users who disrupt Misplaced Pages by posing as children, projecting a provocative persona, and disclosing personal information may be banned on a case by case basis. Users who appear to be children editing in good faith who disclose identifying personal information may be appropriately counseled. Deletion and oversight may be used in appropriate cases to remove the information.
	For the Arbitration committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, ] 18:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	==Help needed at request of fellow editor==
	I'm on the computer of ], who was giving himself a Wikibreak for a day and inadvertently gave himself a week due to a typo.
	At , he meant to end his Wikibreak tomorrow, Dec. 6, at 17 hours (5 p.m.). Instead he typo'd 187 hours, which takes him through to Dec. 13.
	He asked me to ask you, with his apologies for his careless typing, if you would fix the typo from "187" to "17." Thank you very much -- ] 18:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I've done it - it's clear that he made a mistake by his in the diff. Thanks :) <strong>]]]</strong> 19:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	=={{Userlinks|street Scholar}}==
	This user has created extensive disruption for making sexist attacks before, as well as making racist attacks against ] . He was then blocked for a long time. Now, he is back, and has launched a bad faith AfD where he has made personal attacks against me and similarly in my talk page . He has also vandalized several articles by blanking sourced content, using the vandalism (POV commentary adding) of another anon user as a pretext to hide his tendentious edits. He has made many tendentious edits Something needs to be done about this user. ] 19:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I don't see any recent attempt by you to communicate to this user on his talk page. A properly warned user is more likely to be blocked, I will look through your diffs. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 20:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I have given the user a 2 week block for personal attacks. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 20:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	==Possible bad faith copy-vio notice==
	I need other adminsitrators to visit ] as a user has declared the article to be a copyright violation against Memory Alpha since, months ago, the initial version of the article (then 2-3 sentences) was coped over from MA. since then, the entire article has been rewritten with new material and sources added. In its present form the article ''looks nothing like'' the version from Memory Alpha. I tried to explain this to the user and remove the notice, but he reverted demanding the notice stay up for several days until other adminsitrators look at it. I think this might be bad faith since the same user posted some very harsh reviews of the article on the talk page and then, after all this, decieded the article was a copvio. I am asking for a speedy removal of this notice since the article does not appear to be n any way a copyright violation. -] 20:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:The article looks fine to me. I removed the notice. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 20:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Further note that the user in question (a) strongly objects to being called "he", (b) was perfectly correctly identifying a copyvio problem, as now pointed out on the ] (c) is an administrator in good standing of over three years, has never been blocked, and strongly objects to being accused of doing things in bad faith, and (d) should really stop talking about herself in the third person. ] - ] 20:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::The word "possibly" was used to ask other editors for thier opinions, and they have now given them. One must admit, though, the tone of the talk page on that article could have been less harsh. Noone was trying to harm the article and this user certianly did not knowingly commit a copyright violation or copy anything from Memory Alpha. -] 21:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	Sorry to intrude but couldn't the article be deleted and only the latest non-copyvio revisions restored? BTW, I also disagree that anything was done in bad faith. —] (]) 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Well, technically we could do this, but since all versions in history are copyvio we would lose the attribution required for the GFDL for the new non-copyvio content. This is why starting a new article is the procedure. ] specifically instructed me to do what I did. I see now after the required tag has been removed twice by various users, someone had now purged the article of the sentences i specifically identified as copyvio, leaving a kind of a mess. ] - ] 20:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	Morwen had nothing to do with this, but moments after the copyvio was closed as not valid, another user nominated the article for deletion. ] states he believes the AfD to be bad faith and I kind of agree with him. -] 21:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Why are you persisting in contending my actions were not valid, after I have explained at length the word-for-word that was still present in the version of the article when I tagged it, and have pointed to ], which I followed to the letter. I can accept that you examined the article and were unable to spot the copyvio, as an honest mistake, initially, but it would be nice if you would acknowledge that you saying "there is no copyvio" was a mistake. ] - ] 22:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::The entire article itself indeed did not and still does not appear to be copyvio, but there were indeed subtle sentences mixed in that, while not obvious at a glance, have since been removed. What concerns me now is that the article is unverifiable (and really does seem to belong more in a fansite than on an encyclopedia). <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 22:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	* Cool Cat and Husnock are wrong, I nominated it because it is a ], and not especially good ones at that. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:20, 5 December 2006
	**The article is referneced with in-line references to movies and shows and a reference is given at the end with others soon to follow. So, I cannot agree when you say this article "is not a good one at that", we don't need personal opinions about an article beng good or bad, lets all work together to make them all better. As for Coolcat, he is concerned becuase the same people seem to be visiting the Star Trek articles he has worked on and are nominating them for deletion. To date, two have been nominated and when one survives an AfD, the same people who nominated it will visit another one of the articles and try to AfD that one instead. I have to give Coolcat's fears some credence here. I am really hoping that there are no personal motives here and that people are not nominating these articles becuase Coolcat or I worked on them. I can only hope that is not the case. -] 23:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	***As if to confirm what Coolcat is saying, yet another article nominated for deletion by the same people for the same questionable reasons: ] -] 00:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
	*{{User|Lochdale}} is banned indefinitely from editing articles which concern Elvis Presley. All bans to be logged at ].
	*{{user|Onefortyone}} remains on probation with respect to editing articles which concern celebrities, see ].
	For the Arbitration committee. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Admin ethics guide ==
	Is there a guide to administrator ethics somewhere that I'm missing? If not, would anyone be interested in working on such a thing with me? I'm still relatively new to being an admin, and I think it might help to clear up issues about how to deal with abusive editors, how to avoid conflicts of interest, etc. Also, if anyone thinks this is a bad idea, let me know. Thanks, ] (<big>]]</big>) 00:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	*I think a number of admins have written informal pieces on the subject. Just to toot my own horn, I've a small one here: ]. ] ] 00:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Toot away. Thanks. --] (<big>]]</big>) 00:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::That's a great little nugget, Mackensen. The last line particularly struck me since I always figure two people should be grown up enough not to edit war on a page and, if they're not, they and only they need to take a break. But "This focuses attention on the thing that matters most" is a thought-provoking point... —] (]) 01:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I like this. I do think that some sort of central ethics guidelines - not policy - at least should be discussed, even if just to get admins to talk about the topic.--] (<big>]]</big>) 02:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::If there are more of these, please add them to ] (Wikibooks). Just the sort of stuff we're looking for! --]|<sup>]</sup>|<sub>]</sub> 21:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	==CSD==
	A bunch of user talk pages (such as ] and ], to select two random examples) are showing up in ] without any obvious reason for it. What am I missing here? --] | ] 02:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Seems to be fixed now (at least that I can tell); I'd venture to guess that someone tagged one of the templates used on the pages as a speedy without <nowiki><noinclude></nowiki>, which then caused all the pages it was transcluded on to be listed in the category. But that's pure speculation. At any rate, I can't find them there now. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ]</span> 03:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I think it had something to do with {{User|Clamster5}}'s templates. I noticed that when I was glancing at some of the user talks up for deletion all had Clamster5's welcome template on them. It was somehow stemming from either the welcome template or the signature, ] 03:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I believe you're right; it looks like he included both <tt><nowiki>{{User:Clamster5/Welcome}}</nowiki></tt> <tt><nowiki>{{Template:inviteASUE}}</nowiki></tt> when welcoming. The of Template:inviteASUE shows it was moved from ], leaving a redirect there, which was tagged for speedy deletion earlier and deleted. So, it looks like any page that he originally put the userspace template on was included in the CSD cat when he tagged it for speedy deletion. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ]</span> 03:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Ah, makes sense Essjay. I was trying to trace it myself but couldn't quite figure out how the pages were being tagged. From the looks of it, Clamster5 wasn't substituting and I couldn't find any evidence in the templates themselves. But, there you go. ] 04:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	Someone drop past ] bit of a backklog - I'm at work (on lunch), or I would do it. 02:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I don't see any backlog. It's been cleared out. --<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you! ]]]</span> 03:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::There was about 8--10 wating to be dealt with. ]]`
	== ] ==
	I just happened to stumble upon ] (don't ask), and it's automatically suppose to block edits by proxies. It's operated by ]. Now, the weird thing is that it supposidly ], and was subsequently . Has this come up before, was the idea scrapped, or did this just go unnoticed? The page that controls this (]) still lists this user. -]<small>(]·]·])</small> 04:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Without knowing further details of this blocking scheme I'd dare to say that the user account was deliberately created to spoof a MediaWiki script name, as has been done for ] and ]. The fact that a page in user space is displayed to users blocked by the software in this situation is quite an unfortunate quirk, though. <tt>].]</tt> 18:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	The title of this article has been changed without:
	* adequate consensus
	* cogent evidence to support a change based on article content
	* considering the creation of a new article
	Subsequent edits have been made without:
	* adequate consensus
	* any real change large enough to warrant changing the title
	Please adivse:
	]
	--] <b> μολὼν λαβέ</b> 04:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::All but one editor agreed on the consensus under discussion. Only ] <b> μολὼν λαβέ</b> disagreed. A non-issue. No action required. The previous title was felt to be non-descriptive of the title content relative to ''Gun control'', as more than gun control content was included in the article. Giving undue weight to a minor part of Gun (Firearm) laws in the United States (by state) was not felt to be an accurate title. ] 04:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::* Two editors to one is not consensus.
	:::* If "more than gun control" was included in the article, then it should have been removed per the article title.
	:::* The content should match the title of an article under contruction, not the other way around.
	:::* If I was to create a "Gun Control by State" article, it would take only one instance of a non-resrictive law being included in the article for the same logic to be used and the article title changed. --] <b> μολὼν λαβέ</b> 04:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Looks fine to me. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 04:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::How is two against one consensus? It isn't. Goodbye. --] <b> μολὼν λαβέ</b> 05:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Goodbye. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 05:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::A little late, but as an uninvolved Admin, with the firm belief that "gun control" means hitting your target, I concur with the name change. Most gun laws have restrictive and expansive elements. &mdash; ] | ] 18:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Shorter IP blocks are better ==
	I've noticed that some admins are blocking IPs for increasing amounts of time. Some of these are shared university IPs, some are probably dynamic, and they are blocked for a week, month or even 6 months(!). That's completely useless for our purposes. We are blocking IPs to prevent specific persons from editing, not to punish the IP addresses. In most cases, the person behind the IP changes within hours, so blocking the IP for a week brings no added advantage for our purposes. Even when you have reasons to believe that a prolonged attack over a couple of days is coming from the same person, there is no reason to expect that the same person will be using the IP next week. I strongly advise less fancy template work on talk pages, shorter blocks (3-24 hours is almost always enough), and in cases of prolonged attacks coming from the same IP over a number of weeks - if you really want to be useful, inform the school. ] | ] 05:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I do the longer blocks on IPs when there are not any constructive edits coming, but just more vandalism everytime the block expires. If I see a variety of types of edits from the IP then I do shorter blocks. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 05:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Remember the point of blocks, by ], is to protect Misplaced Pages. If an address has 9 out of 10 edits being vandalism (or even 10 out of 10), and they are editing several pages per week, then it is far more to the deteriment of the encyclopedia to allow them to continue to edit. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 06:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	I understand the need for long blocks when shorter ones have not worked and virtually no good contributions are being made. I've found some IP addresses, especially those of schools and universities, to be chronic vandals. Also, Misplaced Pages seems to be doing significantly worse lately when it comes to catching vandalism, especially in a timely manner. I've been finding vandalism that has gone unreverted for many hours and sometimes days on high profile articles. Sometimes the vandalism is not even caught and the article is edited without being reverted. Therefore, more aggressive blocking of IP addresses that make few or no constructive edits might be appropriate. However, I have seen some admins block IP addresses for six months or a year when the account has only made one or two edits. Also, before going past the one month mark, I think that the ISP, college or company should be contacted. In many cases, they can identify the vandals and either greatly reduce the vandalism or stop it completely. Perhaps it should be part of the blocking procedure before long blocks are made. -- ] 11:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:We already contact ISPs etc. Check out ]. Currently, I assume due to available resourcing and likelihood of success, we only do so after 5 bans minimum. Note that, while it may sound simple, in reality it takes a long time because of the necessary to compile all the information. ] 16:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Expired prods are piling up ==
	] is now backlogged past two days or about 300 "articles" and user pages. According to the ], the number of prods is at an all time high. Please get out your flamethrowers and help clear this backlog. Thanks. ] 06:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	I'm not quite sure what to do about this article. ] for speedy deletion, because it was created by a sockpuppet, ], of the indefinitely blocked user ] (as per ] G5). However, it has actually survived an AfD (]), so it does appear to have some validity as an article. Any ideas on what to do? ] (]) 07:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Hmmm...I don't have any idea, this needs a community concensus. I would like it to stay as it has encyclopedic value. But due to the criteria for speedy deletion, I have to consider this, this is a very tough decision to make. If we apply CSD G5 here, then it has to go. ]]]] 07:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::G5 it. The article is not something you'd find written in an encyclopedia, there are obvious tone problems, and it wouldn't hurt us if it was gone. &ndash; ]] 07:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::: I wouldn't necessarily be that quick to dismiss the article. The AfD has established some form of community consensus that this is something we can have - the introduction can be rewritten to conform with tone quite easily and you do find comparative tables in encyclopedias. The question is how strictly the speedy deletion criteria should be applied. ] (]) 08:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	I believe that in this case the AfD acts as a community consensus for keeping. There is a similar qualifier on the notability CSD criteria G11:"If a page has previously gone through deletion process and was not deleted, it should not be speedily deleted under this criterion." That line was instated following a discussion ] which decided that AfD's overruled CSD's, and I would suggest that this principle extended to all (non-copyvio related) speedy deletion criteria: surviving a formal deletion process should make the page ineligible for speedy deletion. --] <small>]</small> 08:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Someone raised something along these lines on IRC the other day (I forget who). I said to them that to delete whole articles, which have no other problems, only because they were contributed to by a banned user or a sock thereof, is simply cutting off our noses to spite our faces. The article is the community's now, and we can do with it what we like. If there's a consensus to keep it, evidenced by an AfD, then we should naturally keep it. --]&nbsp;(]) 09:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:: That's an interesting proposal actually, that once a page survives XfD, it should be exempt from speedy deletion (except if it's patently not the same content). Is it worth putting into the CSD guidelines though? I'm thinking this is a rather small minority of cases, but it might be worth noting just to prevent future confusion. ] (]) 09:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::It's already there in G11, I see no reason why it shouldn't be in the general rules as well. With a parenthetical exception for copyvios, of course. --] <small>]</small> 09:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Just because something is technically eligible for speedy deletion under the criteria doesn't mean that it must be deleted, only that it can be. Conversely, just because something has survived one of the deletion processes, doesn't mean that it should never be deleted. That said, in a common sense approach to deletion, the fact that an article like this (where the only issue relating to the criteria is that it was contributed to by a banned user) has been kept by an AfD would almost always mean that it should be kept. --]&nbsp;(]) 12:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	This seems like process for the sake of process. Say I copy and paste the article to my sandbox and then you delete the article, I could then repost the material and the process would have been honoured. What a waste of time. The argument that the article is non encyclopedic is also a nonstarter - it's demonstrably a minority POV, as it's passed an Afd. If I've ever seen an occasion demading Ignore All Rules, this is it. It's a good article and should stay - don't cut off your nose to spite your face. --] 10:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC) <small>P.S. I'm not an admin, so if I'm not supposed to post my thoughts here, please excuse me.</small>
	:You are allowed to put your thoughts here, its for anyone to say anything. ]]]] 11:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	===Block and subsequent unblock of Tennis expert===
	I understand that ] is a confirmed sock of ] with checkuser evidence, but in my dealings with ] before he/she was banned, they were not of the intelligence to write the article in that tone, or with that degree of knowledge of the wiki syntax. They seemed to be very ameteurish/childish. This is evinced by their userpage when they were not banned (have a look at the deleted edits). Is it possible that checkuser has got this one wrong, and we have banned a worthwhile contributor. Possibly because they share an isp? The only other option as I see it is that they were putting on the 13 year old girl act (guessing the age here) and that messy myspace like userpage? And to what end would all those thousands of edits have been. ]] 09:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:As someone who's had run-ins with Tennis expert I agree. Tennis expert does not exhibit behaviour of Cute 1 4 u, neither do they edit the same articles. Questions, questions... &ndash; ]] 09:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Could it be a school, or something similar? ] 09:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::We know Cute 1 4 u's IPs, and it's not a school (there is considerable question as to whether Cute 1 4 u ''is'' a child at all). The other sock blocked, ] edited many of the same articles as well. ]·] 08:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	It looks like the user in question has had an unblock declined by ] who is not an admin, yet the note on ]'s user talk page suggests he is . I don't know how check-user can prove that two users are the same person, just that they have the same IP address?? Should another admin review? ] 12:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I asked several administrators to look over that message before I sent it to her, including the blocking administrator. Frankly, there is not much that can be done in a checkuser block (from what I was told) other than to request that another checkuser be performed. And my actions such as that there have been discussed before in that they are not harmful. I know I cannot unblock, and I don't expect to do that for a while, but things such as checkuser blocks or blatant attacks are things that can be reviewed and declined. However, I will "un-review" it, and just place all of my commentary beneath it, seeing as this is more complex than usual.—] (]) 18:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	] has unblocked Tennis expert (supported). Something definitely has to be cleared up here. &ndash; ]] 04:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:My actions are explained at ]. I did not know of this discussion at the time, and did not mean to step on any toes or seize control of the situation. I do still, however, support my position that Tennis expert is not a sock (see evidence at the above link). -- ] (]) 08:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	{{user|Tennislover}}, {{user|tennis expert}} and {{user|Twister Twist}} were all blocked as sockpuppets of Cute 1 4 u, a banned user. This was done after an informed CheckUser, lots of investigation, and double checking by Essjay, another checkuser, before making it public. I am confident in the identification, and I was very surprised to see another administrator unblock without reasoning and even attempting to ask me beforehand. The rationale provided seems to have homed in on minor discrepancies when the IP evidence is clear, two socks edit the same set of articles with similar usernames, and we already know that Cute 1 4 u has a history of taking on a variety of personae in her reincarnations. ]·] 08:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:As far as I am aware, neither Cute 1 4 u nor any of her socks have ever edited ] and related articles, or for that matter edited articles ''helpfully''. This user also definitely has knowledge that I don't expect C14u to have. Given also that this user started editing even before C14u's first block, I cannot support any block related to this imposed on Tennis expert from what I can tell. &ndash; ]] 08:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:With respect to your time, research, and general experience in these matters, I do not see why you keep refusing to acknowledge my communication to you. I have said several times that I absolutely did research the matter before I executed the unblock, and I took mentions of several attempts to communicate with you with no response to them as a major factor in my decision. In addition, at your advice I spent more than an hour researching the several accounts' contributions, and all of them exhibit '''strong''' similarities except ]. ]'s contribution times also overlap all of the suspected socks with no similarities when based on time, and not that many are to matching articles, especially when you consider the entire range of TE's contributions. -- ] (]) 08:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Dmcdevit, you appear to be saying that I am a sock puppet of cute 1 4 U because I'm a sock puppet of cute 1 4 U. "... two socks edit the same set of articles...." It also appears that one of your criteria for making a sock puppet conclusion is similarity in user names. What is similar about "Tennis expert" and "Tennislover"? We both have "tennis" in our names. But so what? I chose "Tennis expert" simply because I anticipated that most of my registered edits would be in tennis-related articles, and my unregistered edits had been almost completely in that area for the previous 8 or 9 months. (I then started editing tropical cyclone articles because I have been interested in that subject since about 1971, when I experienced my first hurricane.) Is everyone on Misplaced Pages who has "tennis" in his or her username a suspected sock puppet of cute 1 4 U? Also, why don't you check the IP addresses I've used today and yesterday and the day before and really at any time in the past since I registered. You've apparently concluded in the past that cute 1 4 U is in the Chicago, Illinois area. As you will see, I am no where close to that location, and the first two or three digits of my IP addresses are different from the first two digits of the IP addresses used by cute 1 4 U. Your other reasoning is that cute 1 4 U has varied personaes. But that makes Chacor and everyone else in the world a suspect who has a personae different from cute 1 4 U; therefore, that is a useless criterion. What will it take to convince you that I am not a sock puppet for cute 1 4 U or any other past or present Misplaced Pages user? Or is your mind closed to that possibility? You have my email address. I'll provide whatever private information you need, within reason. ] 08:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::The checkuser process is a detailed examination of the IP addresses that you have been using to connect to the internet and has nothing to do with your user name or even your contribution history. If Dmcdevit and Essjay say that {{user|Tennislover}}, {{user|tennis expert}} and {{user|Twister Twist}} are all coming from the same computer as Cute 1 4 u and her sockpuppets, then I trust that finding completely. I don't know what prompted the check, since checkuser is only done ''after'' there is other evidence; the other admins weighing in here may wish to consider that as well. The question now is will a ] for disruption be enforced against the person or only against the disruptive personae the user has created and not against their helpful personae. ] 09:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Has Dmcdevit actually said that I am using the same computer as cute 1 4 u? I haven't seen where he has said that. The closest anyone has come is that my IP address is within the same IP address range as that used by cute 1 4 u. I'm not sure what it takes to be within the "same range." But if my IP address is different, how can it be said that my computer is the same as the computer of cute 1 4 u? And how are dynamic IP address assignments handled by checkuser, which is my situation? Aside from all this, I would like to know what "other evidence" existed to cause the checkuser to be conducted. No one requested it as far as I can determine. The only "other evidence" talked about so far is that Tennislover and I both have "tennis" in our user names and that we have edited some of the same tennis articles. The logic (illogic to me) appears to be that if Tennislover is a sock puppet for cute 1 4 U and given that Tennislover and I both have "tennis" in our user names, then I also must be a sock puppet for cute 1 4 U. That makes no sense. And where is the good faith presumption when it comes to my account? What about fundamental fairness, which to almost any rational human being includes notice and the opportunity to contest the evidence before adverse action is taken unless an emergency situation exists. And even then, a meaningful opportunity to overturn the adverse action should be provided after the fact. Refusing to discuss the evidence and reflexively saying that "if A said it, then it must be true and accurate" is wholly insufficient in my opinion. ] 09:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	: I just read the discussion on Dmcdevit's talk page. If Dmcdevit says on his talk page - "You are on the same IP as Cute 1 4 u" - then I it means Tennis expert is on the same IP as C14U. Note: Dmc doesn't even say same range, or same ISP. And as the community has already banned C14U, I would support a reblock of Tennis expert. - ] (]) 16:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Have you read my talkpage on this issue? Řÿūłóñģ originally said, "This block was made because it was proven through CheckUser evidence that shows you and Tennislover are the same person, and Tennislover and Cute 1 4 u are the same person." BUT, he then amended his post to say the following, "This block was made because it was proven through CheckUser evidence that shows you and Tennislover utilize the same IP address range, and Tennislover and Cute 1 4 u do, as well." That is his last statement on the matter. Notice the reference to "IP address range." What Řÿūłóñģ says about this is relevant because he claims to have talked with Dmcdevit about this situation. So, given Řÿūłóñģ's change in position, I am not sure how you know what Dmcdevit meant when he said, "You are on the same IP...." If I wanted to say that Person A is using the same IP address as Person B, it would be very easy to be clear about such an important point and write, "Person A is using the same IP address as Person B." If I wanted to say that Person A has the same Internet provider (IP) has Person B, I might easily say, "Person A is on the same IP as Person B." And no one so far has disputed the simple fact that my IP addresses are 204.XX.XXX.XX or 76.XXX.XXX.XX (I use two Internet providers) while cute 1 4 U's IP addresses are 75.XXX.XXX.XX. ] 17:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Just to further emphasize the "IP range" point, Řÿūłóñģ said this on his own talk page: "Dmcdevit did a checkuser on a user who was suspected to be Cute 1 4 u, which was ], based off of known information about the IPs she had used when she was initially banned. ] (from what I can glean from the information provided to me by Dmcdevit) was also on the same range when compared against the IPs." Notice again the reference to "ranges." ] 18:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	If the account is only making good edits, why do we care if it's a sock of a banned user or not? ] | ] 16:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	*Depends what prompted the check in the first place. Inquiring minds...] ] 16:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:As someone who has been tracking the Cute 1 4 u problem since before the first block, I can assure you that this editor has caused a great deal of difficulty. My position regarding the Tennis expert account is that ''I am sure'' that appropriate policy has been followed and that the blocking admin and supporting admin have good reason to believe the account is another sockpuppet. I do not understand how checkuser works, technically, so ''on the basis that I do not understand'', I maintain the hope that the blocking admin has made a mistake (despite good intentions and following policy). Is it possible that Tennis expert has the misfortune to edit using the same ISP as Cute 1 4 u and so ''coincidentally'' used the same IP address at a different time? On the assumption that this is possible, I would say that we should extend the benefit of the doubt, given that the account seems to be used only for productive edits. If this is not the case, if we are really sure that this is a sockpuppet account, it should of course remain banned. I would support an unban of the Cute 1 4 u editor only after a '''full year''' of no more abuse. That is, no editing of Misplaced Pages whatsoever. And with the understanding that the account would not use Misplaced Pages as a chat site, would not violate copyright (basically, would not deal with images at all), and would refrain from even a hint of personal attacks, whatever the provocation. So far, Cute 1 4 u has been unable to go even a week without violating these since the original ban and has shown absolutely no intention of editing productively since the ban was placed. I'll also go on record as stating I believe the unblocking admin made a mistake. --] 17:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Hello, anyone want to consider the reason this came up in the first place? Calm cooperative editors don't get checkusered. Does anyone remember ]? ] 17:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::That's weird. Are you saying that my permanent block arose because of the disagreement among ], ], and myself? If so, are you speculating or do you have direct knowledge that the disagrement was the cause of the current mess? What does that disagreement have to do with the question of whether I am a sock puppet for cute 1 4 U or Tennislover? Notice what Chacor himself said here: "As far as I am aware, neither Cute 1 4 u nor any of her socks have ever edited tropical cyclone and related articles, or for that matter edited articles helpfully. This user also definitely has knowledge that I don't expect C14u to have. Given also that this user started editing even before C14u's first block, I cannot support any block related to this imposed on Tennis expert from what I can tell." And notice the olive branch that Chacor extended to me on my own talkpage and that I accepted. It sounds like you're searching for a new justification to impose a permanent ban on me. The justification you're citing was resolved to the parties' apparent satisfaction. ] 17:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::I didn't request a checkuser, and neither I nor Chacor even mentioned Cute 1 4 u on that report, so I'm fairly sure that isn't why the checkuser was run. I don't support an indefinite block either - Tennis expert has hardly done anything worth banning for. --''']]''' 17:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Thanks very much. ] 18:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::I no longer think that any block is supported by the evidence, and thank everyone here for the time put into this. With help from Mackensen, the evidence from CheckUser, not just behavior, doesn't support that claim. I think it was a giant misreading of the evidence, perhaps compounded by a bit of ] in seeing Tennislover and Tennis expert at the same time. I can't really give the technical explanation that would make this mix-up seem more plausible without giving away personally identifiable information, but another checkuser agrees in the assessment based on IPs that they are different. Apologies for the undue hassle this may have caused (and note that the other two users blocked at the same time, Tennislover and Twister Twist are still confirmed Cute 1 4 u). ]·] 19:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Thanks for the extra effort put into reviewing this. I'm glad it's been resolved. -- ] (]) 20:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::I am unsurprised by this outcome, because although I implicitly trust 99% of checkuser results, the behavioral evidence tying Tennis Expert to Cute 1 4 U in this case was exceptionally underwhelming. Dmcdevit's willingness to review the matter again is a Good Thing. I would urge that he post to Tennis Expert's talkpage as well. ] 20:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::I am glad this has been resolved in this manner, and I accept the apology. And I want to give special thanks to the users who have supported me or at least expressed skepticism about the allegations. Without ], I never would have succeeded in fighting (or even been allowed to fight) the ban. He deserves phenomenal credit for taking a risk on me and then sticking to his beliefs despite being severely pressured to relent. What's even more remarkable is that he has been an administrator for just 1 week!
	::::Please, I'm begging you, don't put anyone else through this wringer again. The stress on me has been unbelievable. There simply has to be a better, more open, more impartial way of fighting sock puppetry. There has to be a way to allow someone who has been banned without advance notice to contest the ban in a reasonable manner, without being restricted to posting solely on his or her talk page.
	::::It will take me a long time to get over the stuff that's been said about me all over Misplaced Pages because of this incident: the presumption of my evildoing by so many different editors, the unwillingness to listen to me or the evidence I've presented, the devaluing of my contributions and character, and the unfairness of the procedures that were followed. All that stuff about me is going to be "out there" (on several different user talk pages) for anyone to see. People who were not involved will wonder about me: were the allegations really true despite the ultimate outcome? There is no practical way, to my knowledge, to ensure that the stuff is deleted. The damage is done. I cannot begin to express how appalling this whole thing has been to me. ] 20:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Tennis expert, you should know that this discussion will be archived (and therefore pretty much won't be seen by anyone not specifically looking for it) within 48 hours after the discussion is over. You can also archive the discussion on your talk page if you are sick of looking at it (if you don't know how to create a talk archive, someone will help you), and I'm sure others with this discussion on their pages will do the same. The checkuser process is important and generally reliable, and I'm sure that the checkusers do their best to prevent this type of scenario from happening. ] 21:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	== User:Nicolass ==
	The user ] has been adding a lot of relatively non-notable articles regarding the company ] and its product offerings. I don't believe Misplaced Pages should be a marketing arm for Sophos, so it'd be great if some of the lesser articles could be trimmed or merged with the Sophos article. Also, it'd be nice to have some discussion on how far the trimming should go. I believe the company itself is notable, but I don't believe individual products like ] require their own Misplaced Pages pages. Thanks! ] 07:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	* Some redirected, some deleted, note left on Talk. Please keep an eye on him. Thanks, <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Can someone check ]. I've blocked Sword of Christ, but the block isn't properly showing everywhere, even though I get an automated message he is already blocked when I try to place one. - ]|] 09:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	==Please use descriptive summaries when blocking users==
	I was browsing the block log when I noticed that an admnin had recently blocked a user for having an inapropriate username with the summary:
	:06:49, 6 December 2006 Shreshth91 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Cordlesstwat (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (user...)
	Please note that the block summary is seen by the blocked user. It should explain to someone who unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages why they have been blocked. For this reason it should be a sentence without jargon and should ideally link to the policy they have been blocked for violating.
	The summary above is not sufficient in this regard. Although in this instance the reason the username is inapropriate is clear, there are other occasions when the reason would not be obvious to anybody not intimately acquainted with our blocking policy. Compare the following edit summary, which (with the exception of the accidentally repeated word ;) ) is a model of good practice:
	:08:22, 6 December 2006 Winhunter (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Holy crap I don't know who the hell we think we are (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Please read our ] and choose another name)
	] 09:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:'user...' is a sufficiently common block summary that it's even explained on ], so its meaning should be clear to blocked users who actually read the message they're given (I'm not sure how common that is...) --] 09:39, 6 December 2006 (]]])
	::My point is that block messages shouldn't need to be explained, they should stand alone. ] 10:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::They should have been given a {{tl|usernameblock}} notice anyway. ]] 10:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Let me explain why I did not slap a notice on the said user. This was because, after a discussion of what name a disgruntled vandal would use to impersonate ], we came up with the name of Cordlesstwat. So, one of the admins in the channel, created the user, and I, while monitoring the new user log noticed it, and immediately blocked (without autoblock checked, of course). '''This example in question is a wrong one to take''' (since nobody will notice it save the '''admin''' who created the account), though I am inclined to agree that we should be making an effort to use more descritptive block summaries in cases where the user may be confused as to what he has done wrong (shared IPs, policy infringements like 3RR), and not in cases of username blockages, where the person knows full well that they have deliberately chosen an offensive username. --<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you! ]]]</span> 10:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Ok, let me clear it up further. '''I''' created the user after the discussion. --<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you! ]]]</span> 11:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Fair enough, I was more talking in the case of a normal person creating an account with an inappropriate username. Not this case. They would therefore be notified about the block reason by the block notice put on their talk page. ]] 11:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	*I believe the only reason "User...." is a common block summary is because that's what Curps's antiwillybot uses on perceived page move vandals. That doesn't mean admins should do the same. (]) 12:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Bad backlog at WP:CFD ==
	] has a heavy backlog. The regular discussion backlog is 12 days long at the time of this writing. Even the speedy renames appear to be proceeding slowly. (Some categories that I submitted for speedy renaming one week ago have still not been renamed.) Is it possible to get extra administrative assistance on the backlog? Thank you, ] 11:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	* I'll see if I can work on it. - ] 13:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	A small dent was put in the backlog on 6 Dec 2006, but the backlog is still 12 days long. Some of the items remaining in the backlog look rather complex; expert attention may be warranted.
	Additionally, it seems like some users are perpetually creating categories that are almost immediately deleted in near-unanimous decisions. See, for example, the clergy-related categories created by ] since 15 Nov 2006. This phenomenon is partly responsible for increasing the volume at WP:CFD. The administration may want to look at this issue further. ] 09:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	== School IP consent blocks ==
	There's a lot of vandalism coming from {{IPvandal|12.172.68.114}}. ] is in contact with the tech guy of the school, and they may consider a consented soft block (though apparently nothing decided yet). I have little experience with this, and there seem to be questions about the options and procedures, so I'll relay this here from ]:
	:''He said they may want to do that. Have we ever thought of formalizing that as a policy? I should think it would require a formal request from the school board or superintendent. ] 23:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)''
	Anyone want to take over the case? (pun intended) ] 14:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Anyone feel like updating all AOL related pages and templates to reflect the fact that the "proxy pool" doesn't exist anymore due to the fact that AOL now sends XFF headers? --] 16:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	{{AOL ranges}}
	*Another point, there are thousands of talk pages sitting around for the now non-existent proxy ranges, so someone might want to clean those up--] 16:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	** Does wikipedia "trust" the XFF headers? It's not simply a case of sending them, we don't blindly take them to be true. Last I heard the software couldn't deal with ranges (i.e. the had to be listed one by one), so they weren't being used. --] 18:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	*** That did change recently, but I don't have specifics about that. You may want to ask Tim Starling about that on IRC. ]]<sup>(])</sup> 20:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	****XFF from AOL has been promised for months, and while it may well be working now, I would still wait for confirmation from the technical people before we start changing things all over the place. --]&nbsp;(]) 03:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	***** They did, in fact, give us confirmation: ]]<sup>(])</sup> 21:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	******That's only confirmation that MediaWiki is capable of respecting XFF headers sent by AOL, but is there confirmation that AOL is sending XFF headers properly? --]&nbsp;(]) 04:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
	== 3RR (8 or 9RR actually by the looks of it) ==
	Hey, sorry to pass the buck here but I need to get back to work. I protected the ] article for a massive edit war but some folks definitely need some 3RR blocks - or 8RR or 9RR or whatever the case is there. —] (]) 18:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Going commando ==
	] has a single editor that wishes to use the page for noting whether celebrities are wearing underwear. The discussion on the Talk page has many editors expressing disapproval of this section. But when the sections are removed, the single editor is quick to replace them in violation of 3RR. ] 19:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Actually, I think that a sourced section is a relevant addition to the article. The 3RR rule violation still stinks, though. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I wish I knew WP policy a bit better, but content like the Celebrities section would not appear in a published encyclopedia, so I don't think it should appear on Misplaced Pages. However, dictionaries do use published works to decide what to publish, and often use those quotes. So perhaps a compromise I could live with is to only keep those sections where the word "Going commando" was used -- however, the editor is choosing to add any reference to a celebrity not wearing underwear. My preferred solution is still to have the section removed, because 10 years from now it will be completely outdated, and I don't think the talk of the day should be in an encyclopedia (Unless there was a Talk of The Day December 6th, 2006 article :)). ] 20:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Not wearing underwear ''is'' going commando, so your logic is flawed in that respect. However, this is very clearly a content debate and not the sort of thing that needs much administrator intervention; let's shift discussion to ] instead. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 20:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:(edit conflict) Upon reviewing the situation, you haven't done very much to warn him about the 3RR rule; leaving him a message on his ''user page'' isn't a very good idea. Randomly declaring the page protected when it very clearly is ''not'' is also bad form. I've warned ]; if he reverts again, ''then'' I'll block him. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 20:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I thought adding <nowiki>{{protect>></nowiki> to a page would protect it, so that's what I put on the Edit summary when I submitted. But apparently that doesn't work... I wish I knew why :). It looked protected in preview! :) And what's wrong with leaving people messages on their user pages? Isn't that what they're there for? Or did I screw up and I'm supposed to use his talk page? Thanks! ] 20:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::You can only protect pages if you are an administrator. --] <small>]</small> 20:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::User pages are for the users themselves to edit (usually); user talk pages, just like regular talk pages, are where discussion goes. Aside from the logic behind this, users are presented with a message telling them that they have new comments on their talk page; no such notice is given for edits made to their user page, though it shows up on their watchlist, assuming that (a) they have their userpage on their watchlist (a reasonable assumption) and (b) they check their watchlist often. By dropping them a line on their ''talk'' page, you're virtually guaranteeing that they'll see your message; continued editing after ] means that they don't care that they are possibly breaking the rules and are ] Misplaced Pages on purpose. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 22:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	* I have deleted ]. It was without doubt one of the ] I have ever encountered. The way to deal with obsessives is not to give them their own article to play with, it's to get them to (a) change their behaviour or (b) go stick their head in a pig . I'm with the above: engage the user in dialogue, if he persists then politely show him the door. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::The list article was my fault; I mentioned it as an example of what ''wouldn't'' be a good idea for an article. Fat lot of good that did. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 00:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::It was recreated, and I have redeleted. It may need salting. ]|] 03:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Category Rename ==
	Could you please rename as per the following: ] ] 19:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	This message was on my Talk page this morning - any comments for the originator of the project? ] 22:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:''"Could you check this WikiProject out and tell me what needs to be added? Obviously, a lot of things need to be added before it can become active, but can you tell me specifically which? Thank you."'' ] 06:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	* It's got to be worth a try, and if he can get enough people interested then maybe the cruft backlog might get trimmed a bit. Who knows. Run it up the flagpole and see who salutes, I say. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Discussion about ] ==
	Hello, I am a bit new at the mop, and need some advice on this one. I found some userboxes that I felt to be out of line with the project on a users page, here they are:
	{{userbox|#667788|#DDEEFF|hate|This user is a '''Template For Hate'''}}
	{{userbox|#FFFFFF|#FFDAB9|wtc|This user thinks ] is the greatest man on Earth.}}
	{{userbox|#c5fcdc|#6ef7a7|^_^|This user eats ''']'''}}
	<BR><BR><BR><BR>
	The user insists they are appropriate, saying(paraphrasing):
	*That the template for hate is a ''joke''
	*The ] one is a sincere opinion and valid, made no mention of why '''wtc''' is in the sidebox
	*And that linking dog to Korea is valid because, quote "."
	Am I wrong in thinking these excuses are a little weak, and that this is disruptive use of a userpage? My instinct is to remove them, warn the user not to add them again and explain why, blocking if the user re-added them repeatedly. Opinions requested. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 00:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	Well, personally I see the first one as being rather disruptive, the second one as being, well, almost an invitation for the FBI to come knocking on someone's door and the third, well, it's a valid cultural belief. I don't get the "smiley" face on it though -- ] 01:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	*Well...I think the Osama one is disruptive, especially since the little mini-box tag is "wtc". That's pretty offensive to some. The "template for hate" one isn't so bad, and the dog one...if it didn't link straight to Korea maybe. (Tawker - the smiley face is "typical" of Asian online culture.) <font color="#000000">&spades;]</font><font color="#FF00FF">]</font><font color="#000000">]&spades;</font> 01:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	*That particular kind of smiley face is associated with koreans, as is "kekeke" or "kk" for giggling. Actually, the first time I ever saw anyone say "kk" or "^_^", was when this cute Korean girl was chatting with me on MSN messenger...
	:I believe the user in question is a blatant troll (though certainly one with good edits). I blocked the account for such and my block was reverted by another admin. Part of the reason I placed the block earlier in the week was these user boxes which I think are a blatant example of trolling. So, in summary, I agree these are a form of trolling but I think it important to note that I was overruled by another admin earlier in the week and so you need to strongly consider that my opinion is incorrect in this instance. --] 01:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Thank you for that info, I will notify the unblocking admin that this discussion is occurring. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 01:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I was under the impression that '''dog''' is a derogatory term for Korean people? I have heard it being used that way in real life. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 01:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I have never heard "dog" used as such. Could be local slang or I may just never have heard it before. --] 01:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::It links to Korea. See the link HighInBC provided. I personally think "Dog" and wtc is offensive. First one isn't so bad, but it is disruptive. ''']]''' 01:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:That is the thing about slang, it varies from region to region. I will consider that one in limbo. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 01:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::: Maybe he's from Vietnam, I used to share a flat with a guy from there and he was very keen on dog . Failing that, I suspect it's someone looking to get a rise out of the community. --] 01:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	Ok, the user in questions is ], looking at his blocklog he has been indef blocked 6 times, by 6 different admins, and unblocked 6 times. The most recent time he was unblocked the reason given was ''An indef block without community consensus? I'm ashamed'' by Humblefool.
	Good point Humblefool. Lets get a community consensus on this user, take a good hard look at this users edits, his warnings, and his userpage history and give an opinion if this user should retain editing privileges. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 01:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	Information I have gathered from this users contribution history:
	*Profanity that brings zero encyclopedic value, and general incivility: Just today
	*Says ''By blocking ] you support terrorism.''
	*Use of an ethnic slur:
	*An image that apparently had to be removed from the database so even admins cannot view it:
	*Userbox accusing the jews of 911:
	*My personal favorite, a request for surrender from the GNAA:
	*Reaction to me removing his Osoma userbox:
	Beyond this there are the general issues of dancing the line of what is allowed and what is not, testing the limits as it were. This is not behavior we would allow from a new user, why should we allow it from this user. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 02:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:<nowiki>*points upwards to the 'Trolls try to get entries on bloggers deleted' section for further discussion of Timecop*</nowiki> ] <small>]</small> 01:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:The point about not accepting this behavior in a new user is well taken. I think he should go now. --] (<big>]]</big>) 03:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	I read that and looked into the user. The most recent unblock says the reason is lack of community consensus, I am trying to find that community consensus. I am not addressing the ''War on blogs'' which I think is 82% great. I am addressing this users general conduct, rules lawyering, lack of civility, and playing innocent every time he gets blocked. I am going to prepare some diffs to illustrate my point. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 02:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	*At the time, I unblocked mostly as a procedural item; I strongly believe in gaining the support of a group before unilateral action. That said, I support an indefinite ban on ]. His behavior, while at times seeming to work towards Misplaced Pages's goals, is more often than not divisive, uncivil, and '''''designed''''' to get a rise out of people. The "eating dog" comment in the userbox is a slight at the stereotypical "korean's" love of eating dog, and designed to be offensive. The troll has overstayed his welcome on Misplaced Pages for long enough. Ban him, and let's leave it all for the archives. --]''']'''] 02:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	**You should not revert good decisions on entirely procedural grounds. That's disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point about procedure. -- ] 02:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	While in theory I support the "war on blogs", the way he's going about it, including even the very name, is entirely disruptive, and has lead to various problems, including bloggers noticing it and recruiting their readers to come and fight on behalf of blog articles in AfD debates. Add to this the userboxes, the admission of being in GNAA, all of the other disruption ... and I think it's time for him to go. --] 02:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:First, as a preface, the userboxes are clearly created to provoke. "I love Osama bin Laden" might vaguely be OK, were he a militant Muslim, but not with wtc next to it. "I love to eat dog" might be OK, were he Korean, and extremely rude in his approach. Next to these, "template for hate" is just a nail in the coffin. Anyway, being an admitted member of GNAA, while benign if it were alone, is pretty damning in light of his other stuff: the GNAA flashing banner about removing bloggers, userboxes with an obvious intention to provoke, previous blocks for trolling, etc. seem pretty damning. I encourage anyone with doubts on the issue to look at the user histories of everyone under the "what links here" section of ]. If someone can give a good reason why this isn't true, please do. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 03:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Whoa whoa whoa. I had an indirect encounter with Timecop and he is in no way a troll, in my opinion. The only few problems I had with him was that his comments were unbearably long to me for an essentially very small matter.
	::On a side note, ideal paragraphs are about 3 to 5 sentences long, IMHO. Anything longer that and the eyes just glaze over. Some article are so dense that they're virtually unreadable to me.
	::As a matter of fact, I trolled him. I deliberately misinterpreted his comments (which, if anything, were very long and sort of off-topic) because I was pissed off at someone else.
	::I said some horrible stuff and left the talk page for good, but I tend to doubt he rose to the bait.
	::On another side note, I hope the Gay Nigger Association of America article can be resurrected some day. I honestly don't know what was wrong with it, but it probably wasn't notable (yet). Sincerely, ] 06:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I don't support an indefinite block. Whilst he makes some inexcusably rude comments, and enjoys baiting people, at the same time, clearing out the crap blog articles is something that does need to be done, so it's not a case of everything being counter-productive, just about half. Suggest keeping an eye on his conduct, ban for a month the first time he goes off the rails again, and permanently if that doesn't solve things. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 12:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I think most of us agree that getting rid of non-notable blogs is a good idea, but there is such a thing as "one step forward, ten steps back", which is essentially what Timecop's proclaimed "war on blogs" is. It's the most inflammatory way possible of going about the issue, and ends up causing a lot more fighting, and ultimately, makes it take a lot longer to get anything done. If you would like you compare it to something, look at how userbox deletions were initially handled and ask yourself if that was productive. --] 19:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	I support an indefinite block. ] provided enough reasons why ] has overstayed his welcome in Misplaced Pages. ] 12:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Having seen this discussion, I hopped over to the userpage to see whether the material under discussion was still there. When I got to the page, there was a "you have new messages" banner. Given the nature of the user, I figured that this was probably one of those "practical joke" new messages banners found on userpages, but then again, I ''might'' have had a new message, so I clicked on the banner. It took me to ]. I have no idea what the message or purpose of such a link is, but it can't be good. The "this user died in a car accident" userbox, accompanied by an explanation that the user was killed on December 10, 2006 (i.e., three days from now), is also unimpressive. ] 15:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::The guy admits on his userpage he's a troll. An indef ban may or may not be too much, but he needs to know that purposefully trolling WP is totally unacceptable. WP is to write an encyclopedia, ] test the limits of free speech. In other words, if you want to contribute, you need to do so in good faith. -]<sup>]|]</sup> 15:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	Beg pardon all, but Timecop runs the GNAA and knows full well what we're about, and what he's about. Ban and be merry, I say. ] ] 15:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:At the risk of pileon: well said. He even admits he has an agenda, and then carries it out. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 16:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Yes, I want to make it clear, this user has been warned, is aware of policy, knows he is trolling, and is does not wish to stop. His talk page makes that clear. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	didn't take long (although, given how many socks I've blocked, that really could be anybody). ] ] 16:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	* The template for hate is infact a joke, someone defaced my userpage ages ago and Linuxbeak blocked it for "template for hate" This is where the saying came from. ] 21:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	* All of the arguments for blocking this user essentially boil down to, "I don't like him and decided to make an enemy of him". You chose to view <b>his userpage</b>. You are chosing to put on the pseudo-PC act of claiming the userboxes are offensive, as if that has any meaning. If you are so sensitive as to piss and moan for a block over the above examples, you do not belong on the internet, or in human society for that matter. Grow up. You point to his "agenda" thinking there is some dark overtone or negative value judgment in the word. Do you even know what it means? You have an agenda. I have an agenda. No man exists without an agenda, for otherwise he would allow himself to starve. Agendas, goals, opinions are an essential part of man, and are the psychological foundation for information-aggregating projects like wikipedia. But you, not in control of your own emotions and psyche, and lacking any sort of moral-intellectual development, can only fixate upon your self-created enemy(I doubt timecop cares enough to make an enemy of any of you) and look for the slightest bit of mud to sling, the pitiful examples above. Slightly offensive userboxes, behaviour that is in your poorly-developed opinion "disruptive". Pretending that your actions are in any way for the benefit of wikipedia or that they are anything other than a childish internet bitch-fight is blatantly dishonest, cynical, and immature. I say again to all of you, especially HighinBC, grow up. ] 03:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	Got Consensus? I mean seriously folks, it seems to me like some guy just up and banned him, pretty much just because he didn't like him, before any consensus could be reached. That is ''not'' how Misplaced Pages works. --] 12:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	===Timecop out of time===
	. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 16:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Good call. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Ooooh, and I've already been accused of racial profiling for the ban. I feel all warm and squishy inside. :-) ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 18:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Yes, I think many of the involved admins will receive some less than kind messages(not backed up by facts), that means you are doing your job correctly. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::''Racism'' claims for banning the founder of the ''Gay Nigger'' Association. That's precious. -]<sup>]|]</sup> 19:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Ahem, at ] a couple of our good users have raised concerns over how I acted with Timecop, I have tried to alleviate their concerns but am not communicating well with them. Timecop's talk page is quickly turning into a circus. I will gladly discuss their concerns, but I also do not want to feed the trolls. I am going to bed soon, perhaps someone can communicate with them better than I. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 05:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I won't wheel war, but I still don't think a permanent block is the best way to resolve this. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 09:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::It just that your suggestion ''Suggest keeping an eye on his conduct, ban for a month the first time he goes off the rails again, and permanently if that doesn't solve things.'' has been done in the past. This user has been warned, has demonstrated a knowledge of policy, has been banned a month, and has been watched, and has gone off the rails again. Not sure time and discussion will help someone who is not willing. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 15:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I have just began to receive harassing phone calls at my work number relating to this ban. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::This is an extremely unfortunate situation. Per discussion a couple of weeks ago when a similar incident arose, the suggestion was made that the harassed administrator file a report with the ] to keep them advised of the situation. You might want to do that if you have not already done so.
	:::I also suggest that no further on-wiki responses be made to the trolling or attacks taking place on your talkpage or on the talkpage of the individual who was blocked (not by you) as responding sometimes only exacerbates the situation. You have done more than enough to address any good-faith issues that might have been raised.
	:::I have filed a checkuser request with respect to the most vicious of the personal attacks on your talkpage. ] 21:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Ahem, Can you provide proof of such harassment? I happen to know the person who called you, and as far as he has told me, he simply called you twice. Once he said "Hello HighInBC", and the other time he played a possibly offensive song. Neither of these incidents are hardly harassing, nor do they warrant police action (not that any law enforcement actually cares if people call you twice without making threats, regardless if you know them or not) --] 03:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::"Ahem" yourself. Are you seriously contending that it's acceptable user behavior, or human behavior, to make "simply" two unsolicited and "possibly offensive" telephone calls to an administrator in retaliation for his participation in a Misplaced Pages decision? Did you do anything to try to dissuade the "person you know" from continuing that sort of thing? If not, why not? How long do you think Misplaced Pages could last if this became common practice? ] 14:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Good advice on all points. I will notify office of this, and give them what evidence I have gathered, and now the police are involved as the phone call was threatening to my wife. I will refrain from explaining myself more, as I have already addressed the issues. Thank you for the checkuser.. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 21:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::I say it's time to ban everyone from GNAA from Misplaced Pages forever. This type of idiocy only shows why. -]<sup>]|]</sup> 07:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I am disturbed that {{user|Jmax-}} thinks that getting two phone calls in real life is no big deal. Jmax- has been around for more than a year, is an avowed GNAA member, his mainspace edits are mostly simple spelling corrections, and his project space edits are nearly all in some way related to the GNAA. I'll have a chat with him, but he may need to be watched as well. ] 00:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Getting two phone calls in real life ''isn't'' a big deal. Do ''you'' get phone calls in real life? Are they ever from people you don't know in person? Do you feel threatened by telemarketers who meant you no harm? Then why would you feel threatened by a call from somebody ''else'' who meant no harm? Thusfar nobody has made any explicit threats towards anybody else to my knowledge. Nobody has threatened any harm to anybody, so I don't see why anybody should feel threatened. ] ]] 02:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I would support an indefinite ban of all self-identified members of GNAA. To the best of my understanding, the ''whole point'' of GNAA is to troll online communities. That members are now calling up Misplaced Pages administrators at work and possibly threatening them shows that we should block these on sight. It is certainly possible that GNAA itself does not advocate such harassment but the whole thing just makes me sick, absolutely sick. --] 00:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::GNAA membership doesn't mean that someone is incapable of making good choices while editing here, so I don't GNAA members should be automatically banned. It does mean they're unlikely to make good choices though, so if it's clear they're ] here, I'd support banning them. --] 08:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
	===Alternative===
	Helloooo, did anyone consider removing the userboxes and asking him to move his "war on blogs" to a less violent title and restructure it so it's not disruptive? If those are the only problems, there are more ways to get rid of them then with a permanent ban. Also note that admission to being in the GNAA means nothing on its own. ] 02:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:yes, it did not work. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 05:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::yes, and he put them back up. And the userboxes aren't the only issue. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 14:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	===Userboxes===
	I personally don't think there is anything wrong with saying that you eat dog. However linking to Korea is likely to cause offense because not all Koreans eat dog, and more importantly, Koreans aren't the only one who eat ]. Linking to ] makes more sense. I also don't personally think there is anything wrong with saying you like Osama bin Laden per se. As long as we allow people to express a like (or dislike) for George W. Bush and other people, there is no reason people shouldn't be allowed to express a like for Osama bin Laden (indeed I think I've seen userboxes expressing a dislike for ObL before). However the wtc part is likely to cause offense. ] 15:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	**I second that. ] 01:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	:As has been mentioned, the userbox issue isn't the only component of the argument for his banning. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 16:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Don't know what to make of this. POV fork? At the wrong title? Anyone have any ideas? ] 01:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Perhaps it is a civil rights neologism, not sure. Spelling things with a capital letter to separate it's importance from the common usage has been done in numerous examples. The question is, does it pass ]? ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 01:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::It's a copy of ]. I've speedied it, looks like an attempt to POV fork, or create an inappropriately titled page or something. ] 01:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:And it is outa there, I thought it was a bit well referenced for a new article. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 01:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Looks like an attempt (if a bit hamfisted) to split the article into something along the lines of 'Black people (African)' and 'Black people (Generic)' - see my talk/creators talk. ] 01:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::We now have 3 articles - ], ] and ]. ] 01:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::This needs to stop before the page histories become messed up. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I deleted both of the new articles. I don't really understand what each individual article is supposed to be about and there is very little discussion about the proposed split on ]. -- ''']''' 01:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	I recently stumbled across ], moved it to the correctly capitalised title of ], realised it was not linked from anywhere, and linked to it from ] by putting the {{Tl|otheruses}} disambiguation hatnote at the top of ]. Unfortunately this dab hatnote got reverted, as some people think the existence of a disambiguation page itself implies the wrong things. Anyway, the material at ] is mostly duplicated in ], but the dab page remains orphaned. Possibly ] is itself acting as an unorthodox type of dab page, though it should really, in my opinion, aim towards a summary style to act as a portal. The issue seems to be the conflict between having ] be about ] (compare things like ] where both Black and Deaf are spelt with an uppercase letter), or whether ] should be a summary-style article about the different 'black' peoples. Can anyone say what should be done with ]? ] 11:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Misplaced Pages as a chat site ==
	I swear that ] used to discourage people from using Misplaced Pages as a chat site. However, the policy currently states, "You can chat with folks on their user talk pages" (Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought, section 5). Is this true? Are we really happy with people using Misplaced Pages solely as a chat site? Or am I misreading this bit of the policy? --] 01:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:They are really for chatting about Misplaced Pages related stuff, that should be reworded perhaps. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 01:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::That's certainly my understanding. I'll go suggest a change to the wording. --] 01:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Looks like someone beat me to it. :) --] 01:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:lol, great minds eh? ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 01:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::(edit conflictx2)Well I thought it was implied, but I guess I can see where some people would see the confusion in that. Anyway, I fixed it now to say "You can chat with folks about Misplaced Pages-related topics on their user talk pages". Is that better, Yamla? ''']]''' 01:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:(ec) A very similiar question is a hot topic at the ] right now. User space or project space is appropriate for essays or discussions ''about wikipedia''. But if all someone is doing is chatting, they're clearly don't share the project's goals, and may find themselves unwelcome. However, fairly wide latitude is generally given to people who do useful work on the project- a certain amount of irrelevant stuff is happily tolerated because it doesn't hurt anything. But, Misplaced Pages is specifically not a forum, and if a talk page or project page turns into excessive irrelevant chatting, someone may come by and clean out the irrelevant content. ] ] 01:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:As long as people aren't becoming ]s and leaving comments that consist of "oh my ''God'' did you see what Becky was wearing today?"-type comments, I don't have a problem with people going mildly off-topic on talk pages. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 16:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	== The Prayer (song) ==
	I tried to move ] back to that name, since someone had moved it to "The Prayer (Bloc Party song)", but accidentally hit slash and enter in rapid succession, so the page is currently called "The Prayer (/song)". Can this get fixed? ] 04:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:You could first get it moved back to ] via uncontroversial moves at ]. However, given the history, this is clearly a controversial move, so, after it's been fixed, you will need to list it as such in order to move it back to ]. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 04:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::From the edit history, there doesn't seem to be any controversy at all, merely a failure to communicate. Possibly ] was unaware that the page had been moved to make way for a disambiguation page at ]. I will move it to ], at least, and actually create a dab page! ] - ] 07:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Thanks. -]<sup>]|]</sup> 15:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	This user ({{user|Hanuman Das}}) has created an article for the premieres of movies for every day of the year. I would like to do a mass AfD on all them, do I have to go into all 366 articles and nominate each of them for deletion? ]|] 04:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Since they are very related articles, a mass-nom would be appropriate. ---] <sup>(]/])</sup> 06:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::How is a mass-nom performed? I also think these new articles are inappropriate. ] 09:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Perhaps someone should notify him first. It would be the polite thing to do, given the number of articles. -]<sup>]|]</sup> 15:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	I don't see what the problem is. The day of the year articles, e.g. ] are getting quite full. There is continual pressure to remove events that may well be notable to keep the lists short. Do you really want me to add a "films" heading to every day of the year? this is an indexing problem. There is no way to look up films by release date. I carefully combined the use of categories and lists to avoid an overly long list or an overly large category. This, my friend, is the wave of the future as people get tired of the size of the day of the year articles. Within a few years you will see "December 7 in science", "December 7 in politics", "December 7 in archeology" to get around this issue. Please reconsider your position. &mdash;] 18:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:*''Do you really want me to add a "films" heading to every day of the year? ''. No.
	:*''There is no way to look up films by release date'' Go . --] | ] 00:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	On a related subject, this user is apparently setting out to add movie releases to every one of the 365 "days of the year" pages. It's not historically notable that a particular film happened to premiere on a particular date, and we've long maintained the policy that film premieres, book publications, CD releases, etc, are virtually never notable on these pages, and should be reverted on sight as listcruft. -- ] ] ] 05:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:See below (]) where I was told precisely the opposite and given time to move the same into the days of the years pages. &mdash;] 05:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	'''Alternative''' - a single article entitled something like "List of movie releases by date" might do the trick, wouldn't it? ] 17:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	*Noooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A list of every movie ever released? Talk about cruft!!!!! ]|] 21:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	**Well, it sure beats spreading it across 366 articles... :-) ] 21:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	=={{Userlinks|Jandolin}}==
	Repeated mass-blanking of content in ] (vandalism), vandalism of sources
	, repeated vandalism of pic link
	and making religious attacks against Hindus in edit summary. He has been doing this off and on, for months. He has been warned twice but he persists. ] 04:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Jandolin called users bigots on Goa Inq.--] 08:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::He has also wikistalked me, see and his ] around that day whoch consisted of vandalizing pages I had on my "TO/DO list". <b>]]</b> 06:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::This sounds like an issue for ], or perhaps ], if you think it's vandalism, and not just a content dispute.]<sup>]|]</sup> 14:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::What about his slurs in edit summaries (despite repeated warnings)? ] 20:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Honestly, that was over a month ago now. Like I said, if he's continuing, try perhaps bringin it up at ANI. -]<sup>]|]</sup> 02:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	== lost.eu deletion ==
	I recently authored an article titled "Lost.eu". I thought it was legitimate, informative, and even cleverly executed (as you will see). I hope it can be undeleted.
	:It's been deleted by four different admins now. The article apparently doesn't meet our ] guideline. This is not the proper place for this discussion, however. You need to go to ]. ]|] 04:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:This may be useful: ]. -- ] <small>(])</small> 04:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	== March 15 in film ==
	What's the deal with ]? Is this a new standard format for date-specific trivia about movies? It seems incorrect to me, but I'm not sure what Misplaced Pages is doing about the overwhelming amount of data in normal date pages. Thanks! ] 07:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:The editor seems to be doing a lot of these articles: ]
	*See the question posted a few sections above yours. - ] 09:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::As they have no content or context, they should be speedied. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 14:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::This is rather disappointing to see. Out of all the ways this could possibly be handled (and I'm not convinced of the necessity of these pages yet), you think this way is best? --] <small>]</small> 14:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::The ones that are empty articles, yes. The ones that have content, no, they should go via AFD. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 15:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	I don't see what the problem is. The day of the year articles, e.g. ] are getting quite full. There is continual pressure to remove events that may well be notable to keep the lists short. Do you really want me to add a "films" heading to every day of the year? this is an indexing problem. There is no way to look up films by release date. I carefully combined the use of categories and lists to avoid an overly long list or an overly large category. This, my friend, is the wave of the future as people get tired of the size of the day of the year articles. Within a few years you will see "December 7 in science", "December 7 in politics", "December 7 in archeology" to get around this issue. Please reconsider your position. &mdash;] 18:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	P.S. I did not create any empty articles, they have at least one event in them, so perhaps somebody else created March 15? &mdash;] 18:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:This is a very bad trend. We do not need yet one more way to divide and duplicate data. -- ] (]) 19:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::OK, then. Apparently there is no room for difference of opinion or discussion. Please give me time to move the info to the date articles before deleting. &mdash;] 20:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Of course there is room for difference of opinion or discussion. That is what this is all about. I will not delete any articles before the data has been moved; if they do get deleted before you have a chance to move the information, let me know and I will try to help you. -- ] (]) 20:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::And if they get rejected from the date articles? What then? BTW, how much are you willing to bet against the splitting of the date articles by topic within two years. &mdash;] 21:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	They '''will''' be rejected from the day of the year pages. We have long maintained the policy that it's not historically notable that a particular movie, book, CD, DVD, video game, etc was released on a given date. -- ] ] ] 05:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Then please keep the deletionists from speedying or otherwise deleting my well-thought-out alternative. &mdash;] 05:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Why does this information need to be on Misplaced Pages in any form? Why would anyone care what movies happened to be released on ] on a series of random years? Something like ] can be justified -- it shows a snapshot of film at a particular moment in history. ] -- I'm sorry to say this bluntly -- is pointless. -- ] ] ] 05:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::You've heard, I assume, of indexing? This is a form of indexing that allows films to be looked up in a particular manner. Just because you can't imagine why you'd do it doesn't mean it is not of use. The index in a book isn't particularly notable, but I bet you'd miss it if it was torn out! &mdash;] 05:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	I didn't use the word '''pointless''' lightly. Of all of the things you might want to know about a movie, the day of the year on which it opened is the most irrelevant. A movie is not something that "happens" on a particular day, it's a work of art that's created over a period of months or years, then is seen by an audience over a period of months or years. This is worthless listcruft, and it's ] what Misplaced Pages is here for. -- ] ] ] 06:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Quite frankly, given the view you are espousing, lets delete the day of the year articles too. WHy is it notable what day anybody was born or died on. Why should we care to look up any event by day of year? &mdash;] 06:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	See my comment above. The assassination of JFK occurred on ], ]. The first men landed on the moon on ], ]. Those are relevant dates in history. ] premiered on ] is pointless listcruft. -- ] ] ] 06:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Who cares. Those date of those events are listed in their respective articles. We don't need the lists. Delete 'em. all, they are just listcruft. Some people study film, they care. Artists make distinction that other people could care less about. What the hell harm is it doing you? or Misplaced Pages for that matter. Please quantify in scientific terms. &mdash;] 06:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::You should probably care, because community consensus has long been that movie releases, book releases, CD releases, DVD releases, videogame releases, etc, are not appropriate for those pages, and are reverted on sight. -- ] ] ] 06:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Look, that's why I created separate articles, okay. I thought about it. I'm tired of your use of "cruft" and your use of the word "pointless". Why is it that WP is full of <insert your own PA> who refuse to even entertain that another person's point of view might be valid? I'm sure there are plenty of things you think are significant that I think should be deleted on sight. I don't do it, because there's a little thing called respect for other people that you and your ilk seem to have behind the door when god handed it out. &mdash;06:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	Noting that '']'' premiered in 1931 is useful, noting that ] premiered on ] is useless, and noting that '']'' (the film that gave the world "]") premiered in August is weirdly useful but belongs in the article itself. Hard to imagine a case where putting a title in a day of the year article has the slightest bit of use either as information or a cataloging scheme. --] | ] 07:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	* I completely agree. It's doubly arbitrary in that most films go through premiere, then restricted release, then general release, then distribution, and the dates will be different in different regions (e.g. US restricted release may be weeks or even months before European general release) - and then we have the dates of release on video / DVD. You can say that a given film is a 2005 film without much controversy, but calling it a March 15 film is much more problematic. And besides, who would care? If the release is tied to a notable event - riots because of the film's content, for example - then it belongs in the main date article, otherwise it gets an official "so what?" <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	'''Alternative''' - why not just create a single article entitled something like "List of movie release dates" or something like that? The article could contain a list of movies sorted by release date (year / month). ] 14:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Forgive my naivete, but I also think the dates of film releases shouldn't be listed under "Events" on the Wikicalendar ("not notable on a global scale"), and I've always directed people who list them to ] and similar pages. I know this doesn't provide the exact information that a page like "March 15 in film" would provide, but the impression that I get is that "March 15 in film" is kind of getting trivial and that a user interested in what was released on March 15 would hopefully surf through a few "x-year in film" pages to find what he or she needed. ] 17:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Doh! Works for me. ] 17:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	==Spambots==
	What is the standard for blocking spambots running from ips? I was thinking a nice long one with account creation allowed and blocking anons only? ]] 11:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I'd do an open proxy scan first. P.S. admins who can verify proxies are needed at ], which is backlogged again. ] 11:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::VCN proxychecker is down for me. I went through the list and blocked a few that were obvious (\'ing proxies, SORBS listed ones). ] 13:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Generally, they are treated as open proxies and then we double check. Several ranges are solely used by spambots, and they're probably all zombie computers and/or open proxies.—] (]) 21:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Potentially not notable articles ==
	Ok, many editors saw use in Timecop's War on Blogs, while admitting is was a disruptive way of going about it. I say we we keep the good and remove the bad. I have made an attempt at reforming this project into something compatible and helpful to Misplaced Pages. I have put up a first draft here ] which is based off Timecop's project.
	Please note that while I have created it in my userspace for now, I would prefer it eventually lived somewhere else, if it is to live at all. The title may need to be generalized more too. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 19:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:To wash the rest of the stigma off of Timecop's project I think it may be best to start over from scratch rather than just slap a new coat of paint on it. --] 19:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	Valid point, but not a job for me, I see the need for non-notable articles to be removed but it is not my crusade. As it is, I see no reason why the ''soldiers in the war on blogs'' will not simply continue to use the old project and it's... philosophies. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 19:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:If you don't think they are notable, mark them with {{tl|notability}}. There's no need for an article that would require constant upkeep when the tag accomplishes the same thing using a category. ···]<sup>] · <small>] <font color="darkblue">to</font> ]]o]</small></sup> 19:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Agreed, this seems redundant if there are no crtieria that make this any different from adding the {{tl|notability}} tag. --]<sup>]</sup> 20:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	] recently started ] and might have some use for Timecop's project. Since ] understandably does't wish this to have a permanent home as one of his subpages, this new WikiProject might be a good place. -- ''''']'''''] <small>21:50, 7 December 2006 (])</small>
	All good points, this is not needed, I have deleted it. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 23:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	== uncorrected vandalism ==
	]: Biodiesel refers to a Gay HomoSexual man!!!!<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
	:I don't see that anywhere. Did someone else revert it already? --] <small>]</small> 21:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	It puzzled me too. The source did not reflect the vandalism, but the page content as displayed did. ] 21:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:In that case it's old cached vandalism that your browser didn't update after it was reverted. Try opening the page and pasting ?action=purge onto the end of the url, then hitting enter. That should force a full refresh for you and update the page. --] <small>]</small> 21:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	* This article was sprotected a couple of days back to prevent this vandalism. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Vandalism ==
	This subject link:
	http://en.wikipedia.org/Macedonia_%28terminology%29
	has been vandalized with images.
	Mike
	:This is not the place to report vandalism to pages. You can actually get rid of vandalism vandalism yourself, see ] and ]. &ndash;]]]<sup>]</sup> 01:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::This was 'complex' template vandalism. See ], ] and ] for some details. ] 12:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	===Other discussions on this topic===
	Other discussions on this topic are ], ], ] and ]. Please add more if you find them. Someone may wish to consolidate all these disparate discussions into one location. ] 12:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	==More CoolKatt pages==
	A while back, I asked for some of the user ]'s pages (banned by ArbCom on certain articles). Some sandbox pages are still available, and I am interested in acquiring them, pending CoolKatt's approval. The following is a list of the pages I want something done to. No redirects for moves:
	User:CoolKatt number 99999/Sandbox → (Delete)
	User:CoolKatt number 99999/Sandbox 6 → User talk:TrackerTV/KXRM3
	User:CoolKatt number 99999/Subpage 1 (''through 5'') → (Delete)
	User:CoolKatt number 99999/Draft → User talk:TrackerTV/KXRM4
	User:CoolKatt number 99999/Sandbox 2 → User:TrackerTV/KXRM5
	User:CoolKatt number 99999/Draft 3 → User talk:TrackerTV/KXRM5
	User:CoolKatt number 99999/Sandbox 5 → User:TrackerTV/KXRM6
	And one of my own pages could get moved, even though I could be bold, I am grouping it with the CoolKatt sandboxes:
	User:TrackerTV/Serebii.net → User talk:TrackerTV/KXRM6
	The six KXRM pages (and if this goes through, it will double to twelve) pages are my own sandboxes, and have been TrackerTV operated since ] ], when KXRM2 was created. I created it to create something for ], as the name suggests: a naming scheme came from it. ]/<small>]/]</small> 02:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Please change your signature. Advertising is no more appropriate in signatures than it is in User IDs. ]|] 20:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Done...sorry about it...]/<small>]/]</small> 20:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Thank you. ]|] 22:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	==Reverting interactive map==
	I have a problem. I think this is the first problem I've had on Misplaced Pages so far, and I've tried to solve it, but I'm afraid that my attempts to stabilize the situation were unsuccessful. Therefore, I have to bother you, the administrators of Misplaced Pages, for just a bit and I hope you don't mind.
	I've recently created a template: ], and I plan to make similar templates for every Municipality in the Republic of Serbia. Almost immediately after I added the interactive map to all the links, ] reverted every single edit, removed the interactive map and re-installed his old map, which is basically identical with my map, but with no links to the city names and different colors: ] - ].
	First of all, I was informed by PANONIAN that he had reverted my edits and that the map is not good. I told him that if he had a problem with the map, we can discuss it, improve it, talk about it before he starts reverting my edits (and it took me a while to add the map to all these cities:
	{{Subotica Labelled Map|float=right}}
	]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#])
	I therefore reverted back to my version (which is, I repeat again, absolutely identical to the old map, except now it's better because it has links to the city names and the colors are different. He then reverted my map again. I don't understand why his version needs to be there while I'm working on a compromise between us. My map is obviously better and more functional, and Misplaced Pages is not the private property of PANONIAN. I put in a lot of effort into creating this map and I don't think I deserve to be undermined by this user who just wants his map there for unknown reasons.
	He told me to add stuff to the map, I agried to do that, but not before my map is re-installed. I don't deserve to have to put my version back to every article just because he keeps reverting it. Just compare ] and ]. Please decide for us which map is better for the articles. If you pick my map, I will add more stuff to make it better, but I will make no changes untill PANONIAN's rude edits are reverted.
	Once again, sorry to bother you, I know this might not mean too much to you guys, but I would like to do this for every municipality in Serbia, and if PANONIAN is going to be obstructing my work, better to solve the problem right now before this turns into something bigger, right?
	Kind regards,
	--] 02:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I cannot believe this. I removed his map and told him why I done this and asked him to improve this map before posting it again into articles, but instead to discuss this, he started to insult me personally on my talk page: he told me that "I am the most unpleasant person that he ever met" (and my previous message to him was very polite), and later he started to blackmail me that he will not improve his map if I do not revert articles to his version!!!. You have this written here, but he wrote that in Serbian, so only some admin who understand the language could read it: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:PANONIAN#Mapa And now he came to report me here? ] ] 02:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I was hoping that at least he wouldn't lie about this, but I was wrong. His first message was very unpleasant, and I said that he is the most unpleasant person that had left me a message on my talk page, not met. He later told me "What the f**k is the matter with you" (something in that sense, using a swear word). Blackmail? This user is really something.. I said that I will not change my map untill my map is re-installed (since he obviously didn't give a single good reason to remove my map). His main reason for removing my map was "its ugly and wrong". Well, I don't know about the ugly, but the content is identical, that would make his map wrong as well, right? I mean, just compare the two.. --] 02:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::And just for the record, a swear word was in my second message to you, not in the first one, which was polite. :) ] ] 03:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::PANONIAN, could you elaborate on what problems you have with the new version of the map? Bože pravde says, "He told me to add stuff to the map," but I see no differences in content between the new map and the old map, except that the new map is more functional. If you could explain your problems with the map, perhaps all involved can understand where you're coming from. Also, if I may, I make a humble request that future discussion be in English — this is the English Misplaced Pages, and it's hard for English speakers to follow along if it's in a different language that not everyone is familiar with. —]]] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 02:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Seems the problem here is that the map I see is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Mapasub.png and the map that user:Bože pravde see is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:MunicipMap.PNG So, this was misunderstanding, but can somebody tell me why I cannot see the map? ] ] 03:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Ah-ha! That would explain it :) I'm not sure why you're not able to see the map correctly, though — I took a look at the HTML code being generated by the template in question and it appears to be very simple and should pose no problems to browsers, but perhaps try upgrading or using a different web browser, such as ]? The image loaded for the background of the map is — are you able to load that image in your browser or is it being blocked by something? —]]] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 03:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::But I use 3 browsers (Opera, Internet Explorer, and Firefox), and I see same no-map image in all 3. What could be problem then? ] ] 03:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Are you able to see the image I linked the word "here" to in my previous post? —]]] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 03:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::No, I cannot see image from your link - the link is totally empty in all 3 browsers (just checked). ] ] 03:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::As I said on the talk page, are you using an ad blocker? The image is in a /ad/ directory. If that's so, all you need to do is whitelist <code><nowiki>http://upload.wikimedia.org</nowiki></code>. -- ] <small>(])</small> 03:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::What is ad blocker? I do not know do I use one, but if I do, can you tell me more detailed description how to switch it off? What is that whitelist? ] ] 03:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::An ad blocker blocks ]s. No idea how to turn yours off if you have one, as it depends on which one it is. A simple test: see if you can see ], which is the one I had issues with (also in the /ad/ folder). -- ] <small>(])</small> 08:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I cannot see that image too. But, I think that I know how problem could be solved. Can somebody of you to upload that map created by user:Bože pravde again under different name? I think I should see it after that. ] ] 15:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Is there any way to ''prevent'' images from going into that /ad/ folder? This isn't the first time it has caused confusion and probably won't be the last. --] 13:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Yeah, I see this problem all the time at the Help Desk. It's definitely on your end, Panonion, and experience says it's an adblocker (e.g., anti-spyware). -]<sup>]|]</sup> 14:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Some firewalls also have adblockers as does Tor. ] 15:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::The problem is solved, I see new map now: http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:SuboticaMunicip2.png :) ] ] 16:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::: As an aside, its good practice to use English in talkpages whenever possible per ]. Reviewing communications while trying to follow a dispute is hard enough, without trying to translate from another language. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 00:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Harassment off-wiki ==
	After a user attempted to get me topic-banned from several articles I edit (and have recently started up a WikiProject for), I thought nothing of it, but did send messages to the various users involved, but then after an IP posted to my user talk, I found these that come up on a search of my username (), several of which do reference actions I took concerning the validity of source material from people who work with Disney/ABC/ESPN etc in the topic of Power Rangers. One of them who posts here and there as {{User|GreenNinja}} hates my guts now (he was the one who started up the ) as does {{user|Kyl416}} moreso because an image he acquired was not proven by any external source to be official until fairly recently (within the past month). ] also brought these threads to the attention of ] on his ] (as he was the arbitrator to remove the whole spurious RFAr).
	Disruption from these users in the past that they refer to are ] and ], particularly found on ].—] (]) 02:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	* What are you asking for, Ryulong? This certainly looks like a problem worth solving. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	** I am not all that sure as to what can be done, here. I don't want to lose an editor like GreenNinja, but I don't need any of the bullshit that goes along with what he thinks about me and my place on Misplaced Pages.—] (]) 08:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	*** We can do one of two things: we can tell him, as admins, to cut the crap, or we can have an RfC. Which do you prefer? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	****Well, none of that is going to really affect how they treat me at Fuñaro or RangerBoard. But it is also way too late/early for me to be making a concrete decision. I will try to comment better after my anthropology final <s>tomorrow</s> this afternoon.—] (]) 09:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	*****Although that outside behaviour is unsavoury, literally, who gives a shit about what the Power Rangers fandom think of you? - ]]] 17:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	******That message board made me feel dirty. Who do I complain to at the Internet about it? My tax dollars pay their salaries!--] (<big>]]</big>) 00:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Advice on User:Rugby 666's edits ==
	Could someone take a look at ]'s and take appropriate action (reversions, warnings, etc) if they believe it is warranted? Actions have included: Changing new infoboxes into old ones , changing disambig pages into redirects (usually to rugby league articles) and many more. I would do it myself but don't want to get involved in this one, because:
	*I have been involved with blocking a ] editor (and his sockpuppets) lately who has accused me of being biased in my actions (as many of my sports related edits are to football (soccer) articles) - I'd like another admin's POV
	*I'm going to be unavailable for editing over the next couple of days and don't want to provoke him into causing trouble and not being here to clean up
	The editor(s) I have blocked (], ], ], ]) have claimed they also have "an existing account on Misplaced Pages" which may be this one. I don't want to accuse the user directly, in case it is not, but the patterns are looking similar. -- ] 04:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	*The very first edit I looked at confirmed my suspicions. This is the sockpuppeteer Licinius/J is me/Jimididit/NSWelshman/FactoidKiller/Jebus Christ/etc/etc/etc. He has literally hundreds of socks. He is recognised by his penchant for insisting that ] be called ]. Block indefinitely on sight as a sock of a banned troll/vandal. ] 04:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	*Hi, unfortunately came upon this. Do not wish to seem that I am trolling but by all means, do a checkuser etc. because I am not ]. To Hesp, I left a mention on your talk page about the ] edit(sorry it had to be your first that you saw of mine, please check more). It is not revolutionary to make mention of terms like gayfl, VFL. Victorian Rules is not one I had seen much, but I will endeavour to use it more as a payout. Please direct me in whatever means of proof that I can provide that I am not user:Licinius. Here is some further evidence, on Licinius's homepage, it says that he loves soccer, definitely not my opinion, nor would I refer to ] as not directly being football. Hesp has also been attacked by the same user here which would tend to indicate that this whole conspiracy does not really exist. Also on , J is me is trying to prove that factoid and NSWelshman is the same editor so that blows the whole one giant crusade out the window. In fact if you put a Licinius IP number :User:60.225.200.50(from into www.ip-address.com it comes up from Sydney, at ], if you put the the FactoidKiller IP:62.254.168.102 at user:talk Jisme(which is referenced above), it is in north Yorkshire in England. --] 11:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Wow. That's an amazingly sophisticated analysis for someone who has been here less than a month. So I guess you're not Licinius; you're just someone who edits the same pages as Licinius, uses the same obscure phrases as Licinius, and has intimate knowledge of what Licinius did several months before your first edit.
	::I can't block; I've been hosing down Licinius sockfires for so long my judgement may be clouded. Will another admin please review the evidence and take appropriate action? ] 13:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Jaysus, I defend my bloody self that I am supposedly a huge conspiratoralist vandal, as the bloody advice is, by readin the bloody talk pages of one of the bllody IDs that I am supposed to be, which repudiates in itself the whole bloody conspiracy. Feck this, it is boring work, not what I came onto wiki for, and not what I bloody want to do on wiki. Ban me or do not ban me. I do not know whether I will even bother to come back. --] 13:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Rugby, I have a question for you: if you've only been here for one month, why do you refer to User:Rebecca as "Ambi"? ''']''' 13:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::From here and on other attack edits from sockpuppets there are three people attacked continually in the contributions, Snotty(who has becom Hesp), Grant, and Ambi who blocked Licinius. This is all boring. --] 13:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
	* ] is indefinitely banned from editing ] and all related articles including but not limited to: ], ], and ]. He may make suggestions on talk pages if he is not disruptive.
	* Asmodeus is also placed on probation indefinitely and is cautioned to be courteous to other users. He may be banned from any article, talk page, or subject area which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing or incivility.
	* All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to ] and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern.
	* ] and ] are banned indefinitely.
	* ] is counseled to consult with other administrators with respect to disruptive users and to cooperate with them in a collegial way.
	* ] is counseled to be more patient and diplomatic with users who may edit their own article or advance original research.
	* Bans imposed by this decision may be enforced by appropriate blocks. All blocks to be logged at ].
	For the Arbitration Committee --] 17:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Blocked user editing anonymously ==
	], for one week for violations of ], ], ], etc has returned and has been editing anonymously:, . How can this be stopped? Thanks ] <sup><em>]/]</em></sup> 19:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:How do you know that it is a/'the' blocked user? Do you have any checkuser results or are you simply trying to malign an innocent editor? ] 20:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	It can be stopped by teaching ] something about civility towards other users.
	::You'd know when you see . ] <sup><em>]/]</em></sup> 20:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::And when the blocked user himself using this pool of ips. There is no need for checkuser. ] <sup><em>]/]</em></sup> 20:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::How difficult is it for someone(an anon) to edit ''your'' user page with the comment ''"I cant even edit my user page when blocked"''?? And, Kris has only said that his ip starts with 59. Nothing else. Do you have any idea how many ips in the world can possibly start with 59? Stop assuming a lot of things and misleading people. It isnt ]. ] 20:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Parthi, I would advise you to file for a ] on the ip and ]. If it returns positive, then Srkris' block would be reset/extended and/or the ips would be blocked. - ] (]) 20:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I've done that. However it is pretty clear, when this ip with the of the blocked user, that these edits are from the blocked user. ] <sup><em>]/]</em></sup> 21:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Does it occur to you that even ''you'' could, if you could get hold of a 59.xxx ip, edit using that ip and sign as 'Kris'?? ] 21:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::It did occur to me, but I have no experience doing that unlike some people ] <sup><em>]/]</em></sup> 22:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	== captaindansplashback‎'s RFA - Threats? ==
	{{cquote|I will be quite strict with blocking users, if they use bad grammer or puntuation I will send them a warning to tell them if they ever do it again. They will be blocked because bad English is not tolerated.}}
	::''From: ]''
	{{user|Captaindansplashback‎}} filed a request for adminship recently. I thought it was a joke, and am still not entirely convinced it's serious. But some of the talk from the user has been bordering on threatening to wikipedia. "''That's a shame...But I must remind you it will not be I who will suffer for this decision, it will be Misplaced Pages''" etc. Also a few socks (or meats perhaps) were created to try to sway the nomination. I don't know what should be done, but I think at this point an admin needs to step in... it's getting a little silly.
	;Potential Socks
	* {{user|Ride The Cheese Like A Horsey}}
	* {{user|Mrfudge}}
	* {{user|81.131.109.95}}
	Signed, ---] <sup>(]/])</sup> 21:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Oh good grief ... that page should be speedied as patent nonsense. ] 22:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:: It's a LOT silly. --<font face="Verdana">]]]<small><sup>]|]</sup></small></font> 22:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I also think this should not be speedied. He "applied" for adminship. He was not accepted - as simple as that. (Our loss apparently) And we can have a little fun in the process. 22:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I think it needs to be SNOWed immediately, however, It should be kept as a (maybe) good-faithed RFA. There seems to be consensus on the talk page to send it to BJAODN. ---] <sup>(]/])</sup> 22:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::It would be much funnier without the personal attacks, and if things continue in that vein I might IAR and close it myself. I don't think there's a serious "threat" issue, however. ] 22:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I closed the nomination. People have been treating it like some kind of joke, and the nomination was highly unlikely to pass anyway. -- ''']''' 22:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Page Vandalised ==
	Found this page vandalised with bad language.
	http://en.wikipedia.org/Macedonia_%28terminology%29#Etymology
	Hope this is an approprate place to report.
	Kindest Regards
	Rob.
	:Near as I can tell, this has already been taken care of.
	:Mundane vandalism of this type can easily be taken care of by anyone else, including yourself. Thanks for the effort, though; perhaps you should ] so that you can help protect Misplaced Pages from vandalism even further. :-) ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 21:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	== page move needed ==
	Could someone delete ] then move ] to ]. I think ] and its talk page got separated from each other when someone moved ] (formerly about the novel) and replaced it with a disambiguation page, but didn't move the talk page. Thanks ] 21:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Done. —]<font color=green>]</font>] 21:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Vandalism on this page... ==
	Greetings,
	I am not a registered user, but I love Wiki! I was doing some research for a class and found some very obscene language here : http://en.wikipedia.org/Hajj
	Thank you and keep up the GREAT work!
	Cathy Morgan
	1208/2006
	:The vandalism has been dealt with, but you needn't notify us of it. Just try to fix it yourself :)—] (]) 22:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	=== Vandalism that I can't fix===
	The page ] has been vandalized by the addition of pornographic pictures. I am unable to remove them by editing the page - I can't find how they are included. Could someone with greater knowledge of wikipedia fix this? Thanks.] 22:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I do not see anything there. All of the templates there are not recently vandalized, unless you remember where it was.—] (]) 23:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I saw it, but someone fixed it before I could. The vandalized template was {{tl|Rtl-lang}}. --] 23:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	I've protected the template in question. ] 23:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	This seems like a case for indef blocking - but considering the name, it may be wise not to autoblock the IP, or if it's possible, make the IP block temporary...I'm willing to bet it's someone at school trying to get the whole school's IP blocked. Thank you, and sorry if I did this incorrectly —<font color="8100b4">]</font><font color="2f690d">]</font><font color="8100b4">]</font> 02:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	:It's already blocked. There are extra options to implement when blocking which prevent this sort of misuse. --] 02:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Whoops, sorry! Thank you anyway for your help...keep up the good work, it's really appreciated! —<font color="8100b4">]</font><font color="2f690d">]</font><font color="8100b4">]</font> 02:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Actually, credit should go to ]. I just happened to be here when it happened! --] 02:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::I like to imagine this guy happily using his blocked account on different IPs, thinking that they'll all be blocked for 24 hours and blissfully unaware that autoblocking is optional now. -- ] | ] 02:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	It's an SBC internet account that has registered the following usernames: Autoblocker‎; AAUUTTOOBBLLOOCCKK MMEE!!!!‎; Hey! Admins! Yeah! Luna Santin! (AUTO) BLOCK ME!!!!‎; The Autoblocker‎; The person who makes autoblocks‎; The person who makes ip address unusable by A U T O B L O C K!!! ] 02:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I believe it should be proper to add a note in their talk page to point that, thanks to his helpful tips, autoblocks have been turned off for his person :-) -- ] 02:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Strange... ==
	{{user|Mwx10}} was brought to my attention through random link clicking and contrib checking, and he self-nommed his own RFA, probably set up an SPA to support him, and has only two article space edits in the month he's been here, and that's solely been to move a page, but then move it back. What's the protocol for something like this?—] (]) 03:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Notify a B-crat, I guess. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 03:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	:The protocol is someone mentions what they noticed on the RfA, and the b-crats take it into account. This happen often enough to be expected. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 06:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Taxman closed it. ] 16:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	==Ayyavazhi==
	I was blocked, complained by ] for 24 hours complaining as 'I violated the 3RR'. what had happened before that.
	:Three districts are declared as a holiday by the govt for an Ayyavazhi festival in Swamithope. More over many unversity books as well as historians published books as Ayyavazhi as an autonomouse religion by its elements (scriptures, ideology...) . I cited all thease things with University papers and historian views many many times earlier to the same user. See (scroll down) He then remain quite for some times and after a day or two without any discussion he use to remove Ayyavazhi. Please see . In every my reverts, I asked them to discuss before reverting. No one ] and ] replied but reverted. Starting from to they reverted five times (with in 24 hours) and removed the contents cited with university papers as sources. Since they two have collectively six (3+3) Reverts, they complain myself as violating the 3RR rule.
	:Once again please see the in each of my edits. When ] felt that he was personally attacked by my self I went to his user page and apologises for that. Even then no one discussed on that topic, but ] reverted continuusly without discussing.
	:If the rules of wiki is so, then if two users decided to revert a third persons edit, they can going on edits closely following him. Since these two guys collectively can revert (3+3) times then the third person would be marked as violating and could be blocked. No matter about the valid citations and the references.
	:Also I noticed commonly, this user ] use to note this section of Ayyavazhi page and complain to many user as spamm, spammer etc... I was intrested in Ayyavazhi. So Iam writing Ayyavazhi articles. And I give appropriate links form other topics. One who is intrested in Christianity will edit and write many Christianity related works, and who is interested towards Religion, then he will contribute to Religion related works. They use to spend more effort and time the more they are devoted to the topic. If it was called as spamm then Religious users want to be called as Religious spammers, and Christian users should be called as Christian spammers and etc...
	:If Tamil Nadu is a state in India, then unavoidably it should be be noted in India article as its Sub-national entity. As if Ayyavazhi is a religion it needs a mention in appropriate religion related article. I've already cited with evn University papers for its notablility, its spread across South India etc..
	:I've tried many times to tell this to him. How ever he don't understand.
	:Also he told in the ] as, "He will not listen to reason as numerous discussions". I answered to every users. See .
	:Again ] have reverted my and in the edit summary he noted, ''"You may have cited it, but it is irrelevant to this article. We cannot include each and every sect present in Tamil Nadu into this article"''.
	:That is what i cited with university papers. For the '' 'thousands of worship centers' '' (notability) and for the ''Autonomous structure of the religion'' (not a sect). Iam reverting the article.
	:Now the other user ] reverted the page without discussion. Please help. I made university papers as citations; I was blocked for 24 hours. Please help. see what is going on
	Two people are collectively reverting without discussion so they collectively have (3+3) 6 revert options in 24 hours. But when I revrts with citing University papers i was reverted. Please help immedietly - ] 09:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	Dispute resolution is ↔ ]. ]|] 20:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	== blocked as a sockpuppet??? ==
	I am ] and I was blocked for no apparent reason by ] as he claimed I am a sock puppet in addition all my edits have been reverted by this same admin. Could someone please explain to me why? I looked over all my edits to see if any of them could have been misinterpreted as vandalism or similar to another user, I also looked at the history of ] and he seems to have a long history of labeling many users, sock puppets that appear to have made positive edits. I would suggest taking the admin. privileges away from this user, most of his edits and blocking of innocent users I would consider vandalism. Can I be unblocked and my edits reposted?--] 10:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)]
	:I looked over your edits and the ] and could not find a definite connection after a very quick check. Some of the pages edited are the same, but that does not prove anything. However, I found that you blanked ] twice, replacing it with your own post. This is inappropriate. Since it was done twice, it was apparently intentional. None of the other edits I checked were clearly inappropriate. However, I am unfamiliar with hockey and do not know if the information is accurate. Also, if a claim is controversial, a reference should be provided. I suggest that you take the matter up with JamesTeterenko first. If you cannot come to a satisfactory resolution, there are other things you can try. -- ] 11:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	::IMO before unblocking, do a CheckUser. &ndash; ]] 11:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	I am pretty new here, I did make a few edits prior to me registering to so I am getting familier with the system. The blanking of the talk page that you make reference to I thought was the proper procedure as I posted my comment and question, every thing else on there seemed so out dated. All my edits are accurate and could be backed by facts already posted on other wikipedia articles or references provided.--] 11:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	I can't see any reason to believe this user is a sockpuppet. He edited a talk page of an article that a known vandal used to frequent, that's it! I've asked the blocking admin to unblock, if he doesn't do so, and doesn't come up with a good explanation, I'll unblock you. For future reference, if there are lots of out of date things on a talk page, we archive them, rather than delete them. Just move the take page to a page with the same name but "/Archive" on the end, and then replace the redirect that will appear in place of the talk page with a link to the archive and put your question underneath it. --] 16:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Details at ]; general info at ]. ] | ] 19:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	::As I mentioned on my talk page, I am willing to defend my actions if necessary (or go to a checkuser if required). However, I do not want to do so in a public forum because I do not want to give this user any tips on making better sockpuppets. If you want just a little evidence, see {{userlinks|PeanutChiselTip}} that appeared shortly after (and was blocked by a different admin). This is stereotypical VaughanWatch behaviour. -- ] 05:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::PeanutChiselTip reverting back to Biscuit-in-the-Basket's versions of articles is extremely suspicious, although Peanut/Vaughan may have been stalking you or just checking his favorite articles. However, if you have additional evidence that makes you reasonably sure, then I am okay with leaving it as that and not wasting time on a Checkuser request. -- ] 07:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::: is very telling. The concept that the IHHOF has made inductions and that is how they gained access to the HHOF is a view that only seems to be held by VaughanWatch/JohnnyCanuck and his sockpuppets. For example, see ]. The only lasting support to keep the article is from sockpuppets. -- ] 15:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	I have expanded ] to include more of the characteristic behaviour of VW to make it easier for those not familiar with him. Please let me know if anyone has any doubt about this. -- ] 19:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Your theory sounds likely but there's a perfectly innocent alternative explanation: a user finds a factoid on the web, inserts it, it gets rolled back, they reinsert it, it gets reverted without an edit summary, etc. Now, if you had left a message on the user's talk page or at least an edit summary saying that this factoid has been proven wrong and pointed to the appropriate information, even the people who are not familiar with VaugalWatch could now know for a fact whether the user was acting in good faith or not. ] | ] 11:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I personally didn't rollback anything until after I blocked him as a sockpuppet. The previous reverts were by other users. I agree that a message should have been left for him while there wasn't sufficient evidence. By the time I saw any edits, it was very clear that it was indeed a sockpuppet. To determine that it was a sockpuppet, I looked at all of the users edits, not just the ones stated as examples. Almost every edit provided additional evidence that it was indeed VaughanWatch. In addition to being interested in the same topics as VW, having the same perspective on these topics (that are so unusual that I have not been able find a reference on the web or another individual that agrees), the same writing style, this user also has the ] -- ] 23:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Blank and lock ==
	Could an admin please blank-and-lock my user and talk pages?
	I don't want to "vanish" ''per se'' (account that is) -- but am not coming back and won't be doing any more editing, and would rather not have to worry about random vandalism, ''et cetera''. I've no issues with the page histories sticking around for historical reasons.
	Thanks and good bye.
	-- ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Done. ] 16:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Undeletion request ==
	Request undeletion of my stub concerning the Merton Cassics don R G C Levens (Robert Levens). The speedy deletions were on the grounds of notoriety. Levens was well known on account of his school edition of Cicero Verrine V----Clive Sweeting
	:I'd go to ] with something like this. --]<sup>]</sup> 12:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Out of interest, why? Any admin can undelete an speedied article. ] states "You may ask any administrator to undelete an article if it has been obviously deleted out of process (no justification under the deletion policy)". Seems like overly convoluted having to go through deletion review for a speedied article, and Administrators' noticeboard seems like the perfect place for someone to get a second look.-] 19:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Not at all overly convoluted when the speedy deletion was clearly proper for a non-notable biography. Please assume good faith when a speedy deletion is made. ]|] 20:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::I was assuming good faith on the part of the original request, which seems fair, and Woohookitty's reply simply didn't seem correct - ] is certainly not certainly not the first place you should go if you're after a second opinion, and I see nothing intrinsically wrong with placing the undeletion request for a speedy here. :) -] 20:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Sorry, that's admin shopping. DRV is there for a purpose. ]|] 20:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::So, let me get this straight, if an admin wants to speedy delete something you have to go through DRV and then through AFD to get it kept? Am I the only one who things this not only goes against the spirit of the undeletion policy that this could potentially lead to all sorts of trouble? -] 10:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::Absolutely not. DRV frequently comes back with a result of '''undelete, do not send to AFD'''. Frequently the deleting admin will undelete it themselves upon seeing the consensus emerging at DRV after a day or two. Talking ''to the deleting admin directly'' is another (and quicker) alternative, but posting for an admin, any admin, to undelete is asking for a wheel war IMO. -- '']']'' 19:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I'm not able to divine what article is being talked about. There's no harm in undoing a deletion- what's easily done can be easily undone. But it should only be done if it improves the encyclopedia, of course. ] ] 20:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	::see ]. ]|] 20:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Just thought I'd note that the above user has been previously warned about uploading a huge number of improperly tagged images, and (after somewhat of a hiatus) seems to have resumed doing just that. See ] and ] (it wasn't caught by OrphanBot, although I don't know why). Just thought I'd note it here. - ]<sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 13:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I've warned the user and deleted any of the images I found that were unlicensed and unsourced, or were copyvios from a given source. Oddly most of their images were not only repeats of others, but were already orphaned. ] 16:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	== ] and ] move ==
	So ] did a cut/paste move of ] to ]. AntiVandal Bot has reverted my reversion and looking at the page history, it looks like VoABot and MartinBot even reverted each other as a result. I don't care what it's called, but ] is a clear vandal, so I was just trying to clean up. Can anyone give a hand here? I don't want to edit war with my best friends. ] 19:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I've reverted ] to the redirect version. It's a bit odd, normally redirecting overrides the bots. -- ] 19:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Thanks. I've always felt the bots had something against me. I think my only recourse is to request arbitration. ] 19:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	{{user|Dudedontworry}} is creating a large number of articles about pianists, originally copyvios which have been deleted and replaced by one-paragraph stubs which rarely claim notability, and then don't prove it. No reliable sources are cited. All seem to have been the former students of ], who might be notable if there were reliable sources who said so. I think that without reliable sources, most of these articles need to be removed. Opinions? ]|] 20:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	Anybody? If this isn't addressed, I'm just going to start speedying all of these articles. ]|] 22:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	: He's down to one-''sentence'' stubs. At least he quit posting copyvios.... I can't tell whether he's a well-meaning but confused fan, or whether he's involved with publicity for this group of musicians. Sigh. ] 18:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
	== penis pictures on Sarajevo page .... ==
	on this page:
	]
	is this image:
	]
	both limp and tergid versions
	it is * S E R I U O S L Y * out of place !!!
	please correct as soon as possible. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
	:It is not there now, which is probably that it was fixed by the time you have posted this.—] (]) 21:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I believe it was a template or image vandalism, because the history does not have such modification. -- ] 21:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I added the image to ]. Not only does Commons have an obscene number of penis images, this is an identical duplicate of another penis image already listed. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 21:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Two days in row. I wonder if somebody is trying to tell somebody something.] 23:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Template:wr, et. al. ==
	It appears that the "wr" templates were supposed to be kept, not deleted, as per the discussion ]. Was this consensus overruled? I've been trying unsuccessfully to locate where there is notice or discussion of this. --] 22:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	:There was a at which there was consensus to overturn and delete them.--] 23:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	::See also ] and following subsections for a fuller explanation. --]&nbsp;(]) 00:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Aha! Thank you very much! I had come across the red-linked template on a troublesome user's talk page and was confused as to what was going on. Now I understand! --] 02:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
	==wikivideolinks.org==
	Moved to ]. ''(]])'' 00:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Help, please... ==
	Okay, here goes: ] suffers autoblocks due to his IP address being in Singapore (and belonging to half the place) and therefore thinks that anons should not be allowed to edit. He's been blocked for sockpuppetry involving the creation of inflammatory usernames that protested anon editing and he has made clear that he will not rest until they are not longer allowed to use Misplaced Pages.
	I think he has taken it to a whole other level, however. My suspicion arises due to the heavy number of articles he requests for protection that actually ''get protected''. He has a nasty habit of going to ] everytime anyone vandalises just about ''anything'', and usually he gets told off for doing so.
	But all of a sudden, every request he starting making would go through. Whenever he would add a page to RFPP, it would have enough vandalism to merit protection. Why? That's what I wondered.
	Until I discovered that ninety percent of the edits were from '''Singapore's common IP address'''!
	Take, for instance, ]. Hildanknight requested page protection because of its extensive . Look closer, though, and you will see that ], aka Hildanknight's IP, vandalised the article eight times in a row. Notice also, that ''Hildanknight reverts the edits every time''-'''but''' he's always ''one minute off' the IP's edit. Just enough time to log in and out, I'd say.
	You will notice that these edits are always one-two minutes apart and Hildanknight almost always reverts. The revert(s) that are not his were probably caught in RC.
	*Singapore IP blanks, one minute later HK reverts:
	*Singapore IP blanks article again and Hildanknight reverts:
	*More of the same: {RC patroller reverts)
	*And again: (RC patroller reverts)
	Now look at another page he got protected, ].
	*Hildanknight reverts vandalism like someone normally would, , but notice that after he reverts it, the Singapore IP vandalises it four times in a row
	*Check Hildanknight's contribs for the time those four vandalism edit took place: . He has absolutely no edits in the timeframe.
	Looking through his contribs, I found this behavior increasingly common and very disturbing. As I don't have an account, I am unable to open an RFC or RFCHECK against him. Also, me internet connection is very limited and I'm burning the little time I have writing this. Could someone with more time please dig deeper into this scary anti-anon hole I'm looking at? Hildanknight, I think, is trying to give the IP's everywhere a bad name and make it seem like they should no longer be allowed to edit by vandalising under his shared IP and then requesting protection after ''reverting his own edits''. Please, someone help.--] 00:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	*Maybe it is time to get an account? Anyway what is your theory? HK vandalising an article many times just to get it semiprotected? Looks like a big effort for a very small gain IMHO. It is easily to imagine that the article is on his watchlist that he refreshes frequently (or monitors using the Lupin tool, or whatever). ] 00:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Eh. I'll get to it eventually. Anyway, I forgot to say that he has had against him opened and it was proven he was usign socks, and my reason for so few diffs is that even the little time I spent doing this took up my alloted internet time. I simply don't have the resourced available to check further into this, which is why I asked for help. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
	::It's not implausible... as his RFCU mentions, he did hit Microsoft-related articles so badly that reverting admins thought they were dealing with a vandalbot. <tt>].]</tt> 12:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	::And my suspicion has increased after , just 3 minutes after I unprotect. (HK is online at this time.) <tt>].]</tt> 12:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	== AFD Backlog ==
	It doesn't seem like a lot of people are closing AfDs lately. The backlog is only two days, but really not many are getting closed of those two days, so it will just get worse fast if we don't get just a bit more help. A lot of the ones up right now are pretty easy to close, I'm sure, unanimous keeps or deletes. See ]. --] 00:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	: Sign me up for a dozen or so. ;-) ] 03:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	::The transwikis below are 3 months old, and if they're not done soon I'm tempted to delete them all. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 10:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	::: Don't delete anything actually useful to make a point about backlog. (We have some good and valuable image pages that predate Commons in that list-- I'd be working on transfering some of those myself if I wasn't on dialup at present.) -- ] 16:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	Thanks to everyone who's been chipping in... we seem to have caught up quite well. Of course, with 150+ appearing every day to be closed, help is always needed. --] 03:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	== request for speedy keep ==
	Sorry if this is the wrong place to list this, but I don't see anywhere else that's specifically related. ] meets speedy keep criterion 1, as explained there at final comment. Requesting speedy keep. &mdash;&nbsp;] ] &mdash; 00:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Well ] is a ], not a ] so its criterion do not carry much weight. In this case I think that I would let the nomination go for the full length, or at least a day or two, just to be sure. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Actually looking at it now it looks like it would be appropriate to speedy close it, but I personally only speedy close AfDs if there is an extremely large majority, in this case there are not enough votes for me to feel completely comfortable. Other may feel free to however. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I have closed it as SK anyway. ] 01:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Thanks. &mdash;&nbsp;] ] &mdash; 01:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Uh... ==
	Just a guess, but ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] probably should be deleted.
	== ] ==
	I saw this name, {{user|Moronisatosser}}, pop up editing ]. Content dispute possible on the page, where I removed trivia based on ] and suggested that it be inserted into the article instead. I also removed an unsourced picture, which was eventually deleted under CSD-I4. This new user, whose name may be a correaltion to my edits, has uploaded the image again, still without a source. Any admins care to comment on whether this name is too similar to mine or an attempt at putting me down (what is a "tosser")? Cheers! -- ]<font color="darkblue" size="" face="Constantia">''']'''</font> <sup>] | ]</sup> 04:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I have blocked this account as an inappropriate username (] -- yes, it's offensive -- sorry to be the bearer of bad news!). It was likely a troll, let me know if you have any more trouble. -- ] (]) 05:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
	Konstable, now voluntarily desysopped, may not be resysopped without using the normal channels, including a ] and community consensus.
	For the Arbitration Committee --] 05:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I am glad that most of the outlandish proposals got rejected, now there is only one false statement in the official conclusion which is only there because the ArbCom could not be contacted in time to remove it ()
	:
	:Anyway, that I posted a few weeks ago. As for the rest, I am thankful to the first sentence in the ] which inspired me to create a test account - I suggest more people try it doing what they would normally do but from a new account, makes a huge difference to the way people treat you. As for me here, well two weeks ago I have intentionally locked myself out of my account () - no way to get it back now; the only account that I still have access to is ], but hey I am not going to pretend to be a bot. So to those who wanted me to be banned - sorry to disappoint you; and to those who wanted me limited to one account - I am doing one better and limiting myself to no accounts (any minor spelling corrections that I want to make to the articles I am reading will be done from my IP(s) but, no, I will never edit here as I did before, I am reserving that for some place else).--] 03:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC) (Konstable)
	== ] ==
	This case is now closed and the results have been posted above.
	*{{Userlinks|BhaiSaab}} is banned for one year.
	*{{Userlinks|Hkelkar}} editing under any name or anonymous ip is banned from Misplaced Pages for one year.
	*{{Userlinks|TerryJ-Ho}} is banned for a year for personal attacks, disruptive comments, edit-warring and incivility.
	*BhaiSaab is placed on probation for an indefinite period. He may be banned from any article or set of articles which he disrupts. All bans to be logged at ].
	*Hkelkar and socks is placed on probation for an indefinite period. He may be banned from any article or set of articles which he disrupts. All bans to be logged at ].
	*TerryJ-Ho is placed on probation for an indefinite period. He may be banned from any article or set of articles which he disrupts. All bans to be logged at ].
	For the Arbitration committee, <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 06:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:An unfortunate case of ], apparently. - ] 08:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Is there a difference between BhaiSaab's and Hkelkar's bans? ] <sup>]</sup> 14:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	::No, if BhaiSaab starts sockpuppeting the ban would apply to his socks too. The language is just there in the case of Hkelkar because of a history of socking. ] 15:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I like how one of the parties in this case had been harping on about "I'll take this to arbitration" throughout the entire dispute and when it inevitably got there he ended up getting banned. -- ] 15:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Heklar and socks 'are'. 'Are'. Steel, please don't gloat, it's not big or clever. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 18:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Proto what are you talking about? I also thought it was funny, because it was thanks to harrassment by BhaiSaab that I myself developed a block log. Stell was uninvolved as well, theres nothing for him to gloat about.<b>]]</b> 00:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
	==Wheelwarring by administrators==
	What is the opinion of the community regarding how the Arbcom should deal with administrators wheelwarring. Should we step in when we, or Jimbo, sees it, or should we patiently wait for a case to be possibly filed? To deal with what we see, or have notice of, would break a basic rule of procedure we have more or less followed, not to initiate cases ourselves. ] 15:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	Given time people will often sort things out for themselves. In a case where the behavior adversely impacts Misplaced Pages, you or others can always give an admin your opinion in order to right things, but initiating a case when the people involved haven't felt it necessary doesn't seem appropriate. Your current method of operation is sound, and even if a change would fix some things, it might break other things. ] 15:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	I think it's fine for any given member of the arbcom to use the bully pulpit of that position to say, 'Please stop this behavior.' But I don't think the arbcom can issue binding decisions as a body unless a case has been filed. ] 18:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	Yah, the more interesting and important question here isn't about wheelwarring- it's about the Arbcom injecting themselves into a situation without needing a case that's been filed and accepted. This may or may not be a bad idea, but it's definitely a significant expansion of the powers of Arbcom. These two questions should be treated seperately. ] ] 18:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:It's not the role of the arbitration comittee to involve themselves in preventing wheelwarring. It may be the role of Wikipedians who happen to be in the AC to try and calm things down, as respected members of the community, but I would expect that of anyone with some common sense and in good standing, not just AC members. There's certainly no special executive mandate the AC has to intervene, nor should there be. Arbcom insists on every case being prepared, the rule works both ways, and the arbitration committee (as an entity, as opposed to individual members acting on their own steam and ''not'' with any kind of mandate) must not override their own standards. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 18:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	::To clear that up - it may be the role of the arbcom to subsequently take action about wheelwarring, but only after a RFAr case is meandered through as per usual. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 18:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	::: Meandered? I'd hope not. Wheel warring should be subject to a temporary injunction right at the beginning of an ArbCom case, and failure to abide by such an injunction should in my view result in immediate desysopping. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	* Context, Fred? What issue is so urgent that two (or more) of us think it requires a wheel war rather than a mature discussion or peer-review by other admins? I'm guessing this goes beyond boldly reverting and then discussing, which may validly be extended to admin actions even if I would normally discuss before reverting? Since past cases have ended up in sanctions, the mere threat of ArbCom should be sufficient. My view on genuine wheel warring is that it should be stamped on hard and immediately. And yes if that means a pre-emptive ArbCom with temporary injunction, or even immediate temporary desysopping, then by all means, as long as the option remains to restore privileges if those involved apologise and promise never to do it again. There are few things more calculated to destroy the peace than wheel wars, and they also seriously undermine the community's trust in admins. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	*:Completely agree with JzG. Provided that it's well understood that a ''single revert'' of an admin action is not a wheel war, and is no big deal. I see no reason to treat admin reverts so different than edit reverts- they should not be done lightly, but we can't call them automatically wrong. ] ] 18:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	Admin Wheelwarring should be reported at ], and dealt with by other admins and the wider community. ArbCom should not inject themselves into these disputes, unless there is a formal RfArb filed by a party. ] <small>]</small> 18:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	* Process for process' sake. Is the problem sufficiently urgent as to require immediate action? If so, take immediate action. If not, I'm guessing Fred would not be suggesting ''taking'' immediate action or possible scope creep. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	I think ArbCom should get involved as necessary, without having to wait for someone to file a case (if that even does happen). Wheelwarring can be very disruptive. It's best, for the sake of the encyclopedia, that problems are dealt with quickly. --] 18:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Surely our already-existing standard practice of all editors acting as a check on each other is quicker than arbcom involved? ] ] 18:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Non sequitur? Clearly if there's wheelwarring going on then we ''aren't'' acting as checks on each other and ArbCom ''should'' get involved. --] 18:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Any Arbitrator, just like any other member of the community, can file an RfArb and request an immediate injunction seeking a temporary desysopping. I would assume that the ArbCom would respond very rapidly to such a request, as another Arb will have access to the ArbCom mailing list. I would expect the Arb filing the request to recuse from the subsequent arbitration case, of course.
	:I would expect that Jimbo, or any member of the Board, wouldn't have to go through the ArbCom if the situation were sufficiently serious and volatile as to require a suspension of an admin's bit. Jimbo and the OFFICE can just have a steward pull someone's admin privileges. Arbitration would presumably follow.
	:If we were going to expand the ArbCom's responsibilities from it's current judicial roles into active policing and enforcement, might I suggest that it would have been wiser to bring this up ''before'' the election? ](]) 19:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	How about automatic desyopping of any administrator who reverses an action of another administrator without attempting to discuss the matter? ] 19:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:How about bureaucratic paralysis? Sometimes ] happens, and if we're acting like reasonable adults, this isn't automatically harmful. ] ] 19:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:No, that's just instruction creep. If there is a wheel war that requires immediate action, Jimbo or OFFICE can get a steward to temporary deadmin the involved admins, pending arbitration. This already has precedent, so it would not cause an uproar if it happened again in similar circumstances. And of course, Jimbo can deadmin or ban whomever he wants at any time. ] | ] 19:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I just overturned an action by Friday (I unblocked an editor) a few days ago. I didn't discuss in advance, I just went and did it&mdash;then I explained politely on his talk page my reasoning. It calmed down a situation that was getting needlessly heated. I've done this a few times in my time on Misplaced Pages. Perhaps on three or four occasions all told.
	:Afterwards, Friday was both polite and reasonable, and we were able to discuss the matter constructively. (In fact, in all the matters that I've handled this way, there's never been a subsequent wheel war, and the admins involved have responded positively to my actions and reasoning.) As it turns out, the editor in question decided that my unblock was ''carte blanche'' to carry on with playing about with WP:POINT, making veiled attacks on the original blocking admin, and just generally being a WP:DICK despite warnings. I reblocked, as I had assumed some responsibility for the editor's behaviour by unblocking him in the first place. As far as I know, there hasn't been any sort of firestorm swirling around my actions, and everything is working out as it should.
	:I would have been desysopped ages ago under such an automatic process as you've described, Fred. I ''really'' think such a short route to desysopping isn't going to be a net benefit for the community. ](]) 20:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Echo what TOAT said. Why should we ] our admin actions any more than we own our edits? This is a collaborative project. We should all be a check on each other, and if there are many admins who object to being overturned, this is worrisome. ] ] 20:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I followed the case that ToAT and Friday were involved in above, and that was indeed a case where productive discussion between the admins involved was possible. However, not all cases where an admin undoes another admin's actions will be so good-natured. It all depends on how reasonable and open to discussion the admins involved are. Admins should, theoretically by their very nature (if they were correctly chosen as admins), always be open to discussion, or at least be able to find a temporary middle ground where discussion can take place. In most cases of wheel-warring, I suspect, the admins involved are so convinced that (a) they are right and (b) there is no other way and no possibility of discussion; that the wheel-war continues. This type of ''attitude'', not the actions, is what should lead to immediate referral for de-sysopping, in my opinion. Immediate de-sysopping should only be for a ']'. ] 23:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:This is about as reasonable as automatic blocking of any editor who reverts another editor without attempting to discuss. One has to wonder whether Fred so much as read any of the responses to his first query. &mdash;] 20:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	::The ad hominem is unnecessary and unhelpful. --] 20:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::There was no ad hominem. Fred's idea does not seem to follow from the discussion in any way, and it is not an attack for Cryptic to point that out. ] 20:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::(edit conflict) I don't see an ''ad hominem'' attack anywhere. Regardless, ] of wheel warring under the ] seem to be better examples of wheel warring. I don't think an automatic desysopping &ndash; albeit temporarily &ndash; is necessary for a single wheel war (which could be an honest mistake), but a desysopping for ''repetitive'' wheel warring, as defined by those examples, seems reasonable. -- ''']''' 20:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::(after 3 edit conflicts!) I was going to say that Fred nowhere says that he supports this, but calling Cryptic's comment an ad hominem is ridiculous and indeed unhelpful. ] | ] 21:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Of course it is an ] (might want to read that article). Rather than arguing any of the merits of the idea, Cryptic accused Fred of not having read responses to another query. Note that this response is directed against the merits of Fred himself, and not the merits of the ''idea''. --] 22:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::It's directed at the merit of Fred's actions. Cryptic was IMO mistaken to presume that Fred supports this, but assuming good faith, his concern is procedural, not personal. ] | ] 22:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	"Automatic desysopping" for any single action would be a terrible idea. My suggestion would be that an arbitrator who observes a wheel-warring situation, which isn't being resolved between the administrators involved, should post about it to this noticeboard and advise both/all of the involved admins to step back from their buttons until a consensus emerges. ] 20:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Indeed. First of all, not all wheel wars need to lead to desysopping--many are peacefully resolved and not in the grand scheme of things that big a deal. Second, "any administrator who reverses an action of another administrator without attempting to discuss the matter" is a ridiculously broad definition of wheel-warring to begin with, as TenOfAllTrades says. ] 20:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I agree with Zocky and Newyorkbrad above. I do not think an automatic process would be helpful. If it needs to be done, get a steward to do it. A quick and temporary no-fault suspension of sysops could de-escalate things better than a difficult arbitration, or some kind of admin auto-desysop policy. As admins we should all extend a presumption of competence and good will to each other. If a page protection looks like stubborn stupidity, assume the other guy knows something you don't. Find out what that is before flying off the handle. If someone undoes your block, assume he had a good reason to. Don't take it as a slap in the face, because it almost certainly is not meant to be. If possible we should prevent things from getting to the point where one or another of us has to be publicly rebuked. Lately I've begun to wonder if we have built a system that somehow forces us to stone an admin every two weeks. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::As I understand it, the Stewards won't act on an involuntary desysopping request without a request from the ArbCom of the project involved. We know from prior incidents that ArbCom is capable of acting informally and expeditiously (i.e., without a case pending) when the members consider there is a true emergency in which the project is perceived to be endangered by an individual retaining his or her buttons. True emergencies are rare. ] 21:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Just adding that when somebody undoes your admin action, the first thought on your mind should be "Have I explained it well enough in the log entry?". If you can't be bothered to enter a valid description of your reason to block, delete or protect, you shouldn't expect other people to bother looking for your explanation in other places, or even to have a chat with you about it before undoing it. ] | ] 21:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:To give Fred the benefit of the doubt, I would ask him to give us some context. What prompted you to ask this question, Fred? It seems unlikely this question just popped out in your head. ] <small>]</small> 21:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:To join the chorus, no we should not desysop for reversing an administrator action. That would cause vastly more problems than wheel-warring ever has. It is not at all uncommon for Admin A to protect a page, Admin B to unprotect it after the problem seems to have been resolved, and then Admin A (or Admin C) to re-protect if the dispute flares up again. That isn't 'wheel warring'/grounds for auto-desysoping... that's admins doing their jobs properly. The majority of admin action reversals likely aren't even disputed, a sizable portion of those which are disputed would be/have been endorsed by consensus/policy, and even most of those which are widely contested stop and discuss rather than warring back and forth. True protracted 'wheel wars' are few and far between. As to ArbCom taking cases without anything being filed... I generally don't see the need. The whole idea is that ArbCom is supposed to be the court of last resort after all other dispute resolution methods have failed. This seems to suggest that ArbCom would take action before dispute resolution was even begun. Granted that wheel warring is a special case there might be some benefit in ArbCom imposing an immediate injunction to order it stopped (which is more or less a standing reality anyway), but beyond that I don't know that it would provide any benefit. --] 21:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	: I also think this is quite a bad idea. To pick another example, let's say ] blocks ] just because he feels like it, and makes it clear on an offensive block summary that it was a decision made by whim. (The reason I picked them out: their comments are directly above this post.) I then go and unblock Jossi, because it would be a clearly improper block. Under such an "automatic" desysopping scheme, I would be summarily removed of my admin status.
	:While this situation is so implausible it almost seems absurd, there are other situations that are not as clear-cut (such as the ones brought up by TenOfAllTrades and CBD) that would be short-circuited by such a rule. Besides, do we really want to give wikilawyers another reason to bug us with? ]]<sup>(])</sup> 21:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	::IMO, Arbcom's purpose is to adjudicate disputes brought before it via RfAR's, not to proactively become a "wiki police". It is judicial in scope, not executive, to borrow terms from US government. -- ] 21:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	* Er, guys? The phrase "wheel war" really does not apply to undoing a single admin action once, it means two or more admins repeatedly doing or undoing the same admin action. There's no possible doubt that this is a Really Bad Thing. It does not happen often. A bit of calm, perhaps? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Editors who make disruptive edits can be temporily blocked from editing. Admins who make disruptive admin actions can not be blocked from adminning; a block from another admin only stops them from editing, which was not part of the problem. (When an editor abuses the position we take away his pen. When an admin abuses his position we take away...his pen?) ] 13:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	====Must something be DONE?====
	Is wheelwarring a problem which is so serious that something must be DONE about it? For your information, I'm just asking questions. I have taken no position. ] 21:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	* No. There is no substancial issue now. -- ] | ] 21:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	* Definately no. No more procedure creep please, at least not on this. - ]</small> (]) 21:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	*Nothing more than the procedures we have now, in my opinion. -- ] 21:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	*No problem that I can see, most wheel wars are resolved without arb anyways, and they are not too common. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 21:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	*We should always continue having conversations about the causes and potential ameliorations of admin disputes, as these are harmful to the project. But no, no new procedure needs to be created--desysopping should always be rare and reserved for genuine abuse. ] 21:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	*If anything, the problem that we should solve is the feeling among some admins that they ''deserve'' not to have their actions reverted. Mutual respect and collaboration ''does'' allow the occasional revert. ] ] 21:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	*Something is done. Wheel warring inevitably leads to discussion at ANI. In most cases the discussion leads to a consensus that all parties are willing to abide by. Sometimes issues move on to Arbcom, which through injuctions should be able to promptly defuse the situation. It is rare that a wheel war is such an urgent and destructive concern that it cannot be adequately dealt with through this process. Given that both sides of a wheel war are generally well-intentioned administrators, I believe it is often healthier for our community to have this process of discussion and formal argument (even as messy as it sometimes is) than it would be for people to simply try and quell all wheel wars as quickly as possible. ] 21:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	*(afer edit conflict - concur with Dragons flight also) No. This is a solution looking for a problem. There is AN/I; there is Rfar, with injunctions; there is OFFICE. I feel quite strongly that "immediate desysopping" by any member of Arbcom for any single action would be precipitous and unwarranted, if not downright abusive. Per Friday, we don't OWN our Admin actions any more than our Editor actions; another administrator may have found evidence we missed, or have a clearer perspective. They may, of course, be in error - and that too will sort itself out with the transparancy we have here on Misplaced Pages. Were "any Arbcom member" be given the power to be detective, judge, jury and executionor, there is no such community oversight, no consensus, no "second opinion" and certainly not the kind of group examination which we currently have with AN/I and Arbcom - and what if it is the Arbcom member who is unaware of the entirity of the situation? Bold, revert, discuss works fine. Wheel warring is a repetitive or continuous thing, not a "one off" instance. It has happened enough to cause a serious issue on Misplaced Pages precisely once, and that, too, has been sorted out - albeit with some bumps and bobbles. I see no reason to expand Arbcom's scope to this degree; and I see numerous reasons not to do so. One puppy's opinion. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	*Absolutely not - the current way of managing the occasional (and it is occasional) wheel war is discussion, and a temporary injunction if this does not resolve the issue (and it rarely comes to that). The current system works - change for the sake of change is foolish. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 23:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	*Again, the only 'change' which I could see having some validity would be some sort of notification that, 'ok, this admin dispute has reached the point that it is disrupting Misplaced Pages - stop taking admin actions on this issue'. People almost always stop on their own before it gets to that point, but in the few cases where multiple disputed admin actions have been taken (most recently the whole 'disputed conditional re-adminning' conflict) it could be worthwhile to tell everyone to stop without having to go through a formal procedure. Just a notification with the implication that failure to heed a 'stopping now would be good' warning doesn't look good if/when an arbitration does take place (which they inevitably do on issues which have reached the point where such a notification would be warranted). --] 08:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	====Explication====
	Let me flesh this out a bit, since the proposal was mine on the mailing list and I think its grounded in good sense. First, let me say that, as an arbitrator, wheel warring is, by any definition, one of the most serious items of administrative misconduct one can do. Any case of what is clearly wheel warring will be inevitably accepted by the Arbitration Committee. Also important is that ''no one'' else but the Arbitration Committee can sanction an administrator in any way; this is different from editorial misconduct, in which any administrator may apply blocks and arbcom is not needed in the vast majority of cases. Now, I suggest that not only should we accept all such cases that come before us, but that we should take all such cases. Any wheel warring should earn an
	offender an automatic arbitration case, and arbcom will look into it, accepting a case, with or without community impetus. This is not a very extreme statement: the pedophilia wheel war case was referred to us by Jimbo. This is the model I sugggest. This is current arbitration policy, a case may either originate with a request that gains arbcom acceptance, or with a referral from Jimbo. Jimbo agrees that any cases that the Arbitration Committee deems wheel warring should be viewed as referred to us by him, and he will make this explicit if there is any question. One of the frustrations of being an arbitrator is seeing the valid cases that are causing harm to the community bypass arbitration because no one brngs it to us (the particularly hapens when both parties are at fault, and any potential initiator knows they will not fare well in arbitration; this describes almost all wheel wars). Also, third party initiators have little motivation for starting such cases, especially if they face stigma from people who are either uncivil, or popular (as admins tend to be). This is all that would happen: any case that the Arbitration Committee deems wheel warring may be accepted as a case (without prejudice to final outcome, as with all cases). This isn't a proposal about desysopping, and it is also about ''warring'', not single acts or reversals. Jimbo has supported it, but Fred was afraid of community dissent: I hope the way I have described it clears up any concerns that this is a controversial new practice. ]·] 22:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:*I'm afraid it does not. First of all, you say, "no one else but the Arbitration Committee can sanction an administrator in any way." This is simply not the case. Admins can block other admins and do; we have the right to say to another admin that they are not behaving properly and must stop their actions, and that can and frequently has resulted in solutions to wheel wars. ] 22:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:*If ArbCom initiates a proceeding, it has a case to prove (that there was really a harmful wheel war going on), i.e. ArbCom becomes a party to the proceeding. ArbCom arbitrating on its own case is not a good idea. ] | ] 22:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:*Ummm, what does it actually mean for Arbcom to accept a case if neither side is interested in presenting evidence? ] 23:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:**Arbcom would have to dig up evidence, but not that hard for wheelwarring. ] 23:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:**That doesn't happen, really. To answer your question and Zocky's, the idea is that the Committee will accept a case, in which parties will offer evidence, as with any other case. Parties that don't want to ''be'' in a case (if they're at fault, usually) still usually offer evidence. Findings are then based on evidence. Arbcom has closed cases without result for lack of evidence, but this is unlikely. ]·] 23:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:***I'm a bit confused by Fred's and Dmcdevit's answers. Does this mean that ArbCom would be proving its own case or not? ] | ] 23:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:****You seem to misunderstand arbitration. There is no case to be "proven". A dispute is arbitrated in a case, meaning anyone can offer evidence, and the arbitrators make findings of facts based on the evidence, which then supports certain remedies. A case has scope, not direction. ]·] 23:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:*****According to most dictionaries, arbitration is the process where a third side decides between two opposing positions held by two sides. These positions are the cases that are proved/disproved and or decided to different extents in arbitration. My problem is not with the sides to the original dispute, it's with the sides to the meta-issue of whether ArbCom intervention in a certain case is desired or not. ] | ] 00:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::There's some truth to both Zocky and Dmcdevit's positions here. If there were community sentiment that there is a problem needing to be resolved through greater ArbCom attention to wheel-warring disputes, which from this discussion there isn't at all, it would be easy enough to design a procedure to address situations where a case is opened on the ArbCom's own motion (most likely, the committee would designate an uninvolved Clerk or independent user as the equivalent of ''amicus curiae'' to assemble the evidence). But as I indicate below, discussion of changes to ArbCom procedure should abide the appointment of the six or more new arbitrators. In the interim, my suggestion that arbitrators (or anyone else) bring alleged wheel-warring problems to the attention of this noticeboard while admonishing the involved admins to await consensus here should hopefully be sufficient. ] 00:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	:*If nobody has asked for a case, it may be that it can be handled without arbcom, this is not a bad thing. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 23:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	::*Wait, so if two admins countermand each other's administrative actions, even if it's subsequently resolved amicably (as it often is), and neither admin presses for Arbcom to get involved, a full Arbcom proceeding will take place, anyway? Yeesh. Maybe I should be glad I'm getting murfdered in the Arbcom elections ... pointless effort is exactly that. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 23:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	*IMHO it is an instruction creep. In the most cases admins as a board can handle the case by themselves (by just blocking the disruptors). In the urgent and obvious cases (e.g. an admin repeatedly unblocking himself) any steward can fix it. In between there should obviously be enough people to file the case (even as a third party). ] 23:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:* No, it's not. It's an important question for technical reasons - an admin can unblock their own account, so ArbCom, Office and Foundation have the only enforceable mechanisms for dealing with an outbreak of admin idiocy. They can cause the admins to lose the sysop bit, temporarily or permanently, so that the problem is actually and enforceably stopped. It's an extreme situation, and very rare in my recollection, but I am relatively new around here. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	::*ArbCom still needs to refer the matter to a steward to desysop (being an arbitrator does no automatically gives one the steward bit). If the behavior of an admin is as egregious as repeatedly unblocking himself any user (including arbitrators) can refer the case to a steward. The arbcom is redundant here. ] 23:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	In addition to my suggestion above about a constructive but more limited role that arbitrators could play in such situations, at least as a first step that might resolve most problems, may I suggest that discussion of any significant revision of the Arbitration Committee's role or its policy for accepting cases should wait until January. I presume that the six or more new arbitrators soon to be appointed should participate in discussion with respect to any changes. ] 23:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	* Thank you Dmcdevit for the clarification. I would argue that in some extreme cases on sustained wheelwarring, ArbCom intervention should be welcome. But it will require ''very specific'' guidelines as for the criteria, method, and process of such intervention. An alternative would be that an ArbCom member steps in, brings a wheelwarring case to RfArb and recuse himself. After all ArbCom members are also editors, and in most cases admins themselves. ] <small>]</small> 23:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	**ArbCom members serving as de facto prosecutors would be problematic appearance-wise, even with recusal. In contentious cases, which these are certain to be, we'd get the accusations that ArbCom is protecting its own members and/or power. I still think that we should rely on third parties to bring the normal cases to the ArbCom, and Jimbo and/or office should intervene in emergencies. It's not as if admins repeatedly unblocking themselves are a common occurrence. ] | ] 23:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	*In addition to the above, a quick reading of ] shows that it is not only the ArbCom that can sanction an administrator (though I suspect Dmcdevit meant only the ArbCom has the authority to ask for the ''removal of an admin's administrative rights'', not that only the ArbCom can sanction an admin in ''any'' way). I was thinking that community bans are possible, but I see that there are other possible routes for banning as well: (1) Community ban; (2) Ban ordered by the Arbitration Committee; (3) Ban authority passed by the Committee to a probation officer or mentor; (4) Jimbo bans someone; (5) Wikimedia Foundation bans someone (presumably under WP:OFFICE). ] 23:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
			:{{yo|Engineerchange}} can you provide the community with examples linked with ]'s? Thanks. ] (]) 03:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
	Suppose there was such a thing as a '''24 hour desyop''' meant to be used an average of once a day on the worst offender that day to set boundaries for incivility, contemptuous attitude, unblocking self, and disruptive reverting. It could be a good thing if a way could be found to prevent its abuse. An elected position held for only a month and ineligible to run again for a year? ] 00:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
			::{{reply|Deepfriedokra}} Some examples:
	:Desysopping has always been reserved for and should always be reserved for severe abuse. As for the general point in contention here, I found clarfication in response to my question to Jimbo about this useful. ] 00:50, 11 December 2006 (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)
	:Dmcdevit, here is the problem I (and possibly others) am having with this... I don't see the problem. You say that it is 'frustrating to see cases which are harming the community not brought to ArbCom'. Such as? In every case of 'wheel warring' (as I understand the term) which I can think of there HAS been an arbitration. Which would seem to mean only one of three things: this is a solution to a problem which does not exist, there are 'stealth' wheel wars out there with admins reverting each other back and forth half a dozen times but no one noticing... OR some lower threshhold for 'wheel warring' is being contemplated. The last would seem to be the only one which makes any kind of sense (given that both you and Jimbo have indicated that this is an actual rather than hypothetical 'problem'), but I can't agree with it. Admins ''should'' revert actions taken by other admins when the situation has changed or if the action was ''clearly'' wrong. Granted, that latter especially can lead to wheel warring if both 'sides' are convinced the other is wrong, but a single revert with explanation is not doing any damage to the encyclopedia. In most cases it is fixing an existing problem. Admins disagreeing on how long a page should stay protected (and reversing back and forth) is an inevitable but insignificant difference of opinion which always seems to sort itself out. Admins blocking users with whom they are in content disputes on outright false 'charges' (which I have seen less than half a dozen times) is the kind of thing which 'does damage to Misplaced Pages' and '''ought''' to be reverted immediately. Et cetera. Some examples of the sorts of cases you have been frustrated over not being able to arbitrate would be helpful in evaluating where you are going with this, but it does sound like you are seeing a problem in places where some of us do not. --] 09:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
			:: - Minor edit tag: {{diff2|1260928801}}, {{diff2|1260925564}}, {{diff2|1260877930}}, {{diff2|1260839845}} (each from the last couple days)
			:: - NPOV about BLP: {{diff2|1261041427}}, {{diff2|1261024333}}, {{diff2|1261015833}} (user ignored feedback on their talk page and the page's talk page and has continued edit warring)
			:: - not citing sources or adding info w/o support: {{diff2|1260938015}}, {{diff2|1260909087}}, {{diff2|1260544947}}, {{diff2|1260147566}}
			:: Hope this helps, --] (]) 05:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I've made several changes to the articles ZM's added to. I would concur that this is POV pushing and it appears he opposes this Sheriff. I have no strong opinions on this individual, but at least some of the claims that he's made are not supported by ] and are in violation of that policy as well as ]. If it continues, a block to get the point across would be appropriate. ] (]) 01:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:ZM has continued to add negative/defamatory material about this individual against the general consensus of the editors involved. At this point, ZM, you '''need''' to use the talk page to come to a consensus. Otherwise, I support ] as suggested by Deepfriedokra for further edits on this page. In addition, ZM has uploaded a CLEARLY copyrighted image straight from twitter and released it under a false license. At this point, ZM's attempt seems to be to besmirch the sheriff (no idea on the motive here). In Any case, a full block would be acceptable as well under ]. ] (]) 23:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::{{ping|Buffs}} I obviously don't know ZM's personal motivations, but for a history of the threats and attacks made against Chitwood during his tenure, please see . <small>--Comment by </small> ] (] about my ]) 15:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			*My inclination is a ] from article space that can be unblocked if they answer here.] (]) 09:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Hey! I'm getting in touch with you about a notice. Editing pages is pretty easy, but I'm still figuring out how to navigate the rest, so I'm sorry I put it in the talk page first. I've seen notices and some complaints, so first I should say nothing is intentionally nefarious. As far as the military edits go, I've figured that out, based on ] and ], so I've since ceased. I'm originally from Volusia and still technically have my residency there, so I do feel responsible and knowledgeable about the topics, however, after overwhelming pushback, I was clearly wrong. I don't work for any politicians nor am I associated with any, but there are people I find interesting and think have made an impact locally and should be included, but I get that requires a certain threshold and I was turned down. I'm not trying to get anyone in trouble or get myself blocked. ] was the tongue-in-cheek philosophy until the past few days or so and I haven't had any serious issues that I'm aware of since. I've made many edits since and most have been checked by ]. Happy to answer anything else if needed! ] (]) 02:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Two questions for ]: 1) Do you have any personal connection to John Flemm (who you wrote ] which you then blanked and for some reason moved to {{-r|Draft:John}}) or any other politicians in Volusia County, Florida? 2) Is there a reason that your userpage largely copies ]'s, including the userbox saying how long you've been an editor? (This isn't an accusation of anything against Eyer, to be clear.) <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Something about mimicry and flattery, I guess? I'm curious to hear @ZebulonMorn's answer, too. —] (he/him) <small>If you ], add <code><small>&#123;&#123;reply to|Eyer&#125;&#125;</small></code> to your message.</small> 18:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::@], I don't see an answer to Tamzin's question about your userpage? -- ] (]) 17:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Noting I have declined ] on the draft because it is relevant to ongoing discussion here. No objection to G7 once discussion concludes. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::Not an admin, but I was involved in previous discussions on the person's talk page, so is it acceptable for me to comment?
			*::The user in question has now deleted all past discussions on their talk page. I agree with above complaints that the user should at least be subjected to a partial block from editing articles about any Central Florida government officials. While Chitwood is the most egregious case, this user's entire edit history involves similar types of edits using unreliable sources in order to commit violations of ]. The Chitwood article is not the only problem here, with this same user pushing a POV in the following edit (a "minor" edit?) which had already been removed and reverted . <small>--Comment by </small> ] (] about my ]) 02:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I would concur. ] (]) 21:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			:My issues with ZM have been his lack of edit summaries and the unwillingness to engage in discussion with multiple editors who warned him on his talk page, which recently appeared as until he scrubbed the content without responding. Just today, he made this "minor edit" under his own self-stated rationale that "Ignore all rules was the tongue-in-cheek philosophy" that he was editing, under, supposedly "until the past few days" but it never should have come this far.
	::To Fred and Dmcdevit, at the very least, why couldn't an arbitrator file a request for a case and then recuse? Surely this would follow accepted procedure. To the others, what is the difference between arbcom filing a case ''sui generis'' and one arbitrator filing and then recusing, except that one follows "process" and the other does not? ] 13:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
			:@] has made a lot of messes for other editors to clean up, which he is unwilling even to talk about, let alone go back and fix, even after being asked multiple times to fix his mistakes. A Full Block is warranted. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black"><span style="color:white">'''BBQ'''</span></span>'''boffin'''<sup>]</sup> 03:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I'm sorry I was unclear on the use of "minor edit', I really didn't think it was too far, but I know better know. As far as that edit is concerned, was any of the information improperly sourced or unimportant? It hasn't been edited other than de-capitalization. I thought it was a good contribution that was similar other information under different offices. I'm really not trying to create "a lot of messes", I'm genuinely trying to contribute. As far as the engaging, that's my bad. I was still learning to figure out how to navigate wiki, but I've gotten better now. I'm not "unwilling" to talk though, I was trying to respond on talk pages for a couple days before I figured out this was the correct location, again my bad. I think a full block seems extreme, but that's not for me to decide. ] (]) 04:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::And, as I posted on your talk page before you ignored my comment and deleted it, please review our policies such as ]. In this edit for example, capitalizing words like "marketing", "full-time", "landscaping", "lifeguard", etc. are unnecessary. Cleaning up your messes like and takes time and effort. When another editor cites a rule that you broke, please read the rule and learn it, instead of joking about "ignore all rules" and making the same violation a dozen more times. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black"><span style="color:white">'''BBQ'''</span></span>'''boffin'''<sup>]</sup> 16:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Capitalization errors are clearly non-malicious edits and ], while tongue-in-cheek, is still official wiki policy. I've made over 1,000 edits, most of which remain unedited. If this is really the standard for a "full block", there's no point in anyone new genuinely attempting to edit wiki if they're blocked for capitalization mistakes.
			::::Again, I apologize for not understanding what the discussion pages were and the lack of communication. Obviously, that's not the case anymore. ] (]) 18:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::{{u|ZebulonMorn}}, can you respond to {{np|Tamzin}}'s questions above? ] (]) 21:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Hello! My response to ] was kind of an amalgamation response to a few of the questions from people. I believe it was answered there, but if there is anything more specific I'm happy to answer. ] (]) 21:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::"Ignore all rules", in full, says; {{tq|If a ] prevents you from improving or maintaining ], '''ignore it'''.}} It does not mean that you can just do whatever you like. If other editors do not agree that your edit improved Misplaced Pages, or was necessary for maintenance, then it is not protected by "Ignore all rules." It does not excuse careless editing or flouting of policies and guidelines. ] 01:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			It's been a week. Could an admin be so kind as to weigh in here? Regardless of your conclusion ZM doesn't deserve to have this ] indefinitely. ] (]) 15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::I would rather not be involved in initiating cases that I am not involved with. On the other hand, if I am not involved, there is no reason to recuse. Perhaps clerks could initiate such cases in a pro forma manner. I think after this discussion I have come to a position. If there is conflict between administrators, it should be discussed at AN/I. Only if there is not a satisfactory resolution should it become an arbitration case. Perhaps that decision should be made on AN/I, whether a case would accomplish something. Obviously discussion between the administrators should precede even the AN/I discussion and apologies all around may help some after incidents occur. ] 16:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
			:I'll renew my concern... ] (]) 14:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	===The elephant in the room===
	Since no one else wants to mention the specific case (or perhaps only one of them) at issue, I will. Was a wheel war? Was it resolved amicably? Is it an isolated incident, or part of a larger problem? ] 13:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	*Without commenting on whether it was a "wheel war" or not, I think it self-evident that the actions by '''both''' parties were completely unacceptable. Removing a question from a candidate's question page, regardless of how loaded it was? Protection wars? Revert wars? No series of actions could have been more calculated to make all involved parties appear more ridiculous. It should never have happened, especially not between administrators of long tenure. ] ] 13:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	**So if Arbcom wants to act; to send a message that has been forgotten since January, should they have to wait for someone else to complain? ] 13:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	**By "both parties" who do you mean? If you are referring to the two admins in the protection log, SlimVirgin protected an election page in order to prevent another person from asking a question of a candidate, and Geni, the election clerk, unprotected an election page that belongs open for questions. I don't see how the latter user's actions could be considered unacceptable, or the former user's could be considered appropriate. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 20:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
	*THANK YOU. Much easier to address than, 'guess what the heck they are talking about'. Definitely a 'wheel war'. Worthy of de-sysoping? Well, consider the total length of 'disruption'... twenty minutes and twenty-five seconds from first admin action to last. The end of the wiki it aint. Of course, there was an edit war (also involving admins) leading up to that and the whole thing was incredibly silly... but I'd think a good trout smacking would cover it. The best course would probably have been to let the candidate handle it... either by leaving the question in place or (once it was removed) alerting them on their user talk page that it had been there so they could restore it and respond if they chose. I think some of the actions in that dispute were 'worse' than others, but overall it was a minor flare up (clearly related to earlier conflicts... going all the way back to the pedophile userbox brouhaha) which was quickly ended when people realized how ridiculous such a fight was. --] 13:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	::That episode was ''sui generis'', but there have been a series of disputes about what is or is not an appropriate question (for a particular candidate or for the entire field of candidates) during the whole election process. Not to digress, but I think what's needed here for next time is a designated election official or two with authority to police the question pages. ] 14:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Hm? Worthy of desysopping? I'd say ''maybe''; it doesn't realy matter how disruptive this one event was, but whther, based on the evidence, it was part of a pattern of poor judgment, or simply a forgivable mistake. You question misses the point, though. Here it is: Worthy of an arbitration case? Absolutely: that's the only way we can answer that pattern vs. mistake question. ]·] 20:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
	''']''' another one. ] 13:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	*'''And another''' ] 13:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	**'''], ], , ].''' Rare and resolved amicably? ] 13:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	**Neither the Skulltag or the Nixer-block matter rises to the level of a wheel war. In the case of Skulltag Humblefool is either actioning an AfD or a DRV outcome. That leaves one undelete by Sarge Baldy and one redelete by Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh. We wouldn't call two reverts by two different people an edit war, so we can't reasonably describe this as a wheel war. Similarly Nixer's block log has several instances (further down) of unblocks, but these all seem quite amicable and uncontented. Only Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's reversal of Zoe's block, and Zoe's replacement of it, is a contended reversal of another admin's action, and again two reverals by two users is not remotely a war. These aren't elephants in tents, these are storms in teacups. -- ] | ] 14:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	**All of the examples you cite seem like they 'just barely' meet the definition of 'wheel warring' I generally use and then stop... which is as I described things above; true ''protracted'' wheel-wars are exceedingly rare (none of these qualifies), most admin reversals generate little or no conflict (even some of these were amicably resolved), and even those which are hotly disputed generally stop at the point where it would become wheel-warring. So what's the problem? People disagree with each other? Not going to change. And the only way to prevent anyone from ever stepping up to or poking a toe just over the 'wheel warring' line would be to outlaw reversals entirely... which is a cure vastly worse than the disease. --] 14:21, 11 December 2006 (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)
	===ArbCom-initiated RfCs?===
	Would it help if the ArbCom, while not specifically handing down remedies, was able to ''comment'' on such cases, and present them as examples of '''what not to do'''? If the involved parties, or any third party, felt things were being misrepresented, or evidence was being missed, they could open a case. Kind of like an ArbCom-initiated RfC? That might also give the RfC process more bite, as at present many RfCs that fail to resolve end up at Arbitration sooner or later. This would also specifically address the ArbCom concern that cases where both sides act badly are not acted upon (as neither side would want to initiate an Arbitration), but would allow the admins involved to say sorry, while still having them hauled over the coals in public view so others know what is and is not acceptable. ] 14:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I don't have time for that, although I often read them once the case is to arbitration. In the case of users who are editing in good faith, but are mistaken regarding policy, my preference is to set forth the policy correctly, then let the matter go with an admonition to follow the policy. A couple of problems with that though: having gotten away with a "warning" a user may think nothing will happen if they keep on; such remedies sometimes don't have the support of other arbitrators who feel there ought to be serious remedies for serious infractions. Clearly though, after cutting some slack, and then cutting some more slack, at some point disruptive behavior must be grappled with whether it is because of can't or won't. ] 16:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	===Possible solutions to unreported wheel warring===
	*If unreported wheel warring is a serious problem, maybe someone could set up a group of non-arb comm members (admins and editors) who agree to watch the boards and present arb comm cases where appropriate. I'm sure a few words from Jimbo would motivate some group of editors to ].
	*On the other hand, in light of the current MONGO kerfuffle, I'm worried that Arb Comm is something of a blunt instrument to deal with wheel warring. If an otherwise productive admin engages in a minor wheel war, it seems to me that the ''best'' outcome is to encourage the admin not to do it again, whether by RFC, community feedback, or something else. Maybe this hypothetical panel of watchmen-watchers could have a set of escalating remedies at their disposal, ending with Arb Comm.
	Thanks, ] 14:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			:@] Hey, you might want to check the conversation again and do your own research first. ] (]) 17:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	== It is quite easy to ignore blocks ==
			::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)
	It seems that it is quite simple to ignore edit blocks.
			:Removed. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	] was for one week for consistent violations of ], ], ], ] and ] has been circumventing his block by editing anonymously. I requested a but was inexplicably declined. I have added more diffs to support my request. However my question to the community is if a blocked user can openly disregard the block this easily and continue his merry way, circumventing 3RR and other guidelines, then what use blocking anyone? How is this a deterrant? I have included the list of vioations here:
			::Thanks! ] (]) 10:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Comment''': It is not clear why this request was declined. If it is due to lack of diffs, here are some which clearly shows that this user identifies with the blocked editor:
	:#{{user|59.92.83.63}} - acceptance that he is ] and is breaking the block
	:#59.92.83.63 - incivility
	:#59.92.83.63 - reverting copyvio notices and questioning the validity of WP guidelines. ]
	:#{{user|59.92.87.43}} - incivlity
	:#59.92.87.43 - incivility and acceptance that he is ]
	:#59.92.87.43 - acceptance that he is ]
	:#{{user|59.92.46.252}} - Personal attacks
	:#59.92.46.252 - disputing blatent copyvio and questioning the validity of WP guidelines.
	:#59.92.46.252 - reverting copyvio notices
	:#59.92.46.252 - Incivility
	:#59.92.46.252 - reverting blatent copyvio notice
	:#59.92.46.252 - ] violations and the acceptance that he is ]
	:#59.92.46.252 - reverting copyvio notice
	:#{{user|59.92.63.37}} - Personal attacks and vandalising my User page
	:#59.92.63.37 - Fake warnings in my talk page
	:#59.92.63.37 - acceptance that he is ]
	:#{{user|59.92.50.88}} - Incivility and acceptance that he is ]
	:#, , , - 3RR violations using anon edits
	] <sup><em>]/]</em></sup> 22:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	::You don't need checkuser. Better to go on editing pattern. If it swims like the duck, its the duck. You may sometimes block someone as bad as the duck, rather than the duck, but that is understandable. ] 23:23, 10 December 2006 (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)
	:::'''Pasting my message to Admin:Ragib''' : I'd like to request you to warn Parthi to stop his mudslinging against srkris. He has no proof that the anon ip is srkris and yet even after his attempts for a checkuser were ignored by the checkuser admins, he's acting like he has solid proof that the ip and srkris are the same and is continuing with his shameless mudslinging. Until the checkuser results come in(he has appealed again), this mudslinging by Parthi so 'matter-of-factly' is nothing short of misinformation and slander. Even if the checkuser rules in favour of Parthi, these messages(he has spammed these messages to all and sundry and even on talk pages of articles!) are still slander.
			{{abot}}
			== Appeal of my topic ban ==
	:::For all we know the ip may even be User:Parthi himself or maybe some other totally unrelated user(''anybody'' for that matter) who is trying to impersonate User:Srkris. Neither the ip nor srkris have done anything against the rules of wikipedia and whatever disputes there may be they are all still under consideration and deliberations. User:Venu62 has no right to appropriate the moral high ground for himself and the reason i am intervening(note that I had scrupulously stayed out of this for nearly 2 months and have entered it only in the last couple of days) is because his private fight with srkris is spilling over everywhere and disrupting constructive editing.
			{{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:
	:::And as far as srkris' supposed copyvios are concerned, I'd just like to say that as one who has attempted to upload pics unsuccessfully in the past, all the rules concerning uploading pics are very very vague for people new to uploading pics. As an admin, I'd like you to discuss this with other admins on irc perhaps, and come up with better wording for what is permissible and what is not. As it stands now, there's just too many vague rules and guidelines out there. Thanks. ] 23:27, 10 December 2006 (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).
	I have doubled the original block to Srkris and blocked the IPs. Next time just inform an admin that the user is avoiding his block ] 00:00, 11 December 2006 (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 ]).
	== ] - why blocked? ==
			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.
	Can anyone help me figure it out? - <b>]</b><small> ]</small> 00:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
			Full disclosure: I was involved in ] and ]. I have previous appealled this topic ban at ]. The discussion at ] may also be relevant.
	As far as I can tell only Essjay will be able to tell us what's going on. No point in speculating until he shows up. --] 00:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Yes - it's an autoblock from checkuser-related block Essjay instigated. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 00:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I seem to be the culprit here. I unblocked too hastily, and then reblocked, with apologies to Sam. Please see I've just left for Essjay. ] ] 00:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Please see also I left for Sam. ] ] 00:28, 11 December 2006 (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)
	Well, Essjay hit the 84.166.0.0/16 range with a month-long block. Gazing at the log, there were certainly some sound reasons for doing so. That being said, if Sam's hitting it there shouldn't be a problem reblocking anon-only, with account creation prevented. ] ] 00:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
			=== Comments by uninvolved editors ===
	:I think it's been taken care of now (I tried to unblock and it gave me an error about not being blocked), so I take it everything is now kosher. Sam wasn't in the /16 when I blocked it; if I'd seen any legit users, I would have made it anon-only. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ]</span> 01:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
			'''Support unbanning'''. A single accidental mistake on a different wiki wouldn't violate topic ban on the ENWP slightly. Making BLPs is a risky task, I just made some BLPs which are a translation from RUWP, but one of them is nominated for deletion. Just be careful of the text and use sources carefully. ] (]) 11:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			'''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)
	== can someone archive ] please? ==
	Unfortunately it is now 500kb and my browser cannot open the page (without crashing), so I can neither read it nor archive it. Thanks, ''']''' (]) 03:18, 11 December 2006 (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)
	:Not being active on that board, I'm not really sure what should or shouldn't be archived; obviously, completed requests are removed at some point, but I don't know exactly what. Likewise, old inactive requests must be removed at some point, but I don't know that either. If someone could offer guidance about how quickly things should be removed, I'd be happy to work on it; moreover, if there is a set standard (anything over x days is removed) I can set EssjayBot up to do it like it does ANI. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ]</span> 04:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
			*'''Support lifting the ban''' or limiting it to the restriction suggested above, per my comments at the ]. The ban seemed overbroad to me in the first place: yes, the conduct was egregious, but the remedy was not tailored. As I wrote two years ago, {{tq|I've read Stuartyeates' statements then and now, and my honest take on the matter is that they know what they did wrong. I don't need to see further paragraphs of repenting in sackcloth and ashes to be convinced of that.}} ] (]) 21:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC) <small>(Non-admin comment. I was visiting this page to check on another discussion and happened to see this thread.)</small>
			*'''Deeply concerned''' about the sheer number of alt accounts. It took some digging but I found at an afd related to Donald Trump, which makes this a BLP issue. Another alt for a blp. Perhaps not a huge deal in and of itself but technically a violation nonetheless. And by another sock, concerning a list of people, some of whom are alive. by another sock earlier this year. With so many other accounts, who knows what other violations may exist? I couldn't possibly support this without an ironclad one-account restriction. Actually I don't support this unless and until Stuart restricts himself to one account for at least six months. It's not feasible to monitor fifty+ alts for violations. ] ] 20:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			:* '''I concede that these are breaches of my topic ban''', I'll take that on the chin. I'm sorry I made those edits, I shouldn't have. In my defense (a) They're 100% accidental (b) None of these appears to be related to the issues that led to the topic ban or contentious in any way (c) There are four of them, over the same time I count seven barnstar or barnstar-like awards on my talk archives, so they don't reflect the body of my work over that time. ] (]) 20:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			:*:Those are four that I found, my point stands that it is almost impossible to know how many more there may be considering the absurd number of alts you have. Barnstars don't change any of that. ] ] 01:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			:*::I also find it hard to believe that you accidentally commented on Donald Trump. He's famously totally alive. ] ] 05:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I was prepared to advocate on your behalf... but I'm also concerned based on the number of accounts and what's gone on with them. I'm also looking through your talk page archives (] and ]) and noticing that the barnstars and related awards I'm seeing were actually mostly given by me. Archive 25 has 6 awards given by me as as the result of your participation in backlog drives, one for your participation / contributions for the year (end of year NPP award, given by Dr vulpes), and an AfC backlog drive award (from Robertsky). #26 has an NPP backlog drive award as well (also given by me). I do appreciate your contributions to NPP, but there is a bit of a difference in people going out of their way to give barnstars for great work and receiving them as the result of participation in backlog drives.
			:Anyways though, back to the key issue for me, your use of multiple accounts. JSS said "{{tq|I couldn't possibly support this without an ironclad one-account restriction.}}", is this something you're willing to commit to @]? I personally don't understand your usage of, and the large amount of alts that you have. ] (]) 13:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose''' These alt accounts are a nonstarter for me (some blocked) as are the acknowledged breaches of the topic ban. If they were inadvertent or debatable, I could possibly see fit to give them some slack, but what I'm seeing here doesn't give me a good feeling that lessons have been learned. Show us you can abide for at least 6 months and commit to a single account and I would reconsider. ] (]) 22:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			=== Why I use alts ===
	::A large chunk of the page was moved to archive at 06:49, 11 December 2006, by Dmcdevit. However, it's still an open question of what the standard is for archiving, and using a bot to do so. ] | ] 13:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
			About 15 years ago during a round of the eternal "should all newcomers be welcomed (by a bot)?" discussion, some HCI person wrote a blog post on a long-defunct uni blog site. They said experienced editors are underestimating (a) how many new users are being welcomed (we only see the problems) and (b) the retention bonus of real human interaction. They challenged us to create a new user account and try editing using it for a while. Some of us did. Some of us found that editing with a clean account removed distractions (no watchlists to watch, no alerts to check, no !votes to vote in because we weren't allowed, no tools to use, no noticeboards like this to update, etc) and that we enjoyed focusing on the barebones editing, usually wikignoming. Discussion about the welcoming issue were less clear cut, but led to a bit of a game, where you see how many edits you can go without getting a user talk page. The game got harder when some wikis introduced auto-welcoming and clicking on an interwiki link lost you the game.
			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.
	::: It's very unlikely that any report over 48 hours old will be acted on, I'd say. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
			Some of my edits are work related. See ] for information on what kind of thing that is. There may or may not be a new class of en.wiki editors: librarians who want to fix facts which have flowed from en.wiki to wikidata to the librarians' library catalogs; whether we'll notice them in the deluge of other random users remains to be seen.
	== Backlog at ] ==
			One of my alts was created to test for a bug which is now fixed in the upcoming IP Account thingie.
	There is a fairly large backlog at ]. Volunteers? --] 04:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	* I went there (hours ago) and fund one that needed some pretty extreme cleanup instead, so I got sidetracked. Typical! <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
			Several times I've created a new account to be sure that something works the way I remember it, in order to help someone else or to take a screenshot (for socials or a blog). WMF improvements have been focused on the onboarding process and branding so there have been a lot of changes over the last 20 years. If you haven't created an alt on en.wiki in the last decade, I doubt it will be as you remember it. Trying to 'reset' an old account has some interesting effects too, but that's another story.
	==Another crusader comes to Misplaced Pages==
	This one's cause is "Korean fabrication". {{User|Moonlitcherryblossom}} has already created such gems as the now-deleted ] ("...draws up the list of Korean fabrication in Misplaced Pages. If you are student or using Misplaced Pages for an academic purpose, you MUST not use the topics below as references, otherwise, humiliate yourself in academic field."), the hopefully-soon-deleted ] ("Because of the Korean spread the world, economic growth and knowledge of English, Korean have started the fabrication to the world based on her hope and strange nationalism. The purpose of this category is to prevent the informaiotn from Korean fabrication.") and the ] ] ("Koreate is a terminology to discribe the Korean fabrication toward the origin and background of history and culture especially from Japanese and Chinese. Koreate have been fused with Korean and create and also known as Coreate.") Just a heads-up. --] | ] 14:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I suspect the only thing holding him back from calling you an agent of the Korean government on his user talk is his poor English. *ducks* <tt>].]</tt> 14:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	* I left a polite but firm note and also nuked {{la|Koreate}}. Let us know if this does not work, if the edit-warring resumes a ban will likely be uncontroversial. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
			Some of my alts have a humourous intent, ] is my most longstanding one, and I was setting up several alts for a christmas joke when the issue at ] blew up. I've had positive feedback on my joke alts, most was off-wiki, but see for example ].
	== ] ==
			As far as I can tell there are no en.wiki policies against how I use alts . As far as I can tell there are no WMF policies against how I use alts. I'm aware that a number of people appear to be deeply opposed to it, but I've always been unclear why, maybe you'd like to try and explain it?
	I am confused with ]. There are many images which explain about fair use, claiming the reasons for fair use. Still they are tagged with no fair use rationale. Am I misunderstanding something wrong? There are some of the examples enlisted below:
	*]
	*]
	*]</br>
	Are these images not fair use rationale? Regards, ] <sup>(]/])</sup> 15:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	: The first has a source but no rationale; the other two have rationales, but they're woefully inadequate. For comparison ] has a reasonable fair use rationale. -- ] | ] 15:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)		As far as I can tell, my use of alts is independent on the issues which earned me my topic ban. They were all done on my main account which is also my real name and the one I use on my socials. ] (]) 01:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{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)
	: Note specifically that an image can not be intrinsically "fair use", it's only fair use ''on a specific article'', and the rationale has to mention that article (or a ''small'' number of articles) and explain ''for each'' why it's fair use ''in that specific context''. -- ] | ] 15:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
			::@], I'm confused about this discussion of "alts" – do you have a list of these somewhere? If they aren't disclosed clearly on wiki, and they're being used to evade a topic ban or to participate in project space, they aren't alts – they're socks. – ] 23:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::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)
	::Thanks for the input Finlay McWalter, now I got a better idea for that. For example, ] has two file links, whereas it is fair use rationale for only one article, i.e. ]. Then image should be removed from another listed article? How these cases could be handled, once it was removed from the page and again someone uses the image on another article? ] <sup>(]/])</sup> 15:24, 11 December 2006 (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've removed it from the other page, indeed the fair use rationale only covers one of the pages and on the page about the author doesn't even meet the basics of the tag applied to the image "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question", where the article on the author doesn't do. It would fail ] "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." --] 16:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
			:::Well said. The TBAN applies to the ''person behind the accounts'' regardless of which account they use. ] (]) 07:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:: And also every single edit Stuartyeates has made since January 2024 is a sockpuppetry violation since several of the alts were blocked then (there are also blocks from earlier but they were username softblocks so can be ignored here), right? ] ] 00:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Sudden spate of userspace school essays with AI art ==
	== Johnson family Categories ==
			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)
	Last week I spent a lot of time overhauling ]. Among the tasks that I felt were essential was the renaming of certain specific families. In particular I had hoped to rename ] to ] and ] to ]. For detail see ] ]. These changes are for consistency with the entire category and specifically ] and ]. The proposals generated little or no interest (the former had 1 support other than my own nomination and the latter had 0 support). Neither had opposition. Basically, no one but me cares. I would still like these categories renamed even though no one else cares. Can an admin do this for me. Please respond to my talk page if there is an issue with this request. ] 15:27, 11 December 2006 (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>
	*Yes, someone will. It is not uncommon on CFD and TFD for a request to get little comments, and in such cases we see no reason not to comply. At the moment CFD is a bit backlogged, but someone will get to it soon. (]) 15:44, 11 December 2006 (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)
			:::Another one just appeared at ]. ] (]) 15:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			:The good news is that the few references I checked were real, not LLM hallucinations. Hoping the AI is only used for images, not text. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 16:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Is there any kind of guideline about including AI artwork in articles on here or is it just based on people's feelings in the moment at this point? --] (]) 14:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Unblock tennislover ==
			::There'sn't. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 10:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::IMHO we shouldn't have any AI artwork in articles, because leaving all "artists' livelihood" concerns aside, image-generating AI is, as I understand it, often trained using copyrighted images - which makes their creations copyright violations. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::This is not true. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 04:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Commons treats AI works as being in the public domain because copyright requires human authorship, however there's a warning about derivative works. I personally agree with The Bushranger that they should all be treated a copyvios, but that's something that's working its way through the courts, IIRC. ] (]) 17:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I would concur with jpxg. You're incorrect on this front. By that logic, anyone who was trained in artistic methods of the another living/recently deceased artist (say ]) couldn't legally make similar paintings. ] (]) 22:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::It is ''prima facie'' possible to create derivative (e.g. copyright-encumbered) works in literally any medium. This does not mean that all works are derivatives. For example, this ASCII sequence is a derivative work:
			<pre>
			_o_
			| <--- Spider-Man
			/ \
			</pre>
			This does not mean that the ASCII character set ''itself'' infringes copyright, nor that all ASCII sequences infringe copyright. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 17:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Note: I have informed the ] of this discussion. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request ==
	An additional checkuser was performed on {{User|Tennislover}} at ]. Based on this, I would like to assume good faith and unblock Tennislover (though obviously not Cute 1 4 u). However, I would like some reasonable amount of consensus before doing so. This is a particularly difficult case and I want to avoid even the possibility of a wheel war. Given that Twister Twist appears to have been a sockpuppet of Tennislover, I may be a bit hasty. But given the situation and given Tennislover's extreme patience and civility during this process, I believe an unblock and a general-Misplaced Pages-apology to be appropriate. I am ''not'' asking or demanding that the blocking admin apologise, however, as policy seems to have been followed appropriately; instead, whoever unblocks this user (myself, if I do) should extend an apology to the user. --] 22:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
			The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}:
	:It is fairly obvious that ] and ] are in contact outside of Misplaced Pages. Both have also been "cleared" from suspicion as sockpuppets of ], however, this connection is still suspicious overall. Since ] is not blocked, I think ] should be unblocked as well (pending explanations for actual sockpuppet accounts of Tennislover), but I do still hold some reservations about the character behind this account. -- ] (]) 22:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
			{{tqb|I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: ] and ] (note that the two other accounts –- ] and ] -- at ] was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me.
			Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (], ], ]) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at ]). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see ]). I have created over 900 pages (see ]), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance ], ], ], ] or the event ] that is barely mentioned at the English ]. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see ] and ].
	:Support the unblock on the grounds that he is not Cute 1 4 u. Not taking into account any other actions. ]] 06:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
	::] did the unblock already. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 08:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Yes, sorry guys. I wasn't aware of this thread until just now. I unblocked on the basis of the inconclusive checkuser. ''']''' 16:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			However, as I have learned from it, I will never use multiple accounts anymore and adding controversial content without doing a proper fact-check. I will always listen to users, be constructive and be friendly. I will make sure you will not regret giving me my account back. I would like to work under the account ].}}
	== User clearing talk page ==
			] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	It is my understanding that a user clearing their own talk page of warnings and other messages is considered to be against policy. In the case of ] I warned him once about uploading a copyrighted image from a porn site, and marking is as free use. I had the image speedy deleted, and returned to his site and all traces of my warning were gone. In reviewing the history, he had been warned once previously by another user. I returned the previous warning, and my own to his page, and left a polite note indicating that this (removing warnings) was against policy. If anyone else would care to discuss this with him, I'd appreciate it, as he has reverted me twice already. Maybe another opinion, or two might clarify the situation.
			:'''Support unbanning and unblocking''' per ]. ] (]/]) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	] 23:25, 11 December 2006 (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)
	:No. Users may remove warnings from their talk page. At least it is a sign they were read. Archiving is preferred, but removing is allowed. If you are concerned that the user might be hiding misconduct, make sure to use an informative edit summary--that can not be removed from the page history. ] 23:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per above.] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Endorse one account proviso. ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: ]. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would '''Support''' with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of ]. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they ''seem'' to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. ] (]) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. ] (]) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' User seems to have recognized what he <!-- before someone complains about my use of the gender-neutral he, this user is male per what they've configured settings to be --> did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. ''']]''' 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*<s>'''Weak Support''', the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. ] (]) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</s>
			:*'''Oppose''', I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. ] (]) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Support'''. Completely support an unblock; see my comment ] when his IP was blocked in April. ] (]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see ''clear'' evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like may well be on notable competitions, but with content like {{tq|On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.}}, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. ] (]) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Currently '''oppose'''; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. ] (]) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:{{yo|Ahri Boy }} Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. ] (]) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. ] (]) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "]"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. ] (]) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. ] (]) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::See . ] (]) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. &spades;]&spades; ] 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). ] (]) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. ] (]) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:: I think saying that {{tq|I will never use multiple accounts anymore}} and that he wants to {{tq|make constructive content}} would indicate that {{tq|the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.}} ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. ] (]) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... ] (]) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:: And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}. ] (]) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to ]. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''] ]'''</span> 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Several admins just standing by interrogating a user who was the subject of an obviously bad block. ==
	:I knew you would do this, this is incredibly rude, I'm offended by these actions towards me and my Talk page, I already reverted your vandalism and quoted the etiquette, you removed that image before the stated date and did not give me a chance to provide a source, that's bad etiquette. I provided a source and legal information after you wrongfully removed the image before I could even react, you have stained my talk history and if you continue this I may consider your actions extremely hostile and get an Administrator involved. The issues were resolved, and thus I removed them from my talk page, which I am allowed to do, and you had no right to continually revert the Talk page, if you take one more hostile action I will involve an Administrator.--] 01:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
			See ].
	My apologies but I am only quoting policy. I've been quite friendly and informative on your talk page, rather than hostile. The reason that we are here is because it made no sense to argue with you. After you reverted me twice, I thought it best to involve others. The image you uploaded was from a porn site, and had a clear copyright on the page it was posted on. You marked it as fair use when it was not. You didn't give credit to the movie it was from, nor the people in it, not mention the copyright. Apparently whomever did delete the image also agreed that it was a copyvio. ] 02:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
			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.
	Atom, you are mistaken. There is no policy against removing warnings from talk pages. --] 02:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
			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)
	:My apologies, again. I got the idea from this: "Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. If you continue to remove warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 14:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)"(See here)
			: 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)
	:Which references "Furthermore WP:VAND states: Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism. It is generally acceptable to remove misplaced vandalism tags, as long as the reasoning is solid."
			::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)
	:Which references ]. The current reading of which (among other things) says "Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion." Which is somewhat ambiguous, and could be read to mean "removal ''by archiving'' of comments is at the users discretion" OR "policy does not prohibit removal, nor does it prohibit archiving at the users discretion." As the phrase starts with the clause "...and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page..." the former interpretation (removal ''by archiving'' is acceptable.") makes the most sense.
			::@], that "has to comment before you can do anything" bit is policy: ] and ]. -- ] (]) 01:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::The problem with said policy being the text {{tq|are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators}}, as we can see from the above case and in many other cases (GreenLipstickLesbian has an example list below). There really is not a reason to '''presume''' that admins carefully consider their actions, personally. Particularly when that consideration is not showcased from an action in the first place. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I left a note explaining our rules for new articles about companies. That’s usually a good first step when a new editor writes a promotional article.
			:I can no longer see deleted contributions but all I see mentioned on 82James82’s talk page is a deleted sandbox. My understanding is that we are more tolerant of subpar material in sandboxes than article space. —<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 22:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			::That is my understanding as well. It wasn't submitted to AFC or anything, just a sandbox, and if it had been submitted at AFC they would've rejected it, not blocked the user. This was the users's first edit, and they got an instant no-warning indef hard block, and when they appealed they got an interrogation session instead of a reversal of the unjustified block. ] ] 22:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:The ideal admin, in my mind, considers the protection of new editors to be one of their highest duties. They should ] to prevent or undo blocks. An admin who leans toward blocking without warning, or leans toward refusing unblocks when the editor expresses good faith, is more dangerous than a thousand vandals. ] (]) 22:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Good deletion by JFB, bad block by JFB, and good unblock by <s>JSS</s> Beeb. '''But''' after the unblock, there no attempt at all to discuss this with JFB, SL, or 331 before coming here. Couldn't we try that first? Shouldn't we? ] (]) 22:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I think we need to have more public discussions about the community's expectation with regard to the treatment of new users. I know you have concerns that the intent of such discussions is to escalate matters, but my intent is the opposite. The two recent recalls happened because the admin corps did not effectively hold colleagues accountable. If we establish a public consensus here that clarifies that that is something we do want from admins, that should decrease the chances of further ugly recall proceedings. ] ] 22:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::My user talk is hardly not public. ] (]) 23:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Agree with Floquenbeam - spam sandbox should have been deleted, the user should not have been blocked. ]] 11:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:(non-admin nosy parker comment) Significa Liberdade is one of our newest admins, so I think it's completely understandable that she would be nervous about going against two long-standing administrators. I think, @], discussing this with her first would have been a good idea.
			:331dot, let's look at some other unblock requests you've declined. They do demonstrate a pattern of finding reasons not to overturn suboptimal blocks, and that's a pattern you should maybe think about changing. I know you made each of these declines in good faith, and you accepted that they other administrators had made them in good faith. And I didn't go hunting for these- these were already on my radar for different reasons, and I made a note of them. Sorry for the dates being all out of place.
			:* This user was indeffed for "disruptive editing", because on their twentieth edit they added "]" to a plant that grew in south east Europe. (But was their twentieth edit and they'd never been told about redlinked categories before- just welcomed with a 4im vandalism warning for adding ] to an American surname article. No, I'm not kidding). In their unblock request, they said {{tq|I am new to Misplaced Pages and was unaware that I was vandalizing articles by adding these categories. I now understand that I was adding nonexistent categories, which is why they showed up in red and were seen as disruptive.}}. 331dot declined the request, saying {{tq|Once you have gained a better understanding of policies, and have an edit you wish to make, please request unblock at that time}}.
			:* This sock block was overturned by @] (with the rationale {{tq|This block is clearly a mistake. There was no abusive use of the two accounts}}), but 331dot had declined the initial unblock request using the justification {{tq|You used one account to comment on the talk page of the other, this makes it seem like you are multiple peopleI see no grounds here at this time to remove the block}}. (For clarification, the user never hid the fact they used two accounts. I don't see any ], neither did JBW, so I don't know how 331dot did).
			:* This user was no-warning indeffed as NOTHERE due to their edits to the common.js/monobook.css page, and because the blocking admin seemingly did not notice the fact that the account also made several minor grammatical corrections to mainspace articles, had fixed formatting errors, and added cleanup tags. 331dot declined their unblock, saying {{tq| This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia.}} (What vandalism or disruptive editing?)
			:* This user was no-warning indeffed for making tables in a wikiproject. (No, I'm not kidding). A more experienced editor confirmed that they'd asked the other editor to assist in projectspace. 331dot declined to unblock them, saying {{tq|It's not at all obvious to me that's why you are here.}}. No, I don't get all the Wikiproject people either, but the community consensus says that yes, those editors are ].
			:TL;DR: {{tq|I see no grounds here at this time to remove the block}} is not a good attitude towards unblocks. We <em>want</em> editors to come back, and learn from their mistakes. We don't demand perfection. ] (]) 00:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Yikes! <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 00:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The decline reason for Pbnjb1, with Yamla ''enforcing'' said provision no less, seems shamelessly punitive. Only unblocking when they say they have an edit to make? Just wow.... &#8213;] <sub>]</sub> 02:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::''That'' block is pretty awful. Straight to final warning for vandalism, then to an indef. No vandalism whatsoever. -- ] (]) 02:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I will also point out their unblock denial at ], where a new editor who makes what appear to be respectful inquiries is accused of ] (frankly, I don't think they're POV pushing so much as just being polite, which we should encourage) and blocked for sockpuppetry with no further explanation of any sockpuppetry at all, and with a CU stating there is no evidence at all. That editor, by the way, still has not been unblocked, despite being willing to discuss concerns civilly with other editors and with administrators and neither has ] (the 4th example listed). ] <sup>(]) </sup> 07:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::: To be fair, there are only two options with that user - (a) they ''are'' a sock/troll/LTA, and (b) they are someone who is familiar with Misplaced Pages, perhaps editing as an IP, who made the spectacularly bad decision to create an account and head straight for ANI to vote for banning Fram (and you would have thought in that situation they would have ''known'' it would look suspicious). In that context, the CU data being negative may not be the positive thing it might look like, as if they are the former they probably ''would'' know how to avoid CU issues. Yes, we should AGF, but I can see why people didn't in that case. The other cases may be more problematic, though. ] 09:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::: How can you see why people didn't? There is no "obvious evidence to the contrary" unless I'm missing something, the evidence presented is entirely circumstantial and non-obvious. ] (]) 15:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::: {{u|Horse Eye&#39;s Back}} You wouldn't be even ''slightly'' suspicious of a brand new editor that dived into an ANI block discussion with one of their first few edits? I would. ] 19:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::: The guideline isn't slightly suspicious its obvious evidence. As a non-admin I would also have to temper any suspicion I had with being found liable for biting a newcomer, hence even when I'm almost entirely certain I still have to be open and respectful (and to just walk away when I can't actually prove anything). I do think that we tend to be pretty harsh with newcomers... If they're not good editors we ding them for being incompetent net negatives and if they're good we start calling them puppets. With all honesty I can say that I don't envy you admins though, the inherent conflict between being swift and severe with socks and AGF, BITE, etc is one of the great questions we face as a community. ] (]) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::: No, which is why I didn't block them (I saw the edit when it was made). Looking at their previous few edits - using @ in their first edit, spelling lead as "lede", diving straight into AMPOL, that ''is'' a judgment call someone had to make. ] 19:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::@] hold up, surely spelling lead as "lede" is evidence that they ''aren't'' a long-time wikipedian? We spell it "lead". It's American journalists who spell it "lede". -- ] (]) 20:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::I see most editors refer to "lede" not "lead", which while I can't stand the terminology personally is well documented as a concept per ]. It is therefore not indication of an editors' experience, ever. ] (]) 20:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::The linked page says "It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph." and seems to overall document that we use lead not lede. ] (]) 22:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::People using "lede" on Misplaced Pages is one of my biggest pet peeves, but I see plenty of long-standing editors use it, so I also don't take it as indicative of anything nefarious. &#8213;] <sub>]</sub> 16:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::@] agreed, I hate it. ] ] 16:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I think there's probably a conversation about how unblocks are handled that is worth having, but I'm sure having trouble getting fired up about this unblock in particular. An editor makes a blatantly promotional LLM-generated page, which is deleted; once they're blocked, two admins politely ask about the editor's possible connection to the company. It looks to me like it was headed for an unblock. No one's been rude or made threats, including the editors who dropped templated notices earlier. This looks better to me than ''most'' interactions I see between newcomers writing promo and experienced editors. -- ] (]) 01:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{cot|Deleted sandbox for non-admins' context – Tamzin}}
			<pre>
			== Tripleye ==
			Tripleye is an integrated technology solution advancing the future of intelligent machines across a range of industries with cutting-edge autonomous systems and modules.
			The company equips engineering teams with the tools needed to enable fully autonomous vehicles or specific autonomous functionalities. Its camera-based approach, rather than relying on LiDAR, delivers unmatched visual detail, scalability, affordability, and versatility.
			By leveraging advanced computer vision and AI technologies, Tripleye provides innovative solutions that empower teams to build intelligent systems tailored to their unique operational demands. The company’s patented technology, developed by an experienced team with a history of groundbreaking research and innovation, outperforms other solutions on the market.
			Tripleye is headquartered in Berlin, Germany, with additional offices in Karlsruhe and New York City.
			== History ==
			Tripleye’s origins trace back to early work by Jens Schick and David Wegner as far back as 2013. Jens Schick, a pioneer in autonomous vehicle technology, built the first autonomous car at Daimler in 1994 as part of a groundbreaking project called ‘Prometheus.’ This was the first-ever autonomous vehicle, predating the 2004 DARPA challenge by a decade and marking Europe’s leading role in AV innovation.
			After Daimler, Jens joined Bosch to establish its vision group from scratch and later launched Myestro Interactive, a research company focused on autonomous vehicle sensing technologies. In 2019, Jens met Francois Dubuisson, a seasoned entrepreneur with extensive experience in building startups. Recognising the transformative potential of Jens’ innovations, Francois joined forces with him to start a new venture, and Tripleye was born.
			== Technology ==
			Tripleye’s technology is built on a unique camera-based approach that offers unmatched visual detail, scalability, and cost efficiency compared to traditional LiDAR systems. By combining advanced computer vision and AI-driven analytics, Tripleye enables the development of fully autonomous systems and customised functionalities tailored to diverse industry needs.
			With a robust foundation of patented innovations and decades of expertise, the company delivers hardware and software modules designed to outperform market competitors. This technology is ideal for industries requiring precise, adaptable, and scalable solutions.
			== Impact ==
			Tripleye has gained significant recognition and support for its contributions to autonomous systems and intelligent machines, including:
			* Funding from the European Innovation Council, which champions pioneering deep tech solutions.
			* Inclusion in the NVIDIA Inception Program, an exclusive accelerator for cutting-edge AI and data science startups.
			These achievements underscore Tripleye’s commitment to advancing the future of intelligent systems across a range of global industries.
			== References ==
			* (https://sifted.eu/pro/briefings/deeptech)
			* (https://sifted.eu/pro/briefings/autonomous-vehicles-2024)
			* (https://spielfelddigitalhub.medium.com/an-interview-with-tripleye-bd3b0f61080a)
			</pre>
			{{cob}}
			:One thing worth all of us considering, when dealing with potential spammers, is that if someone is using ChatGPT, as James appears to have here, that makes it a lot harder to infer their motivation, for better and for worse. That is to say, someone could be a completely inept spammer using ChatGPT to masquerade as a moderately ] spammer, <em>or</em> could be a good-faith editor who's made the foolish decision to rely on ChatGPT and has inadvertently used a spammy tone as a result. In this case, the deletion was definitely within reason under ], but it's a good illustration of why blocking on the first offense of spam is usually overkill, unless it's like blatant link-spamming ("for the best online slots click " etc.).{{pb}}Jimfbleak, I'm wondering if you maybe have some script misconfigured, or if there's a misunderstanding on policy here, as pertains to username blocks? I noticed ] yesterday too. That user did turn out to be socking, but your initial {{tl|uw-softerblock}} didn't really make sense, as ''Onüç Kahraman'' is a film that came out in 1943, not something subject to any ongoing promotion. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 22:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Looks like they were using ], a script I also use. It is somewhat easy to select the wrong drop downs, or to use the default selections on autopilot. ] (]) 22:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Apparently the latest word is now at ], which says "When users behave in a manner which is outside Misplaced Pages norms, they are often warned on their talk page. It is generally agreed that users who receive such warnings should not remove them from their talk page if they are valid." But, this is not policy, or even guideline, but more of a discussion, as there are arguments for, and against enforcement. (And likely the user in this case would continue his claim that his upload of a copyrighted screenshot of a porn movie was valid, and so the warning ''not valid''.)
			*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)
	:I also found (doing a search) dozens of recent cases of people being warned for removing warnings from their talk pages.
			*: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)
	:If it was policy in the past, and now a discussion is active as to whether it should be enforced or not, is it no longer policy, or what? What stands behind the statement "It is generally agreed that users who receive such warnings should not remove them from their talk page if they are valid."? Why are at least two admins here convinced that it is not policy, when clearly it has beenin the past?
			:::::::::::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 ===
	:Thanks, ] 03:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
			* Having read this discussion, I wanted to provide an example of how issues such as those raised can also lead to deterring users from reporting others. Apologies for the length of comment, but the point is predominantly in the context here. I'm aware that the prime example wasn't based on reports that led to blocks (as far as I understand, could be wrong), but simply knowing that there can be a high bar for an unblock, can be a deterrent in editors reporting issues, even if an incentive to others. This is my personal feeling/opinion based on recently reporting a user for the first time, in a situation where there is a very high possibility that the editor becomes an (exclusively) constructive contributor, rather than regularly disruptive. The specifics of the example isn't the point, only that I almost certainly would have reported earlier if not seriously concerned that the user would fail to "prove" they were worthy for an unblock. Fortunately I had a very competent and understanding admin deal with the case and there wasn't even the pedanticism of an official unblock request (as is expected, or even required?) which was refreshing, but rather a simple back and fourth discussion, and the bar for the unblock was ], exactly as I'd hoped. For me this was a huge relief, as I'm a strong believer that even if only 1-10% of editors unblocked go on to become constructive contributors, then this is a huge number of potential useful editors, many of whom are here today no doubt. I'd be a lot more inclined to report serious issues rather than ignore if it were more common or possible for admins to override rejections of unblocks, or otherwise set lower bars for unblocks when applicable (that's subjective, I know). Maybe I've misinterpreted the examples above and my own, but I do wonder how many other users feel similar, those who shy away from noticeboards when possible, and don't want to be responsible for a user being indeffed due to failure to research and understand every policy and guideline that's ever existed in order to satisfy a request. I'm also aware of the cost/benefit scenario in the opposite direction, that of users being unblocked too easily leading to more serious issues down the line, but I do also think the balance could be better achieved overall. ] (]) 17:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	::That user you cite was blocked. Blocked users get far less space than clean users. &ndash; ]] 06:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
			*:We get loads of people adding the same copy they use for user pages on LinkedIn, Facebook etc. That's all they are here for. When they ask to be unblocked we ask them what they want to edit about, and it's still their employer. ] (]) 18:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::99% sure this reply isn't to me, maybe it's to the comment above? ] (]) 18:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Well I intended it as a response to you. I accept I skimmed your comment as it was long. I was trying to explain that most spam blocks are clear cut. I wouldn't have blocked the one this thread was about, and I regularly reject requests to block people. ] (]) 18:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::Apologies for the cryptic example then, has nothing to do with spam blocking. My comment was intended as part of the broader discussion of block/unblock procedures, rather than the example in question. ] (]) 18:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I do really worry about this, partly for the reasons you describe and partly because I think it sets people up to either become unblockable or the receiver of a really rough reality check once they stop flying under the radar. (Currently dealing with an unblock request from someone who fell into the latter category, then ruined their chances of a quick return by socking - not an ideal trajectory.) I know this doesn't really address the broader cultural issues, but when you're dealing with someone like that, it's hugely helpful if you can get them to understand what they did wrong that led to the block. The more of that that happens, the more likely their appeal is to be accepted. Part of the work of making unblocks a kinder process can be done (and done more effectively, imo) by non-admins. If you do this and get yelled at by some other admin, feel free to blame/call on me. -- ] (]) 18:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::Also, if you do this kind of thing, you're inevitably going to run into someone who is completely unhelpable at the present time. This can be really hard to disentangle yourself from, emotionally and from a sunk-costs kind of perspective. I think it's harder for admins actually, since admins are bound by ] and a non-admin is free to give up so long as they maintain basic civility while they do so. Forewarned is forearmed, but also, if you get trapped in a hopeless situation like that and need someone to be the Mean One who bails you out, I'm happy to do that too. -- ] (]) 18:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::In this specific case, the user was blocked for a combination of spamming and a username violation, which was an obvious error. They were still blocked for it for three days after explicitly asking in an unblock requests what was wrong with their name. That's miles away from the scenario you are describing. ] ] 19:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::It's also not similar to the scenario CNC is describing, which CNC already explicitly acknowledged. {{tq|I'm aware that the prime example wasn't based on reports that led to blocks (as far as I understand, could be wrong), but simply knowing that there can be a high bar for an unblock, can be a deterrent in editors reporting issues, even if an incentive to others.}} -- ] (]) 19:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::Or, better, {{tq|My comment was intended as part of the broader discussion of block/unblock procedures, rather than the example in question.}} -- ] (]) 19:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::@] probably referencing directly what I'm talking about in future would help, apologies for any confusion here. My long-winded comment was effectively in support of the concerns you raised, even if somewhat indirectly or more broadly, and asilvering was merely providing some alternative context that is also relevant, even if not necessarily to the broader discussion in question. The quotes above should cover this, as well as potentially {{tq|"The specifics of the example isn't the point,..."}}. ] (]) 19:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::Thanks, I'll bare it in mind and appreciate the context you provided. The example of a blocked user turning sock is all too common I imagine, and 100% agree can be more likely avoided with more non-admin warnings (if that's the point you were making, which is what I took away there, so please clarify if I'm off the mark here). With my example above, the user was warned numerous times by non-admins and presumably thought it was "all talk" rather than reality (ie, being warned about being blocked, but never actually being blocked). This is also what happens when you spend a year warning a user and not taking the situation further based on the concerns raised above. Anyway, I digress as per often. I'm far from shy from sending warning templates to users (in fact I do so religiously, because usually it works). So the editors' ability to be unblocked was handed to them on a plate already, as intended, with the admin simply reminding them of the plate they had been given previously. Without these warnings, they quite possibly would have been left in the dark to research every policy and guideline that's ever existed to in order to determine whether that was the reason for a block, which is thoroughly unrealistic. At least, this can be the case, even if not so often I realise. Even knowing there is an admin or two I could ping into a discussion, that understand my POV, would be a huge benefit in future. Without intending to sound rude to admins here, going to a noticeboard is an awful lottery system that I try and avoid at all costs unless completely desperate. And hopefully, this context can be understood within the discussion in question, that of never wanting potentially useful editors permanently blocked unnecessarily. Which I've noticed can be as simple as failure to format an unblock request 🤮 ] (]) 18:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::{{tq|if that's the point you were making, which is what I took away there, so please clarify if I'm off the mark here}} - in this case I brought up the socking simply to illustrate how someone who gets blocked can end up blocked for a ''long'' time, much longer than should have been necessary. That's always going to be a possibility if you report someone, and it's not your fault. Sometimes people make bad choices, doesn't matter what you do. -- ] (]) 19:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::Agreed, no one is at fault when reporting editors based on the outcome, ever, but I see it as being partly responsible none the less (as the instigator of the outcome). No one is immune to the outcomes that they have caused fundamentally, even if they are not to blame. Ie if I become partly responsible for an editor being blocked for too long, it's a solid good reason not to report users in future, based on basic <s>]</s> ]. Even if I'm not implementing a bad admin action, I would remain the cause of such an action per ] and remaining ]. ] (]) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			* I'll start by saying that, absent some sort of specific statement about why that particular block reason was selected, I too am a bit baffled for choosing that reason. On the other hand, I'm having a hard time getting too excited about the indef block of an account that, by their own admission, was intending to write promotional articles about companies that don't come close to meeting our notability criteria, while using Misplaced Pages as a springboard to return to their career path. What I am seeing here is more a reason to *change the block reason* rather than a reason to unblock. Any admin can reblock with a more correct block message without getting into the whole "well, you need permission from the original blocking admin" stuff, which isn't actually material when any admin could have reblocked with a different block message. ] (]) 05:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			Looking through 331dot declining unblocks reveals quite a few instances where either 331dot or the blocking admin takes an extremely newbie-unfriendly approach:
	:I just dug my way through the various discussions, and I'd have to support removing "warnings" after they have been resolved, though I don't agree a notice to try and include copyright information for a picture is a "warning", nor after reading about "warnings" does it seem to fall in to that category. The discussions lean strongly in the direction of viewing it as unfavorable to delete "warnings" and disruptive, but not against policy, this issue should be cemented instead of unclear and somewhat up to the Administrator as how to deal with it. Also, does any reply to user's Talk page qualify as a "warning" if it is from an Administrator? I am unclear if the request made on my Talk page was a "warning" or not, and if I should have removed it after the issue was resolved if it was indeed a "warning".--] 06:17, 12 December 2006 (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)
	::I think this is pretty important to resolve in terms of what is precedent and what is desirable and defensible. I've seen several cases in the past where removal of warnings from user talk pages has resulted in severe tongue lashings and statements that removal of warnings will be taken as an indication that the user is a troublemaker or is trying to hide their wrongdoing. The negative consequences of confusion on this are pretty significant. Therefore, there should at least be a guideline on the matter, if not a policy statement of some kind. --User:Ceyockey (<small>'']''</small>) 09:28, 12 December 2006 (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)
	*Here is the situation. Some people thought it would be a good idea to prevent users from removing warnings. They said so, people disagreed, they went ahead and put it on the ] page anyway. It was removed as a major change without consensus. They re-added it. It was removed. They re-added it. Et cetera. Along the way templates were made up and used to 'enforce' this philosophy. However, this was never approved by the sort of broad consensus needed for something to become policy... and eventually a broad consensus was formed that it should ''not'' be policy and that the templates should be deleted. Atom quoted the right section of ] above, but apparently missed the relevant portion... "Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages '''other than your own'''...". In short, the policy specifically excludes a user's own talk page from the list of those where they are prohibited from removing other people's comments. Edit warring to enforce keep something on a person's talk page which they don't want there is a good way to get a block for 3RR violation and/or harassment. Don't do it. --] 10:27, 12 December 2006 (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)
	**Thanks for the historical perspective. For clarity's sake, here is the text of the entire (short) subsection from ]. --User:Ceyockey (<small>'']''</small>) 10:42, 12 December 2006 (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.
	**:''quote from WP:VAND Policy'' "Talk page vandalism: Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion"
			::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, I would have assumed it wrong to edit someone else's user talk page without having seen the rule, but hopefully Atom now understands this to prevent further incidents with others which might be seen as hostile or even reported as vandalism.] 18:03, 12 December 2006 (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)
	:I'm still not certain what the policy is or isn't. Others continue to warn people for removing stuff from their own talk page. The quote above, I quoted in my message, is ambiguous, and not clear. Apparently many people read the quote that is given two ways. Looking at the quote above, and particularly the last sentence, it says: " The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion". As I said before, it could be read (and obviously is by many people)
	a) The prohibition "above does not appply to the user's own talk page, where this policy does not not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments" This is being read by some as "removal by archiving is acceptable and not prohibited."
	b) Others read it as "removal is not prohibited, nor is archiving".
	We need to rewrite the paragraph so that the policy is clear. We need a clear guideline or policy regarding the specific issue, not as some small portion of the vandalism policy. ] 22:00, 12 December 2006 (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)
	== Non-functioning redirect ==
			:There are no deleted contributions. — ] (]) 18:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	I've tried to get this to work myself, but it doesn't seem to be "taking", so I'm hoping that one of you guys with more power would be able to help out:
			:I don't see anything either, and this isn't a CU block, so I'm just going to reverse this one. I've asked about the other. -- ] (]) 20:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::This is exactly my point, there is an attitude that people who post promo material are automatically {{tq|someone making a living by backlinking a website for a client}}and not just someone who is ignorant of Misplaced Pages policy. How are they supposed to learn if the first interaction they have with another Wikipedian is "you are already blocked, because you are a malicious spammer." and their second interaction is "you haven't immediately fully comprehended Misplaced Pages's policy on promotional edits so NOPE." I'm surprised the even made a second appeal. ] ] 03:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*We need to recognize that we're in an era in which WP:ROPE doesn't really work for Spam/UPE, even though it continues to apply for other forms of disruption. The cost in editor time of monitoring the contributions of a suspected paid editor after an unblock or warning are very high, because often the edits are benign on the face of it: whereas I have no qualms about warning an editor at AIV, because I know they'll be back if they vandalize again. I haven't looked into the specifics of the cases here, and am not intending to justify them, but we need to recognize that if we want to make it easier to unblock editors suspected of UPE, or to encourage admins to warn for a first offence, a starting point might be making it easier to monitor the contributions of these editors. ] (]) 17:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:An alternative could be ROPE + topic ban? As in, we give them a second chance, but if they go back to editing about the company/etc. they were promoting (or something broadly related to it), even if the edits themselves are innocuous, reblock. ] (] · ]) 17:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::That risks leaking private information about their conflict of interest/paid editing. ] (]) 17:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::True, I was only considering cases where the UPE was obvious (example: writing about a company in marketing jargon) rather than cases based on private evidence. ] (] · ]) 17:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::It also doesn't change the difficulty of monitoring. It still means someone who knows of the concerns needs to check ''every subsequent edit'' manually for issues: new editors often don't understand a TBAN, and a dedicated spammer is unlikely to want to follow the rules in the first place. I'm just spit-balling here, but wondering if an admin were able to add a flag to an editor's subsequent edits that would tell patrollers what the concern was. That feels somewhat big-brother-esque, but perhaps we'd be more willing to give rope in that case? ] (]) 17:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I know a generic "watchlist this user's edits" isn't a good idea, but enabling it specifically for users you unblocked could definitely be helpful. ] (] · ]) 17:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::@], I think that's exactly the sort of thing @] is saying is too much work when it comes to dedicated spammers. I keep an eye on the people I've rope-unblocked, but I couldn't do that at the rate that HJM does spam blocks, for example. Maybe he ''shouldn't'' be doing that many spam blocks; I don't know the circumstances enough to say so. -- ] (]) 17:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::Yep, it could be good to find a way to distribute this workload, and Vanamonde's idea might be better for that purpose. Flagging edits by recently ROPE-unblocked editors would be helpful, but would need to be workshopped to find a middle ground between a mark of shame and total invisibility. ] (] · ]) 17:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::There's a potentially good idea in there somewhere. In at least one of the cases above I might have held off on a block if I could have flagged all their edits for closer scrutiny by patrollers. ] &#124; ] 19:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::{{ping|Novem Linguae}} as the first technically minded admin I thought of, is this even within the realms of feasibility? ] (]) 22:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::{{tq|watchlist this user's edits}}. I think I recall a Phab ticket for this somewhere that was declined due to ] concerns. So I don't think devs will build this into MediaWiki.
			*::::::::{{tq|Flagging edits by recently ROPE-unblocked editors would be helpful}}. A user script could be written that runs itself on pages such as recent changes, the watchlist, and article histories, and highlights edits by users that have been added to a wiki page containing a list of users to highlight. Or highlights edits by users who have been unblocked within the last month. So yeah, that's technically possible. ] is a good place to request user scripts if y'all decide to go that route. –] <small>(])</small> 23:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::{{tqb|{{tq|watchlist this user's edits}}. I think I recall a Phab ticket for this somewhere that was declined due to ] concerns. So I don't think devs will build this into MediaWiki.}}Yep, which is why I thought limiting its availability to admins watchlisting users they personally unblocked could mitigate the ] risks. Even more if it's limited to unblocks from the last, say, 30 days (although giving a specific timeframe might be an incentive for these editors to just wait it out, so a specific number of edits that will show up on the watchlist might be better).{{pb}}For your second point, a script could very much be feasible. I think there's a way to retrieve a user's logs by script to check the date of their last unblock, and from there it's just like an admin/etc. highlighter script. I might do it actually, if I find the time for it (and everyone, feel free to remind me if it looks like I'm forgetting!) ] (] · ]) 23:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::For reference, see ]. ] (]) 06:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			====Examples: HJ Mitchell====
	The article ] is listed at AfD. This is a duplicate page of the longer and better-cited ], so I attempted to redirect it there which would get around the need for a protracted AfD. The redirect is mentioned in the page history, but the page itself is still obstinately there and un-redirected. If an admin could redirect the page accordingly (and consequently close the AfD), that would be great. ] - ] 23:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
			{{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)
	:Works for me. Try ]. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Well how do you like that? Something so simple yet so effective. Thanks for the tip, too. ] - ] 00:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
			:HJMitchell addresses some thinking behind the block in ]. Best, ] (]) 11:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Administrator ethics ==
			::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)
	Are administrators actually required to have ethics to continue being administrators? Are there any rules for administrators? ] 01:28, 12 December 2006 (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)
	*That's a leading question if there ever was one. What's on your mind? ] ] 01:31, 12 December 2006 (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)
	*''edit conflict'' Administrators are expected to abide by all of the conduct guidelines and policies that other Wikipedians are subject to, including ] and ], and they are subject to disciplinary action just like any other segment of the Wikipedian population. Are you thinking of something in particular? --User:Ceyockey (<small>'']''</small>) 01:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
			*:That one came to AIV for triggering filters five times in five minutes. They were repeatedly blanking an article section by section. ] &#124; ] 13:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::Except they weren't, after the warning they removed or merged sections ''once'' and then proceeded to add (at first glance acceptable) sources to the same article. They were a good faith editor trying to improve an article, probably making errors along the way. ] (]) 13:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::This is very bizarre. They're blocked for vandalism, yet not a single one of their edits has been reverted. @], could you please have another look at this block? – ] 20:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::@] (and anyone else interested) perhaps that one was a mistake. I've unblocked. ] &#124; ] 12:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Why is this here and not on the user's talk page? If you have a concern with an individual user, as is the case here, you should first try to resolve your issues with the individual user. That's step one of dispute resolution. ] (]) 19:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I agree. I think this whole section should be closed and discussion moved there.
			*: Somehow, I don't think that: ''"But we think our torches and pitchforks will be more effective here"'', is (or should be) a valid reason to skip steps in ] in this case. - and that's about as much AGF as I think I can give in this instance. Regardless of initial intent, this is starting to come across as a ]. The appearance of which would seem to be undermining whatever goals that those concerned may have. - <b>]</b> 20:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::To those concerned, it would seem not to be an entirely individualized issue. That is, in itself, a valid perspective. Class-borne exasperation is not itself collective discrimination or punishment.
			*::If you are implying this is shaping up to be a witch hunt, I have yet to see instances of magical thinking or confessions produced under torture. Instead, I see reasonable evidence for users' interrelated, reasonable concerns. Are people on WPO rude? Yes, and I see no bad faith in their incivility here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 20:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Not seen as magical thinking or torture? Welcome to ] : )
			*:::And your comments do not address that this should have been - and should be - carried out on the admin's talk page, as ] noted. - <b>]</b> 20:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::Remsense's comment directly addressed that, e.g. {{tqq|it would seem not to be an entirely individualized issue}} and {{tqq|interrelated, reasonable concerns}}. ] (]) 22:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::Looks at the thread title ("Examples: HJ Mitchell"), and your and their comments. Uh huh, sure. Care to try again? - <b>]</b> 23:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::Remsense's comment directly addressed whether this should be carried out on the admin's talk page, by using words such as {{tqq|not ... individualized}} and {{tqq|interrelated}}. ] (]) 23:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Endorse most blocks; unblock Anushka Sweety Shetty'''. Procedurally, the OP should have discussed on talk with the user directly first; but setting that aside. For the first example, these are obviously low quality spam external links. All blocks are reversible given a block appeal. This is clearly bread and butter admin blocking and within discretion, and helps keep the quality of the encyclopedia high that we use discretion to quickly dispatch obvious troublemakers and spammers. The blocking policy is not a strict legal document, but a set of guidelines. The norms and practices should be followed, but not religiously. This seems like a good example where the logic is sound and where the action can be reversed easily if someone legit gets hit by a block, but it seems to me that this is just promotional spam. As to the second block, the account was evidently a vandalism-only account. We don't require warnings for this, AFAIK. Finally, I do think that Anushka Sweety Shetty was accidentally mis-tagged as vandalism, and should be unblocked unless there's a good reason that I don't understand. However, one mistake is not a big deal and can be easily reversed. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	* Admins are subject to all the regular ], just like other users, plus specific policies in relation to the use of administrative tools, for example the ] in relation to the use of the ability to protect pages. --]&nbsp;(]) 06:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
			====Examples: 331dot====
	::Yes, I have something particular in mind. I think it would do administrators a lot of good to actually remind themselves of rules, you know, like administrator continuing education. And I think administrators should police themselves better and take more serious accusations of administrator misconduct at an early level--it might stop it from escalating, in fact, it probably would, since an editor simply scolding an administrator seems to have at least a little impact. Thanks for the links, Bainer, just what I was looking for. ] 15:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
			{{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)
	:::In all seriousness (and don't take this the wrong way), usually the only times administrators get scolded are by the editors that they've pissed off, and it almost never has any grounding in Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. For an admin to shrug off a complaint is to be expected. I'd be happy to take an unbiased look at a particular situation, if you want. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 16:00, 12 December 2006 (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 ), not some editor interested in adding spam. Your reply "You were posting blatant spam, the issue is not poor references." was clearly wrong, and the editor just needed an explanation of why something like is not an acceptable source, even if it was added to be helpful and not as "blatant spam". Trying to keep down a backlog is not an excuse to deny good-faith editors their chance to edit and improve along the way because you don't have the time to actually look at what happened. ] (]) 10:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::The problem with along-term abuse on Misplaced Pages is that doing anything about it takes too much effort--I was considering it yesterday, when I got misdirected by a user account that appears to be a blatant sock puppet of another editor's account. The effort required to post the evidence to ask someone to investigate anything is prohibitive. I would still rather write and edit articles.
			*::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)
	::::'''I would simply like administrators to consider what the impact of ignoring abuse by other administrators is, what the impact on Misplaced Pages as a whole is, when you let another administrator slide on some minor lack of ethics.''' What I think happens is the less conscientious editors are the ones most likely to cross ethics guidelines, and giving them a little leeway, by not calling them to task for minor unethical behaviour, can be mistaken for carte blanche to ignore administrators' ethical guidelines. But reigning them in immediately could give Misplaced Pages an administrator who takes ethics guidelines seriously and knows they are enforced.
			*:::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)
	::::Maybe I'll take you up on it in the future, but I doubt it, as I'd still rather write articles, and I get too steamed up about it. ] 16:31, 12 December 2006 (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
	:::::Long-term abuse on Misplaced Pages becomes all the longer if you don't report it. Seriously, how can anyone do something about a problem if they don't know about it? I understand that sometimes it takes quite a while to build up a case proper against someone, but it is time well spent if you honestly believe that they are harming the project. Try gathering evidence in bits and pieces (saving diff links to your hard drive so the offensive admin can't track it); fifteen minutes every week or so shouldn't impact your encyclopedia writing too much. Hell, even just saying "so and so is doing such and such" ''without'' providing diffs could be helpful; perhaps someone else has been having problems with them as well, and will chime in with their ''own'' diffs. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 17:35, 12 December 2006 (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'll consider it. I think it's a good idea to just gather evidence in bits and pieces, but I really think that the problem exists because administrators in general won't get involved when other administrators don't act in an ethical fashion. It is a valid point that administrators do take hits because of being administrators. I, for example, know for a fact that any time an administrator has taken me to task they've been wrong and I've been right, and, although other users wrongly feel this way, when only I rightly do, I realize that administrators get hit with this all of the time. One of the problems against me is that Misplaced Pages administrators are a self-selected group, and in spite of spending a lot of time editing over the past two months, I'm not really a hard-core web person, and if I go up against an administrator, saying they are and have been acting in an unethical manner for a long time, thereby making a big problem on Misplaced Pages an even worse problem, I will be faced with battling experienced Misplaced Pages administrators and users defending essentially their right to be a closed community. I've watched this happen a number of times on Misplaced Pages, where less Newbies have had legitimate complaints that have been bowled over in defence of more experienced editors who can play the system well. I think that, unless I become a more serious user than I am, and I won't and can't, because I have an outside job, that the cards are really stacked against me. I might give it a try, just saying "so and so is doing such" without the expectation of getting anything out of it, though. ] 18:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
			::Were there other edits besides what is visible + the one deleted article? ] (]) 15:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I don't believe I can answer your question without violating policy. ] (]) 15:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Okay, I don't really understand under what circumstances that could be true, but I guess I have to accept it. ] (]) 15:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::] (and others), it is not a UTRS ticket, it is a ] ticket (presumably a ] ticket). People who are given access to the queue sign the ] (which is the same NDA signed by editors with CUOS). Best, <b>]]</b>&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)
	::: Clarification please. You say "Yes, I have something particular in mind" and that administrators need to remind themselves of rules and such. But do you have a specific example incident or incidents, or repeated behavior (with a couple of examples) to discuss more concretely your feelings? Is there a specific circumstabnce where you feel that administrator conduct/ethics breaks down or might break down, which we can actually focus on? It's a bit hard to discuss if there is nothing actually the problem, and if there is something the problem then let's take a look at it closer to judge the ethics and conduct of those concerned. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 16:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
			:Thank you for this, I agree that the imperfect information landscape must have been frustrating all around and I applaud the good faith, patience, and understanding that the community has demonstrated on this issue. ] (]) 16:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			This was closed with the comment "Withdrawn by OP as explanation was deemed suitable. If anyone wants to harangue the multitudes, you may revert my close. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)" but this is incorrect. While the second case was convincingly explained, the ] case was not withdrawn and was a bad block and bad declined unblocked. ] (]) 10:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::I just really don't think that I can do this--see my comment above. Although I will consider some of the baby steps offered above. ] 18:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
			== Request for closure review ==
	* Nope, administrators aren't expected to have any ethics at all. Why, every morning on my way to work, I ''specifically'' try to run over at least three puppies and/or children. This is, of course, after indefinitely banning several new members over breakfast. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 16:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
			I would be grateful for a review of the decision to close the discussion at ] in favour of merging the article ] into ]".
	**Don't forget the sweet, sweet graft. Seriously, though, admins are subject to the same policies as everyone else, plus the admin related policies. If you have an issue with an admin, there are a bunch of ] procedures that might help resolve the issue. Admin continuing education is an interesting idea, but challenging to implement. ] 17:38, 12 December 2006 (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 .
	:::Yes, challenging to implement, but there are other ideas, like admitting there may be a problem and looking for other solutions that me be easier to implement. For example, review new administrators after a couple of months with the thought of making administrators better, or do self-nominated administrator review, and encourage it of all administrators. Maybe creating other types of administrators, specialists with limited powers (although I think the powers are already fairly limited), seeking ways of getting different types of administrators, figuring out if the process really does select only for like. The best thing about the editors at Misplaced Pages is the diversity, imo, that allows for creation of something with much broader appeal than a typical encyclopedia created entirely by editors educated at First World institutes of higher learning. Shouldn't the administrators be nearly as diverse? Or strive for some level of diversity?
	:::I tried ] with another user who then attacked me for disengaging from articles--one of the recommended steps in dispute resolution, I complained about being attacked for this, and was pretty much enitrely dismissed. I think ] is the most dangerous and useless and ill-thought out policy on all of Misplaced Pages if it backfires on newbies in such a way, and experienced editors don't bother, and administrators ignore it. I really believe in what Misplaced Pages is ''trying'' to do. And I think that most of the most frustrating parts of Misplaced Pages can't be changed without changing some of the really great things about Misplaced Pages. I really believe that a committee of anonymous volunteers ''can'' create something great, not just great, but better than everything else, ''because'' it dismisses the dominant paradigm that the only way to learn is through First World institutes of higher learning, and that ''anybody'' being able to edit is one of the best ideas not just in all of Misplaced Pages, but in all of the Web. But ] bites it big time, and even admins don't take its procedures seriously enough that they would bother to support some lame newbie trying them.
	:::Graft is probably what I was missing out on. There ought to be unwritten rules for Misplaced Pages, like bribe early and bribe often. But I'm a starving artist, and my work tends to be political, obscene, and requires frieght to ship, so maybe I could just be provided with a useful list of administrators within driving distance who would accept artwork in lieu of money?
	:::I do appreciate the thoughtful feedback. ] 18:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
			I subsequently with Compassionate727 who declined to revise their decision (entirely within their rights).
	== Malformed Category ==
			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:
	] was malformed. It shows as a redlink, but when you click the redlink start this category the category shows up. ] 01:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
	*That's not unusual. It means that there are several articles that have had the category added to them; it works similarly to 'what links here' for red-links, at the title level. Take a look at ] and you'll see a red cat-link at the bottom. There are a variety of reasons why this might happen, but I think we can rule out prior existence followed by deletion because the deletion log for the category is empty. --User:Ceyockey (<small>'']''</small>) 01:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
	*:P.S. note the category ], which is empty and up for renaming - it looks like there's been some activity around trying to create a category by perhaps an inexperienced editor. --User:Ceyockey (<small>'']''</small>) 01:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
	*:P.P.S. Well - there you are, participating in that discussion - gee. I didn't mean to insult if I did with the 'inexperienced' comment - it was a speculation. --User:Ceyockey (<small>'']''</small>) 01:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
			* I think the verdict that there was a "rough consensus to merge" is questionable.
	Fixed. Someone moved the articles in the category but not the category itself. --] 02:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
			* The proposal to merge, and subsequent discussion, date from immediately after the article's creation and while the article was in the process of being expanded and improved. The latest vote for merging is from 31 May 2024, and the article has been significantly expanded since then. My view would be that, in light of the changes made to the article since 31 May, it would be reasonable to revisit the matter to consider if any of the arguments in favour of merging have been satisfactorily addressed. In effect, the decision to merge does not give weight to any improvements to the article since May 2024.
			* On a practical level, it is unclear how the article could realistically be merged into You Like It Darker without running into ] or purging the vast majority of content. The article has not been merged over two months following the closure.
			If the settled view of the community is to merge the articles on the basis of the discussion in May-June then I will of course accept that, but on this occasion I would respectfully ask that some more consideration be given as to the best course of action. Thank you. ] (]) 14:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Gibraltarian. Request for removal of ban ==
			:'''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 Gibraltar pages were being targeted by a racist troll "Ecemaml", and my only "crime" was to take exception to his peddling his poison on WP. My POV was ALWAYS neutral, and my posts were made to ensure accuracy and NPOV. WP is NOT the place for users like Ecemaml and others to spout fascist inspired racist propaganda. The "arbitration" did NOT follow any procedure, my posts in my defence were vandalised repeatedly by Ecemaml, and there was no justification for my initial block. Merely disagreeing with "The bible according to Ecemaml" is NOT vandalism. This block MUST be removed if WP is to have any claim to neutrality. It is unjust, it is plain WRONG! I hope some Admin out there takes up this issue and acts accordingly. My block MUST be lifted. Justice demands no less. Gibraltarian. {{unsigned|212.120.225.97|14:14, 12 December 2006}}
			:'''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 ] ==
	:], for ease of reference. ] <small>]</small> 19:34, 12 December 2006 (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 ] ==
	:I don't know anything about the case or your editing beyond what you write above, but based on your word choice I can be nearly 100% assured the situation was/is not all that close to how you claim it is. Anyone that does have an interest in looking into this will likely find the same. Why not just try to actually follow the spirit of the NPOV policy and actually improve articles instead of your current efforts? - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:31, 12 December 2006 (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)
	* Your block MUST be lifted? Bullshit. If you want it lifted, I suggest that you email an arbitrator or find yourself an advocate at ] and go to arbcom to ask nicely. Demands like yours above are very close to 100% guaranteed to earn a resounding "fuck off", so do take the time to write your request in somewhat less strident terms. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
			:] already exists. Not sure about the dot in front of it? - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	Watch your language, gentlemen. ] | ] 23:43, 12 December 2006 (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)
	:I agree with JzG... minus the bad language, though I'd certainly be thinking it. --] <small>]</small> 23:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
			*]? Sure. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 14:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	:: Well hush ma mouth. True, though. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
			*:Done. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 16:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::I'm guessing this is a classic case of a persecution complex. Alot of respected members of the community took a look at this situation and it's clearly not a case of a singe admin acting out of control. ---] <sup>(]/])</sup> 23:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
			*:Thanks ] (I ], ]) 04:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Merely based on of yours, I think it is sufficiently clear that your editing was not, as you claim, "ALWAYS neutral." See also ] relevant section, which passed 7-0, in your arbitration case. ] 00:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			== Call for decisive admins to clear backlog ==
	::My $0,02: I disagree and think Gibraltarian should be unblocked. Not only because he can help counterbalance the (alleged?) raging Spanish POV, but it also can help the wiki-community maintain some control over his antics. Give him a probation, a revert parole or whoever else you believe it necessary, but when a use is banned, you don't have any menaces. You can tell a regular user "don't make personal attacks or I'll block you"; you can't say that to a banned user evading his block. You can't threaten or control such a user in any way. I agree though in that I don't much like the wording of Gibraltarian's request here. I also believe he won't repeat it now that he knows for sure that Wikipedians don't consider it acceptable. //] 00:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			So, there have been persistent backlogs at ]. I had not worked the area in a while, and I assumed it was simply so understaffed that appeals weren't even being looked at. What I have found instead is that, in quite a number of cases, between one and four admins have discussed the block, quizzed the user up and down about why they were blocked and asked them to identify, not just what broad areas they might edit in if unblocked, but to describe the ''exact'' edits they would make. I'm also seeing admins bringing in other concerns entirely unrelated to the logged reason for the block and demanding that the user address those concerns as well before they will unblock.
	:::] has a long record of making such statements, and has had every opportunity to stop acting like a bigot and start editing constructively. He has chosen not to do so, this is his choice. Thus he remains blocked. ] - ] 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			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.
	::::Can't he change that choice, can't he be given another chance? //] 00:42, 13 December 2006 (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.
	:::::He can indeed. However, look at his request here - the same tone of message that got him banned. If he wants unbanned, then he has to start being civil first. ] - ] 00:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			I'm not looking to have a long discussion here about it, I'm asking for help dealing with it as it seems fairly out-of-control. ] ] 21:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	This user is infamous: ], {{tl|Gibraltarian}} and ]. ] 00:38, 13 December 2006 (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?
	:Apart from ''his'' infamous ranting, i don't see any reason why this banned user who call other established users ''fascists'' and ''racists'' would change his own behaviour in wikipedia. Just a couple of days ago, he was here vandalizing and ! He was the reason why many people in Gibraltar couldn't access wikipedia when they wanted hijacking their connections by using IP ranges 212.120.225.XXX which connect Gibraltar to the world. -- '']'' ] <small>]</small> 09:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			:AGF does not mean accepting things on blind faith. ]; ]. ] (]) 22:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I don't believe I said or implied it was anything nefarious, as I don't think it is. I don't agree with the prolonged quizzes and goalpost moving I'm seeing in some of these requests, that's true, and sure, some of that is you but it isn't just you. It seems to me that we have an issue here exactly because too few admins are working in this area, and that group has developed their own version of "how it's supposed to work" that I do not think jives with what the community expects. ] ] 01:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::What the community expects, or what you expect?
			:::I'm not being disagreeable here. You and I have been around a long time and I think it's safe to say we've seen a lot of blocks and unblocks happen, and many discussed here and elsewhere. In my estimation, there's no consensus on how unblocking should be treated, because it's relying on admin discretion on a case by case basis. And questioning the blocked user to get more info - rather than ignoring and leaving them blocked! - was always seen as more merciful and giving the opportunity for AGF. We always have said that we as a community believe in the opportunity for redemption here. But not at the expense of disruption to the project. (See also ], especially the first line.)
			:::All that said, concerning one of your comments, if an admin is going on vacation, a wiki-break, or whatever, then out of courtesy, they should note here that they are dropping certain tasks (like an unblock review) so that there is less confusion, and someone else can pick up the ball. - <b>]</b> 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I do second the request for help, though. Thank you in advance. ] (]) 22:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	== immediate permanent deletion ==
			: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)
	I'm not sure of the appropriateness of posting this here, but this page seems to get appropriate attention. Perusing the ] located at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Child_modeling&oldid=19758222, this page and any others similar to it in history should be permanently deleted for a bit of ]. — ''']''' <sup>|''' ]'''</sup> | 23:56, 12 December 2006 (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)
	:Eek. Those links should go! I'm not going to even look at them, but they give me chills. ]|] 00:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			*:I second this. I want to unblock people, but I also don't want to see them back, both for them(so they become good contributors) and for us(so we don't waste more time dealing with repeat appellants). Yes, blocks are cheap, and often ] is good, but not always. I also am aware of no policy that says only the stated/logged issue can be dealt with and nothing else, especially in the face of clear evidence. ] (]) 01:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::Your "clear evidence" is too often a brand new editor who was blocked way too harshly instead of being warned, and then gets their unblock declined because they didn't fully understand the block (how could they?). The previous discussion included plenty of recent such episodes where you were involved (together with others). I don't get why blatant vandalism gets 4 warnings, but people adding helpful links to informative but unacceptable sources (their own blog, a commercial site they don't seem to be affiliated with) get an indef block without a warning and then a very unhelpful treatment when they ask for an unblock. ] (]) 10:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I'm trying to balance being helpful with avoiding the user telling me what I want to hear(giving them the information I'm looking for). I provide help when specifically asked. ] (]) 10:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:{{tq|add to the record}}? What record? The record of giving people a second chance and then being disappointed but not particularly surprised when they squander it? As far as I'm concerned that's how this is supposed to work. Simple unblock requests from newer users making a reasonable request for a second chance don't require a committee to deal with them. ] ] 01:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::No, El Beeblerino. It is a follow-up on 331dot's wording of {{tpq|I also want it on the record}}, which ] (I believe that it is likely you knew that question was false when you replied, but on the off chance you didn't.) --] (]) 04:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::But this was an editor who hadn't ''learned'' they were about to squander it! Did you think they were lying when they said they understood what paraphrasing was? If yes, why unblock? If no, why set them up for failure like this? -- ] (]) 15:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::You asked them several questions and they gave at least semi-reasonable replies. They admitted they had copied material word-for word and said they would paraphrase in the future. You declined to action the report after all that, saying that someone needed to check their edits on another project for copyvios.
			*:::<br>
			*:::I read the appeal and the subsequent conversation and came to my own decision, which was different from yours. That's how it goes. It isn't personal, I just did not see it exactly the same as you did, and since you explicitly said you would not decline the request I took the action I thought was appropriate. I did not and do not see this as overriding your decision, but equally I do not feel I was required to make the checks you wanted somebody to do.
			*:::<br>
			*:::It turns out they didn't understand any of it and actually acted even more clueless than they had before the block, and were swiftly reblocked for it. I've undone a bunch of their bad edits myself, and added my own comments about how their behavior post-unblock was terrible and clueless. All we can do is try and educate newbies, which you tried to do. Some people are just unteachable, that's just the sad truth of it and I feel at this point that this is a ] case.
			*:::<br>
			*:::I think we have similar basic goals in mind, we want newbies to be given a chance, but your approach with the quizzes is simply not how I approach things. That's ok, we ''need'' diversity of opinion and approach in these areas.
			*:::<br>
			*:::As far as I am concerned, this specific matter has already been resolved. ] ] 00:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Honestly I suspect that exactly this reaction is what's actually going on here: admins are reluctant to unblock people for the same reason governors are unwilling to pardon people, because if they let someone edit and they do something bad again people will rightly-or-wrongly now blame the unblocking admin for it. ] (]) 03:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::What I do is add an event to my calendar so that I get a daily email reminder to check the unblocked person's contribs. I typically have several of these happening. This system gives the opportunity to give timely feedback if they are still not getting it, or to reblock if necessary. ] (]) 12:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::@] (and others): may I take a moment to recommend ] which lets you create reminders onwiki which then appear on your watchlist. You can even "snooze" them once they appear. Best, ] (]) 15:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Sob story''' About a year ago, I decisively tackled ]. It was exhausting. It was disheartening. I felt constant fear of making a mistake. That fear got worse when many of those I unblocked resumed disruption and were reblocked. The sense of achievement from the few successful unblocks was not enough to overcome the sense of stupidity I felt from the reblocks. I gave up. {{ping|Beeblebrox}}, you have renewed my willingness to make decisive (if high-risk) unblocks. {{ping|Tamzin|JBW|Asilvering}}, are you with me?] (]) 14:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::<small>That's weird, because recently this page has made me want to hand back my barely-unwrapped mop. --] (]) 14:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
			:::{{yo|DoubleGrazing}} Don't get discouraged. Remember it is a learning and relearning experience. Be open to feedback and adjust your focus and methodology as needed. ] (]) 14:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I'm in a similar position. I waded in to ] some time ago to try and help clear the backlog and pretty much every case I looked at was seemingly already being reviewed by other admins. Despite the volume of requests in there, I found very few "virgin" requests where I could pop in and make a quick decision without overriding anyone but the blocking admin.
			::I agree with @], we need to stop the protracted discussions. If the unblock request on its own isn't enough to convince you to unblock the user, decline the unblock (explaining why) and move along. If you're not sure, err on the side of assuming good faith; their edits can always be rolled back and they can be reblocked if necessary.
			::Above all, let's not beat each other up if we make a mistake on that front. Assuming good faith is one of our central pillars and nobody should be lambasted or made to feel stupid for doing so. ]] 14:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{tq|If the unblock request on its own isn't enough to convince you to unblock the user, decline the unblock (explaining why) and move along.}} Why is this better than having a dialogue, answering questions, and educating the editor? ] (]/]) 16:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Two reasons. First, with limited admin resources, that time-consuming approach just isn't feasible if we want to actually get the backlog down. Second, as @] has pointed out, it often turns the unblock request into something closer to what ] has become, and none of us want that. ]] 11:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Well, outside of the context of this thread, my answer is, of course, "you know my philosophy, you know I'm with you". I believe very firmly in treating people with kindness, collegiality, and above all, patience. That's precisely ''why'' I have been engaging at some length with blocked editors. Given the context of this thread, it appears that "decisive" means "with minimal discussion or delay". I've already watched one editor I had been interacting with get unblocked without any verification that they understood what was expected of them; that editor was ''so'' excited to be unblocked, immediately connected with another interested editor in the topic area... and was reblocked. I don't think that was kind, collegial, or patient, and I don't think it was just, either. If that's what being decisive is, I don't want any part of it; it's heartbreaking. -- ] (]) 15:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{non-admin comment}} I'll gladly endorse second-chance unblocks that lead to disruption, if it means we can avoid reaffirmed blocks that prevent good faith contributors from joining Misplaced Pages. It's the difference between short-term disruption on a few pages versus potentially years of contributions lost. I don't object to talking to the blocked editor first to make sure the concerns are addressed, but the admin should go in looking for reasons to unblock rather than the other way around. ] (]) 16:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{to|Thebiguglyalien}} Wait. You endorse unblocks that ''lead'' to disruption? ] (]) 16:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Yes, I'm simply describing ]. ] (]) 16:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::😵 ] (]) 16:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::You 😵, @], but when it comes to low-stakes obvious vandalism and so on, I think this is fine, so long as the unblocking editor keeps an eye on the next few contributions to see whether the rope got used in the, uh, traditional manner. People who replace the content of an article with "pee pee poo poo" know what they're doing. I had gotten the impression from my early lurking at unblocks that this was unacceptable, sighed about the death of ], and resolved to bring it up once I had more unblocks experience. Since then I've only seen fit to apply it in cases where the block is quite old already, so it didn't seem like much of an experiment (and indeed, no noose-takers), and one other case with other mitigating concerns (I was immediately snarked at for this one, but so far, still no noose, just a slow-moving cat-and-mouse game I don't know what to make of yet). -- ] (]) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::ROPE itself says that sometimes these discussions are appropriate: {{tq|Sometimes those prolonged unblock discussions produce real results in educating the blocked user about why they were blocked and helping them to edit productively in the future.}} I've made ROPE unblocks, but I've also made unblocks where I've had a discussion with the editor. By ROPE's own terms, whether to do one or the other is within an admin's discretion. ] (]/]) 16:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Indeed. I've done both as well. ] (]) 16:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::And I'm fine with that, as long as we're more forgiving to admins who make bad unblocks as opposed to admins who make bad blocks or are too quick to dismiss unblock requests by editors who don't know "the game". ] (]) 19:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::If Beeb had asked the admins involved instead of bringing this to AN, I think you would have seen answers like @]'s. This idea that people staffing CAT:UNBLOCK are looking not to unblock people appears to be coming from WPO editors assuming bad faith. ] (]/]) 16:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::That thread in particular has some extremely funny things to say about me. Recommended reading, really. -- ] (]) 16:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I'm always amused when someone implies that I am under mind control from WPO. I assure you that I am quite capable of making my own decisions. Where the initial alarm bell went off is not relevant, I, myself, looking much further than the specific cases mentioned there, found what I believe to be a serious systemic problem in the unblocking process. I don't believe I said anywhere that the regulars in this area are {{tq|looking not to unblock people}}, I said too many requests were being discussed at length and then never closed, whether as an accept or a decline. That's not acceptable. What we need here, as I very clearly stated when opening this thread, is more admins working this area and more willingness to just make an up-or-down call on unblock requests. ] ] 23:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::"looking not to unblock people" etc. was in response to alien's point, not yours. ] (]/]) 23:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::All this "that part of my comment was directed elsewhere even though the other part was clearly directed at you" is getting farcical. If anyone wants to '''help out with the damn backlog''' please jump right in. That was the point here. It's down to fifty-eight items right now, which is bad but not as bad as it has been some days. ] ] 00:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Beebs, you could save us all some time if you'd just tell us which users . I'm a little exasperated myself lately at some blocks that have been ignoring the ] especially with respect to new users, and I'd be happy to look into some but I'm not going to waste my time sorting through the drivel over there on the off chance that there might be a helpful comment. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 14:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:How nice to see locations of the targeted admins being brought up on the first page. ] (]) 17:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:{{yo|Ivanvector}}I have responded to one or two that were discussed over there, but I've mostly just been scrolling through the list and just picking them at random. I've found plenty that just needed someone to take action that way.
			*:I admit I shy away from the CU blocks. I know those were moved back to largely being reviewed by the community but I'm not actually sure how we're supposed to actually do that. ] ] 20:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::And also starting threads here specifically about the admins and their specific actions that are being discussed there by people who are banned here. I'm not going to harp on this because I happen to be roughly on the same page, but do mind ] and ]. Regarding checkuser: I'm not sure what you mean by "moved back to the community" - all a CU block indicates is that private information is involved in the block decision, and for that reason the community shouldn't be reviewing CU blocks at all. Likewise checkusers shouldn't be flagging blocks for no reason. But if a CU has already reviewed the block, it's supposed to be good to go for regular reviews by admins or the community; I'm trying to be more explicit about that in the blocks that I review, if I don't just close the appeal myself. And like I said below: if you come across an unblock that's sitting idle because it's waiting on a checkuser, try flagging it with {{tl|checkuser needed}} so that the page gets listed in the table at ]. Stuff listed there gets the fastest attention. <small>I know you probably already know all of this, but I'm saying it anyway for everyone's benefit who might not.</small> ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::@] what's been ] has been CU blocks basically being appealable only to arbcom to being able to handled onwiki by any CU in most circumstances (and/or a CU removing the CU part of the bloack because there is no socking going on and letting an admin handle other issues that contributed to a block). Best, ] (]) 21:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::Ah. I hadn't worked this area in a while and I think I was on a break when that change was made, so I kind of missed the finer points. ] ] 23:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			The unblock log would probably be shorter if some admins weren't so trigger happy. The other discussion here at AN contains quite a few examples of editors who shouldn't have been blocked so swiftly, and in the current unblock queue I see e.g. ], who needed an explanation, not a block. ] (]) 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Checkuser blocks''' The blocks that have been waiting the longest for a response are checkuser blocks. I cannot unblock those, so I've not looked closely. Perhaps a checkuser could look at them?] (]) 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I processed some from the top of the list that were marked as checkuser blocks - all of the ones I looked at had already been reviewed by a CU. I closed some but I am in meetings for the rest of the day. You might want to take a closer look, and perhaps consider adding a {{tl|checkuser needed}} if they are still waiting. There aren't that many CUs that patrol unblocks, but the template lists the page in a table at ] that we all look at. I think they also get posted to IRC but I'm not on there. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 18:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Now seems like a good time to invite comment on ], my radical proposal for restructuring the system. It's already gotten some very helpful feedback from some of the participants in this discussion. Please note, this is '''still in the workshop phase''', so I'm not asking for support/oppose comments at this time. But I welcome any and all comments on its talkpage about how to make the idea better and/or more likely to pass an RfC. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	:: Deleted. ] (]) 03:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)		:Trigger-happy blocks are for sure another serious issue here, we need to work it from both ends. ] ] 20:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I have little to offer here, except to say that decisiveness is a virtue only if the decider is right. In itself it is very overrated. I wish that people, especially politicians, would be more honest and say "I don't know" much more often. ] (]) 21:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Self-requested RM relist review ==
	== Removing the birthdate from a minor's User page ==
			{{atop|1=It appears there are no objections. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			I recently relisted ] but I'm not entirely certain if that or closing as not moved was the correct option. There were zero !votes in support of the requested move, and the nominator's argument misrepresented policy, but three of the oppose !votes indicated that they would support renaming the article to something else that accounts for the fact that the article also discusses another bill. Therefore, I relisted the discussion with the following comment:
			{{bq|There is a very clear consensus against the proposed move, but some people have suggested moving to an alternative title that also accounts for the mention of another bill in this article. Further discussion is needed on that aspect of the request.}}
			I've never relisted a discussion for a reason like this before, so I've come here to request review of if my decision was the correct one. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 22:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I think this is an appropriate relist since additional discussion might lead to consensus on a new title or enough options for a ]. ] (]/]) 22:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== "Early" closes at AfD ==
	I have removed the birthdate from User:Degenlash because he's a minor and it includes his full name and place of birth, as well. It might bear some more pruning. ]|] 23:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
			The closing instructions at AfD currently says {{tqq|A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours).}} I have noticed that several discussions each day are being closed early. Most of these are less than 30 minutes early but I have seen up to 2 hours early of their 7 days/168 hours. If articles are being closed as keep, I think that's arguably defensible and relisting early when it's obvious no consensus will be reached definitely makes sense, but I have a harder time with deletions. Truthfully, I don't understand the rush, especially as most (if not all - I've only spot checked this) are being done with XfDCloser which warns you if you're going early - that is these admins are making a conscious to close early. Since we're talking a handful minutes it likely doesn't make a difference in the outcome. But for me the instructions imply closing before 168 hours should be more a IAR situation rather than several discussions each day and multiple admins doing it. I thought I would bring it here for discussion to see if it's just me or if it bothers anyone else. And if it is just me maybe we adjust the instruction (or maybe I'm just making normally out to be a stronger prohibition than it's meant to be). I'm specifically not naming any of the admins or linking to any early closes as I'm not looking to get anyone "in trouble", just trying to see where the community stands, but obviously all of this can be observed by anyone else who wants to go through the day's closes at AfD. Thanks and best, ] (]) 04:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	== ] ==
			: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 ==
	{{User|Thelaststallion}} continues to add increasingly nonsensical variations on the theme "Richard Wright is cool" to ]. My request for Thelaststallion to desist () was met with quite a dismissive attitude () and further insertion of nonsense, this time referencing the "Intergalactic Council on Coolness" (). Could someone with a bit more patience and tact than myself help convince Thelaststallion that his additions are not, in fact, improving Misplaced Pages? Thanks! -- ] | ] 23:59, 12 December 2006 (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.
			Top Awards: Academy Awards: Best Actress: her the first actor to win an Oscar for a foreign-language performance.
	:I just gave him a <nowiki>{{test2}}</nowiki>. ]|] 00:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			Honorary Award: (1991) for her contributions to world cinema.
			Golden Globes:
			Cecil B. DeMille Award: (1995) for outstanding contributions to the entertainment world.
			Multiple Golden Globe nominations, winning Best Actress in a Motion Picture – Comedy or Musical for The Millionairess.
			Cannes Film Festival: Best Actress: Two Women (1961).
			BAFTA: Best Foreign Actress: Two Women (1962).
			Grammy Award: Best Spoken Word Album for Children: Peter and the Wolf (1981), shared with other performers.
			7 Best Actress Awards, including for Two Women and A Special Day.
			Golden Lion Award for Lifetime Achievement (Venice Film Festival): (1998).
			Presidential Medal of Freedom (USA): (2019), awarded for her cultural contributions.
			Career Overview: Number of Films: Over 90 films over a 70-year career.
			] (]) 07:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			: It's logged . Reason: IDHT+disruptive edits. ] (]) 07:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Given that you've been blocked '''six''' times for breaching the topic ban, I would have thought it would have been clear why it exists by now. Not only that, but ''this'' request is also a violation of the topic ban, which you should have been aware of per ]. ] 08:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I don't think one is allowed to use the AN board, to request a proxy edit to an area one's t-banned from. ] (]) 08:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:No. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 13:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{yo|Light show}} It is concerning that you do not understand the reasons for your TBAN and that you have once again violated it. ] (]) 14:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{Archive bottom}}
	== ] ==		== {{subst:Admin recall notice/Liz}} ==
	] - is this userpage appropriate? It's pretty much an ad for BCC. S/he's converted the ] page to the same ad for BCC, which I've reverted. ''']''' <small>]</small> 00:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)		{{atop|Sulan114 is not eligible to file this petition. --] (]) 23:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			Admin targeted a User in October 2023 by making a redirect of users former usernames ] (]) 23:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:This user is not eligible to start recall, unless the rules have changed. ] (]) 23:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Appears to be copyvio of official website, plus copyrighted photograph cannot be used on user page, only in article if necessary and fair use, blah blah blah. Can I blank it? Can I? Please, someone tell me I can blank it, and don't anyone do it before me. ] 00:32, 13 December 2006 (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.==
	::Go for it. I'd personally comment it out and ask the user if I thought they'd take it the wrong way, or if the opposites were true, {{tl|db-spam}}. ] 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop|1= is thataway. → - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Montenegro
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Belarus ] 06:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::] has replaced the article at ] several times, also. See their talk page, and . ''']''' <small>]</small> 00:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			Add to wikidata.
	::I've removed two "fair use" images from the userpage and left a note on their talk page explaining my edit and the rationale behind it. Someome else may want to suggest a username change as the current one may not be legit. ] 00:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			Add the Romani article for Sweden:
	:::User has . In comment to my userpage, s/he claims to be part of promo dept of BCC. ''']''' <small>]</small> 00:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Sveko
			Add the Romani article for Cyprus:
	::::Well, don't hold this against me, but I blanked the user page, and put a note on the user talk page, and really enjoyed it. I have always wanted to blank a Misplaced Pages page, and, it's not that I'm scared to, it's just that it's pointless and pretty much in the top 3 of most boring acts of vandalism on Misplaced Pages. The user is asking for help, someone outside can explain the situation. My note did explain the copy vios, the non-fair-use of a copyrighted picture on a user page, and plagiarism issues. ] 00:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Chipro ] 06:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			Add the Romani article for Bosnia and Herzegovina to wikidata.
	:::::Tey reverted it. I get to do something even more fun- the blank-and-protect. ]]]<small>]</small> 01:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Bosniya_thai_Hercegovina ] 06:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	The user tried a workaround by duplicating their page at ] (which I redirected). I hope this isn't a trend. --] | ] 05:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			Add these Romani articles for US states to wikidata.
	== Template/penis image vandals connection ==
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Louisiana
	call me a crank, but is there any possibility that the recent severe surge of vandalism aimed at the featured articles be in any way linked to the deletion of the GNAA article? See also . ] 01:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Massachusetts
	:I don't know, I don't care, but somehow I'm fairly certain that the GNAA people are happy to receive the attention and happy to be linked to. PDFTT. -- ] 02:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Maryland
	: Who the hell cares. A vandal is a vandal; their "organization" doesn't mean anything. ] (]) 03:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Illinois
	::The penis template vandals is from Singapore. See ] and ]. ] 04:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Pennsylvania
	:::The whois' I tried for the non-template penis images on the current main page FA showed allover the place (Australia, Bulgaria, US...) But then maybe I'm not good at using WHOIS... ] 05:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::These are just proxies, there's no way to be certain where the person actually lives. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 05:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::: Block as proxies? ]]<sup>(])</sup> 05:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::If you're sure they're proxies, go ahead. Otherwise list it at ] for verification. ] 12:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/New_York_(stato) ] 06:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	== small request ==
			*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)
	This page, ] is db-userreq tagged, and we'll probably be moving something else there soon so we want to get it out of the way. Can someone speedy it, please? &mdash;&nbsp;] ] &mdash; 03:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			{{ping|The_Bushranger}}, could you take care of (I assume) this person at {{IP|37.21.144.243}} rq? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 07:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Blatant vandalism ==
	: Done (though it probably should have been marked as G7 rather than U1, as U1 technically only applies to <del>articles</del> subpages in userspace). —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 04:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop|result=Article draftified, not vandalized. Draft creator blocked after personal attacks. Page mover encouraged to use scripts that inform content creators when an article is moved to Draft space (see Draftify or Move to Draft on ]). <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	::Thank you. What is the template we should have used? &mdash;&nbsp;] ] &mdash; 04:04, 13 December 2006 (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)
	:::<nowiki>{{db-author}}</nowiki> —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 04:06, 13 December 2006 (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)
	== Single purpose Spam ==
			::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)
	{{vandal|Brack1969}} which also seems to be this ip {{ipvandal|67.177.34.99}} same articles/links.--] 05:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			:::You have been on WP since 2007. Isn't it obvious that ] has no hint of ] as currently written (and can a football rivalry have "Honours"?)? If you want this article to have a chance to "stick" in mainspace, try following the advice at ]. Find some great independent sources on this football rivalry, summarize them and cite them. ''That'' is ''the work'' on ''this'' website. You can ask for input at related wikiprojects, maybe someone will be interested in the subject. Moving that article to draft is not ], not even close. And fwiw, Snowflake91 is not an admin. ] (]) 09:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::: doesn't help much, but consider looking at , you might find something WP-good there. ] (]) 09:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I simply used the template used here ]. How does that page differ from the one I created? It only has a longer intro, that's it. The rest is all the same - data/info (which is what people want to see when checking about derbies). The original article (which I had also made a link to) doesn't provide more info either, but no-one decided to move or delete that one. There are many references to this derby online and people who search for the article will not be searching for info on 'what it is' (even though that is also clearly described in the first sentence of the article), they will be searching for a comprehensive overview of results, which I have provided. ] (]) 10:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::{{tqq|There are many references to this derby online}} Then it should be easy for you to add them to the draft article. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::And focus on the ones that show ]. ] (]) 09:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Draftifying articles that are unsourced and are mistakenly put into main space isn't vandalism. But ], there are multiple scripts available that many editors and page patrollers use to draftify articles and they all make a point of posting a notification on the User talk page of the article creator. Please do this in the future if you move an article across namespaces. Install the script and it will post the notice for you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I truly find this need to write a longer intro of what the derby is completely unnecessary. Go to ] and you will see the Styrian derbi mentioned in the fourth paragraph from the top. Go to ] page. What does it say under 'History and rivalry culture' and under 'Fans'? Nothing. It says one team is supported by their fans and the other team is supported by the other fans. Duh! Who would've thought? And the external links (notes #8, #9, and #10) in the 'Fans' section are ALL about violence, nothing more. My beef is with these double standards. One article in Misplaced Pages (such as ]) can stand the way it is, but an almost identical article about a separate rivalry is put under such scrutiny and shelved (draftified)? Utterly ridiculous. If the article I created doesn't meet the necessary standards, then neither does ], plain and simple. ] (]) 11:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:: Your article had precisely '''zero''' sources. It is ''never'' going to survive in mainspace without them because ] is a policy. As for ] - well, ] is a thing, but that article ''does'' have sources. ] 11:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:: ], I mean feel free to nominate ] for deletion if you want. Maybe check out ] or ] instead (which you clearly still don't understand what the problem with your entry is), the other article has an in-depth coverage from the national television station, like , and this alone would probably meet WP:GNG. Meanwhile, your article consists of 1 very short sentence in the lead section and a list of head-to-head matches, and 0 sources...close enough I guess? ] (]) 11:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::: All the data I got is from this source . Is it sufficient if I add this reference/link to the article for the article to be deemed Misplaced Pages-worthy? ] (]) 12:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Check ] again. The page you just linked doesn't even ''mention'' "Štajerski derbi" afaict. ] (]) 11:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Again, utterly absurd. It is the OFFICIAL list of all matches between the two teams as provided by the ]. The page ] which (under 'Matches') has links to match reports is using that same website as source. If that is sufficient for the page ] even though the Football Association of Slovenia website doesn't mention the name 'Eternal derby' anywhere, then why doesn't the same apply to 'Styrian derby'? This makes zero sense. And the solution is not to delete both pages, the solution is to allow both to stand as they are. This is a clear case of Administration > Information. Red tape. Unnecessary. ] (]) 12:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::: No, it's called Misplaced Pages policy. No sources = no article. A source that just lists match results is not going to be able to source an article about a derby match, because it needs more than just a simple list of statistics. The Eternal Derby article, as already mentioned, has plenty of other sources. Is that one a great article? Perhaps not. Does it meet Misplaced Pages policy? Yes, it does. ] 12:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::: This probably belongs to the talk page of the draft, but your info in this article is also fully wrong - for example, you claim that the first match between the two teams was played in 1991 (after Slovenia's independence), but you do realise that both clubs have played each other in Yugoslav football between 1961 and 1991 as well, right? The first match was almost cetrainly played during the ] season, as you can see that both teams played in that league at the time (and finished in 1st and 2nd place)...so this is also obvious ] issue. ] (]) 12:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::: One incorrect info is enough to mark the whole article as 'fully wrong'? That's simply a technicality that can be solved by noting that the date refers to the first match ever played in PrvaLiga, not the first match ever in history. Like I've said before, you are a control freak who stalks anyone who dares edit any Misplaced Pages article to do with your country and you see all 'outsiders' as somehow 'challenging your authority'. During the last week, you have come to my user page uninvited, while I was creating this page, saw that I was creating it, then removed something from the article I was creating (on my user page!) without even bothering to post why you removed that (you could clearly see it was 'work in progress') but never bothered to instruct that such an article may not be up to standards. You let me complete the work, then once I posted it live, you moved it to drafts. Pathetic. You're a stalker, period, and anyone who has ever made edits to articles related to your country knows this to be a fact. You follow my contributions page and come and 'edit' after my edits even on pages that have nothing to do with your country. Those 'edits' of yours are unnecessary and you know it. Again, I will repeat myself - you are a stalker. It's also pathetic that Misplaced Pages admins allow you to get away with what you do. Honestly, I no longer care. I thought this would be a good addition to Misplaced Pages, an article no-one bothered doing for over 20 years, including you, but you clearly want to assert your dominance. So, have it your way. But it's because of overbearing people like you that Misplaced Pages suffers, trust me on that. ] (]) 13:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::: Bruh...firstly, I'm not "stalking" you, I simply have (almost) all Slovenian football-related articles on my watchlist so that's why they were edited after I "stalked" you; secondly, I removed inter-language wiki links at the bottom of your user page (which were abolished like a decade ago by the way, now you need to use Wikidata for that), because Slovenian article ] was literally connected and linked to your user page because of that, and thirdly, maybe use a sandbox (]) for working on articles, and not your user page in the first place. And I thought that you would add sources and write at least some useful prose from that "work in progress" article, but then you just published it with no sources and head-to-head matches only and nothing else. ] (]) 12:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::I've temporarily blocked NoWikiNoLife for the above personal attacks. I don't see any other admin action needed here. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Obsession with ENSEMBLE CAST ==
	:OK, you warned them about it. That's about all that can be done now until they recommence spamming, at which time they should be final-warned and after that, reported to ]. ] 15:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			{{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)
	== Giano on the radio! ==
			::This doesn't seem to be an issue for AN to deal with and I don't see the CRYSTAL issue mentioned by the IP user. Regardless here is a breakdown of the Malayalam category to answer the question: ] by ] in ]; ] by ] in ] (At least, I believe this one refers to an ensemble cast); ] by ] in ]; ] by ] in ]; ] by ] in ] Mostly different editors. --] (]) 07:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::: (106.196.26.252), (Arjusreenivas), (Arjusreenivas), (Killeri Achu), (SRAppu), (Mims Mentor), (2402:8100:3912:3e18:a17a:4a77:e0c2:5773). Even released Malayalam films are retrospectively changed, example: (CIDALEBRA20001).--] (]) 08:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::As per WP:CRYSTAL, ''Misplaced Pages is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. Misplaced Pages does not predict the future''. These editors add speculative labels for unreleased films, which definitely constitute WP:CRYSTAL. Where are the ] for "ensemble cast"? --] (]) 09:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Just spot-checking here, the use of {{tq|ensemble cast}} in ] is directly supported by a reference in the article {{tq|In addition to Vijayaraghavan, the film boasts a talented ensemble cast}}. Given ] I could still see why some might be uncomfortable with that. However, as several users have added this descriptor, and it can at least in some cases be supported directly by reference, this would seem to fall within the realm of content issue and is probably best discussed at ]. There is also nothing preventing anyone from simply boldly removing the descriptor with an explanation from any article where it is thought inappropriate and subsequently discussing on a case-by-case basis if any reverts take place. ] (]) 23:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Mass rollbacking my bot ==
	I have been contacted by a producer with a public radio show called Weekend America. Who is looking into a story about the ArbCom elections and was wondering if I might have a few minutes to talk about my experience in Misplaced Pages. Tempted and amusing as that might be, I have strong feelings on blabbing to the media and those that do it, but does Misplaced Pages have a policy on this? I'm sure I am not the only obe to be singled out ] 07:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop|result=Bot rollback successful. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			Hi. I was running a task using ], which failed when it tripped a private edit filter. Could an admin do a mass rollback of its edits so far, while I wait for a response at ]? Thanks. <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 09:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Do you want the two pages it created deleted? ] (]) 10:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Yeah, that too. Sorry for the inconvenience. <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 10:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{done}}! ] (]) 10:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Question about ] ==
	:I don't know whether Misplaced Pages has a policy already, but I don't see the harm in it and I think that openness can only benefit us. If there's media interest in the ArbCom elections, the best course of action is to be honest and forthcoming, and do what we can to ensure that the coverage is fair. Clamming up makes it more likely that it won't be. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 07:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Asked and answered. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	::Curious. Giano, did the producer explain how they came to select you? {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 07:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			Would ] and ] be covered under ] and ]? The source on ] notes Urartu has a {{tq|significant role in Armenian nationalism}}.
	:::Yeah, why not me? I actually LISTEN to the show! In any case, go for it. --] | ] 08:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	Since we have some suffrage for the arbcom voting, I do not see the problem. I would be worried if an AfD or RfA advertised in the big media ] 08:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::*::::I've no idea why they chose me, cos I'm more horrible than you I expect! Is it real station then, I though it may be a hoax? Anyhow, I have enough experience of these things to know than a "nice happy story is no story" They want my "experience of Misplaced Pages" but I expect it will be all about Kelly Martin's arbcom result and behaviour etc, and the "Giano case" Neither of which are Misplaced Pages's finest moments. They are hardly going to want to discuss Palladian architecture are they? (Which is what I like talking about) No I shall leave it to others - interesting to see who though! Anyway they want me to phone them, and I'm certainly not spending megabucks on transatlantic phone calls. You lot would never understand my vowels anyway. I'll forward their email to Jimbo and he can tell them how marvellous the place is - especially the architecture section etc etc etc. ] 08:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Tell them to phone "the co-founder, Jimmy Wales". That should give them a story... ] 08:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			The reason I'm asking is the recently created ], which had very problematic sources such as racial sources from from 1957 . These type of sources are now removed, but see the ]. ] (]) 14:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	*{{userlinks|Neille i}} has been asking arbcom candidates on-wiki to beinterviewed. ''']''' (]) 09:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Well, I'm not an arbcom candidate - heaven forbid, so I can't immagine what they want to know ] 09:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			:In my opinion yes, they would: the combination of that "significant role" and the scope of both sets of sanctions being "broadly construed" is sufficient to include them. ]] 15:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	*I have no qualms about giving interviews to the media. See for example , I was picked because of I believe. Sure, go for it, and be honest in your answers. :-) ] ] 10:52, 13 December 2006 (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}} .
	:::That is hilarious! Jimbo recreated it two minutes later, with a rather endearing edit summary: . Are you saying doing the interview was a form of punishment? :-) ] 13:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			::I'll add the relevant templates in ] and ]. And will remove this comment by non extended confirmed editor. ] (]) 14:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	::It '''is''' a real radio show, at least. If the story comes off it will probably be available on podcast, too. . ] 12:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	:::The only concern is whether you know the questions in advance or not. and that's why i am bringing this concern here. There may be tricky questions waiting for you Giano. Is it possible to check if you can get those questions in advance? -- '']'' ] <small>]</small> 12:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	Giano, I say go for it, I'm sure they'll call you for the actual interview. And yes, tell them about the architecture and how the articles are getting written. If they try to focus on the drama, just tell them that Misplaced Pages's internals being more transparent than their company's doesn't mean that we have to discuss our dirty laundry with outside players any more than they do. ] | ] 16:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			== ] ==
	== Death Threat Accusation ==
			{{Archive top|This discussion has been closed as '''keep''' per ]. <small>(])</small> ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)|Done}}
			Someone please close this already as "keep", or "no consensus". Thanks. ] (]) 02:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I am involved, but I believe that any outcome other than "keep" would be highly controversial. ] (]) 03:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Isn't it too early? -- ] (]) 03:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{Archive bottom}}
			==Small technical question==
	Someone needs to have a chat with ]. The user has just accussed me of making a death threat against her which is totally absurd. The user twisted a conversation where she had stated it was "wrong" that I be allowed to edit Misplaced Pages without access to sources . My response to this was that she should be careful telling people who are deployed in the military that they are not allowed to edit Misplaced Pages: it is not only against every policy we have to tell anone they "can't" edit this site, but disrespectful to those who are serving thier country . However, this user was never threatened and even stating such an accusation is very serious. Not to mention that I have tried to wrok with this user, have answered her many questions about sources, and even tried to be a bit friendly on her talk page . As we can see, there are some issues with the user that she feels neccesary to post that I have threatened her and she is in fear of her life. -] 10:45, 13 December 2006 (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.
			In , you can easily see the discussion with Policy Nerd, it's the 31st discussion on the page that contains 35 discussions. But in by the archive bot, there are now only 15 discussions on the page, not 35 even though the edit doesn't show the content being removed. So, where did those 20 discussions go? Has this deletion of content from noticeboard archives been a regular thing?
			Anyone have a clue what happened here and why the removal of content would not be visible in this edit? Thanks. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			: (Non-admin comment) the issue might be to do with the error message in this section:
	:Time for deep breaths and a walk around the car park! ] ] 10:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			::::: <blockquote>User:49.206.131.126 reported by User:Notrealname1234 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)</blockquote>
			::::: <blockquote>03:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1167168561 by Adakiko (talk) The tile "Father of the nation" is sometimes used for Mahatma Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi in India but Part III, Article 18 of the Indian Constitution prohibits conferring titles other than military and academic distinctions by the State.Cite error: A (see the help page). Wappy2008 (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)</blockquote>
			::::: <blockquote>Blocked – for a period of 1 month This keeps happening. Doing it slowly is no less disruptive. Acroterion (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)</blockquote>
			::::: <blockquote>References</blockquote>
			::::: <blockquote>User:Sniff snaff reported by User:Trey Maturin (Result: Resolved through discussion)</blockquote>
			: ] (]) 05:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::So, you're saying that the content is still there, it's just been hidden for years because of the absence of a closing tag by the archiving bot? I wonder if this has happened on other archive pages. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::It's still not clear to me how to fix this. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::: Someone has fixed it (I wasn't willing to try it myself as it was well above my pay grade...) the only way I can think of for finding other cases of this would be searching other pages for the same error message but for all I know this could throw up thousands of false positives. ] (]) 06:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Same problem at ] , 25 sections but only a few are showing up. - ] (]) 07:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Fixed now (thanks Daveosaurus). - ] (]) 07:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::: You fixed the rest while I was looking for the other missing ref tag... there were at least two missing this time.
			:::: For future reference (until someone comes up with an official techie explanation)... what was missing was a <code><nowiki></ref></nowiki></code> tag which meant massive chunks of content didn't show up. All that was needed for the fixes was to find out where the missing tag belonged and add it. ] (]) 07:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:*Well, thanks to whomever fixed this problem on this one archive page. It would be great if we could get a bot to scan for missing ref tags on archive pages. I know as an admin, I search admin noticeboards archives all of the time for previous reports and if even 10% of them are hidden because the archiving bot is cutting off tags when it reposts content, that could impact the work that we do. I know that this is a longterm issue to fix but we don't know how extensive it is. Maybe I'll put in a request on the Bot Noticeboard. But I appreciate editors who had some creative solutions here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			==Edit war with User:Mellk vs User:Rnd90==
	::Let us see the comment here
			{{atop|Matter handled. ] (]) 14:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	::: I would be careful telling a deployed member of the military they shouldn't edit on Misplaced Pages for whatever reason
			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.
	::Do I think that ] is actually threatening to kill me? No. Did I say so. Did this comment scare me? You bet. Is this comment intimidating? Yes. It's intimidating in the "well, you wouldn't want this house to accidentally burn down, now would you?" type way. Was the comment intended to be intimidating? I don't know. Is it the type of comment we should be allowing users to go around making? Nope.
	I linked everything above so people could see what was said and by whom. The fact is you stated you were "in fear of your life" based on a comment I had made on Misplaced Pages. Time to calm down here and reaize I don't even know who you are (or care) and have no plans to do anything towards you. Your statement was uncalled for as it it appears to me, and most liely others, you stated that you are fearful that I will harm you in some way. -] 11:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Also, ] flagrantly misrepresents my position here. I said, that he should not be adding stuff from his (imperfect) memory of sources. Indeed, in one occasion he has cited his memory directly as a source, when patently that memory cannot possibly have been true. Obviously, he is free to edit Misplaced Pages. ] - ] 10:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	I dont recall ever putting "my memory" in a source section of an article. I have stated that I am sometimes writing things from memory and will check later when the sources are available. But that is not the issue here. The issue is you stating you were in fear of your life because a statement that was made against you. That bis the issue that should be resolved. -] 11:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Easily done, you can cease to make intimidating statements? ] - ] 11:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			Proposed Action:
	::Husnock, if it were certain that you had made a death threat you would be permanently blocked by now with zero chance of appeal. As that has not happened this ''hasn't'' been any sort of 'rush to judgement' and there seems little for you to be complaining about. You made a comment which ''could'' be interpreted as a threat. That's a bad thing in and of itself, but could just be a misunderstanding. The proper response right about now would be, 'no no... that's not what I meant, I was just suggesting that... <whatever you were suggesting>'... '''not''' 'trying to get the person in trouble' (for being concerned) by taking it to the Administrator's noticeboard. --] 11:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			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)
	===Solution===
			{{abot}}
			== Dubai chocolate ==
	It doesn't appear that any death threat has taken place, there is no need for this to be here. My solution would be that you two acnowledge your misunderstanding (its easy to do - we are working with a purely text environment) and calm down and take a step back if necessary. Remember that fighting achieves nothing, its better to discuss this as adults, not argue. ]] 11:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop
	:Yep, that sounds fine to me. This was not to get the other person in trouble, just to ASAP indicate that this had taken place to the noticeboard since, as stated above, an actual death threat against another user '''would''' have resulted in a permanent ban with zero appeal. I would also lke to add that I just had an actual real world incident where someone tried to find me in the real world and called my wife. It was not fun, so yes this stuff is scary. But, it is also very serious to say anyone on this site is threatening anyone else. -] 11:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			| result = I don't think the IPs are related to @]. This is otherwise a content dispute. Please discuss this on article talk and seek ] as needed. ] (]/]) 22:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	::So are you going to apologise for your intimidating statement or what? The reason I did not bring it up immediately was as you outline. However, this did not stop the fact it was a very sinister and intimidating comment, and it ''did'' frighten me. I brought it up in on the talk page only to indicate the hostile atmosphere you were creating. ] - ] 11:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			}}
	:::If you are going to continue to argue this point, can you please do it in the user talk space. ]] 11:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	I will not apologize for something I didnt do. No one harrased you and no one intimidated you. If I had said "I will get you" or something like that you would have a point, but i didn't. I responded to your statement that it was wrong that I edit on Misplaced Pages without sources after I stated the reason why I had no sources was becuase I was deployed to the Middle East in the military and did not have access to them. The fact that you have twisted that into a threat against you I cannot comment on, but I will not apoligize to you for anything (kind of reminds me of that scene in ] whe Hor is accussed of cheating at cards). -] 11:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Come on guys, you both need to calm down. You both come across here, to others reading this (well, me at least) as over-sensitive and seeing problems where none exist. We all need to be a bit thick-skinned around here. Hopefully you have both learned lessons from this encounter. ] 12:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I think Husnock meant it as 'It's not my fault I can't provide references, I am a serving member of the military and so I can't provide them'. He should know better, anyway; if you're asked to provide a reference for a statement, whining about being 'away from your reference material' is not a getout clause. However, the way Husnock said it was not smart, could easily - very easily - be construed as intimidatory, and the fact the he's refusing point blank to apologise for such a boneheaded statement is pretty poor conduct. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 12:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Your use of the term "whining" is rather insulting. I am serving in a forward deployed unit in the ], am living abroad for over a year, and do not have immediate access to my reference material. As stated many times before, when I return to the US, I can double check and provide more exact references then, but not now due to my situation. That is not whining, that is stating the truth. And the "bonehead" statement stands: I will not apologize to someone in the United Kingdom, sitting comfortable in their home, who proceeds to tell a member of the U.S. military, living away from their family in the Middle East, that I should not be allowed to edit on Misplaced Pages without immediate access to sources, and then when I tell her she shouldn't tell *anyone* they shouldn't edit Misplaced Pages, a death threat is suggested and the user states "I am in fear of my life because of what Husnock said". Total nonsense and extremely insulting. -] 12:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Where did Morwen suggest you shouldn't be permitted to edit Misplaced Pages? I think she suggested that adding contentious content without access to the sources you claim to have to back them up is ill-advised. When you return to the U.S., surely you could add the content, properly referenced, then? Your personal situation isn't a getout clause, nor does it entitle you to preferential treatment (such as a being allowed to ignore ] and ]). Surely you understand this? ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 12:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Husnock, might I suggest that you make a list on one of your user pages of things that you intend to look up when you get back? It is highly likely that others could look them up for you, and even if they don't, this will help you follow through on these promises. ] 13:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Thats a very good idea, I actually already have such a list in the works. -] 13:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	::: OK, so we have a start point which is a comment which is thoughtlessly worded at best and intimidatory at worst; by common consent, if you explain and apologise there is not problem. Instead, you are arguing the toss. A statement which is perceived as intimidating is a minor, fixable problem; unrepentent self-justification is a bigger problem, indicating both an unwillingness to accept criticism and a refusal to learn from your mistakes. So, Husnock, please consider: do you really want to continue to escalate this dispute, or would you like to accept that what you said was interpreted as threatening, and go and clear the matter up in friendly terms? Your call. In respect of the information you wish to include, the deadline will not expire before you get back to your references. We can wait for inclusion until you have the sources to hand. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::: If I said I was sorry, that would be unture. I am not sorry, I think Morwen has been equal in her thoughtless wording. And let us not forget: '''''she posted that I had threatened her and that she was in fear of her life'''''. That is a very serious accusation and could have resulted from my being banned from Misplaced Pages forever. And, I hate to bring this up, but we seem to have ''all'' the people from the ] ]s (who opposed with all vigor the very articles that Morwen and I are now debating on) now posting thier support of Morwen on this discussion. Not that I am saying I am not open to all inputs, but that seems rather one sided. To end this, if Morwen *really* feels I have threatened her, then please start an RfC. This discussion here is obviously not resulting in much except drawing back in the people from the AfD discussions who had issues with me in the past. -] 13:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::(''edit conflict)'' Husnock, what you wrote was, "I would be careful telling a deployed member of the military they shouldn't edit on Misplaced Pages for whatever reason". The first part, "I would be careful", is clearly a warning. Given that you and Morwen were not on chummy terms and your comment was presumably not inspired by affection and concern for her it might be characterized as an 'unfriendly warning'... also known as, a 'threat'. The question then becomes, just what were you threatening here? Morwen feared that your subsequent mention of military service indicated you were threatening her with bodily harm. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you were perhaps instead suggesting that 'patriotic fervor' would move other editors to be extremely annoyed with Morwen for so abusing a serving veteran. Something along those lines? While your current situation certainly warrants understanding of your inability to provide sources, Morwen is IMO ''correct'' that it would then be better to stick to adding content which is not likely to be hotly disputed / '''require''' sourcing... you apparently took her to mean that you should not edit at all, but I think she has explained that was not the intent. Certainly ''Morwen herself'' would not see her view on this matter as unreasonable/worthy of anger from patriots and thus naturally would have read your comment with the darker implications she took from it. An apparent mis-understanding, but not cause for the scorn you seem to direct towards her for having misunderstood what it was you meant her to "be careful" of. --] 13:54, 13 December 2006 (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 can't believe this is actually happening. The guy is in a damned war zone and could get his ass shot into an early grave tomorrow and we're having a discussion about something like this. Do I think the comment was a bit arrogant and high handed on Husnock's part? Yeah. No offense, but reservists tend to be a bit touchy about forward deployments. Do I think this was a threat to Morwen? '''Absolutely not'''. Everyone needs to calm down and walk away from this one rather than escalating this further. Please. --<font face="Verdana">]]]<small><sup>]|]</sup></small></font> 13:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	It seems to me that there is no basis for a "deployed member of the military" exception to Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy. Persons in Husnock's situation may make suggestions for content to be added to an article on the article's talk page, where editors who are not temporarily lacking access to sources may reference them against sources and make the relevant edits to the article. I have nothing but respect for those who serve their country honorably, but service in the Armed Forces is never a "free pass" for Misplaced Pages policies, whether that be the requirement for verifiability, or the requirement for civility. As an American citizen, I would expect more of an officer of the United States Navy. ] (]) 13:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	::*Never said I had a free pass, in fact I don't, unsourced crap should be removed at once. HOWEVER- If I state that something is sourced, recall the name of a book or a manual or something else, I see no reason why that can't be posted and then, when I have time later, can get exact page numbers, etc. We are clouding the issue though. Another Misplaced Pages user stated that I had made a threat and that she was in fear of her life. No threat was made from me and this thread was started to inform everyone of this so that I did not get banned from Misplaced Pages for making a death threat against another user. '''This was my primary concern'''. I am amazed at this since, 2 years ago when I joined Wiki, Morwen would have been blocked in about 5 minutes for making a baseless, extremely serious, accusation against another user. I am not saying she should be blocked, though. I am saying I am very upset since I ''tried to work with her''. I told her exactly where all my material was coming from, exactly what book, exactly what manual, etc. I left good hearted messages on her talk page, invited her to help improve my talk page as well. She responds by saying I would "not allow her to edit" pages and then says "I am in fear of my life". What is this site coming to where people assume such things? Last but not least, for those who do not know, I just experianced a rfeal world Wiki-stalking incident where someone e-mailed my job, wrote two cities trying to find out where I lived, and contacted my wife. Real harrasement is very scary and I wouldn't do it to anyone else.
	:* Precisely. The comment was perceived as threatening, an apology or at least some kind of acknowledgement that it was problematic is clearly in order, but Husnock chooses instead to bluster. If editing in a war zone produces the kind of stress that makes it impossible to interact reasonably with other editors, you could always try not editing. We can help with that... <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	::*See my reason above for why this is upseting. And I again state I find nothing useful in harsh inputs from the same people who were very vocal and uncivil about my votes on the Star Trek AfDs. Especially when the statement above seems to covertly imply that I will be blocked, i.e. "you could always try not editing, we can help with that". -] 14:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::* I don't give a toss about old AfDs, I do give a toss about you making statements which are perceived as threatening, and then pretending that complaints about that behaviour are baseless. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::*I could take half a dozen talk page statements on this site and say that they sounded threatening. I could probably take some of your edits and say they were threatening. But, I would never post to Misplaced Pages that I was in fear of my life because that is a serious statement that could get someone banned from this site. People don't seem to get that. -] 14:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::*And yet you are utterly unable to see the slightest threat in your own original comments. Funny that. --] | ] 14:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::*I'm not going to validate Morwen's accusation by making such a statement becuase it will probably be used against me later (i.e. "Husnock admitted to threatening me on XXXX"). No thank you. I am also slightly upset that when I was being Wiki-stalked, very real and scary, my concerns were met with deaf ears. People said I shouldn't accuse others, etc. That is a separate issue, now resolved, but my point is little has been said along the lines of "Morwen, you shouldnt post on Misplaced Pages that Husnock made you fear for his life because, you know, that could get him banned from this site". Going deeper into this will solve nothing, I suggest an RfC if Morwen really felt her life was threatened. The deck seems stacked against me with thsi debate. -] 14:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	:(deindent) Little has been said to Morwen because all Morwen did was feel threatened by a creepy comment you made (''"I would be careful telling a deployed member of the military they shouldn't edit on Misplaced Pages for whatever reason"''). How dare she. In Morwen's defence, she posted this on your talk page. Instead of resolving it amicably, you decided to splurge it over the admin noticeboard, claiming that it was you who had been slighted. The comment is ambiguous, it can be read either way (as a creepy threat or not), and all you needed to do to resolve this was to apologise for ''the misunderstanding'' (not apologise for the "threat"). Instead, you have decided to refuse to apologise because 'it would validate Morwen's accusations', and continue to bluster on and on. Accept you made an error of judgement, apologise, and move on. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 15:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			There is an IP who made some changes while I was about to expand the article, so I saved my edit ignoring the edit by the IP because I also disagreed with the IP's edits. So sometime later an IP from the same range made a very similar edit, this time I explained it in detail why I don't think these edits are appropriate ] and even before I could save my edit on the talk page, ] also made such a similar edit. I saw that Dan Palraz even moved ] which was fortunately soon reverted as undiscussed move by ].
	===A suggestion===
			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)
	Yo, if I may for a minute chaps: what seems to have happened here is a simple misunderstanding which has snowballed into a substantial misunderstanding. Husnock, you made a comment that was ambiguous; we're sure you ] it to be threatening, but someone has perceived it that way and that's caused some problems. Instead of everyone getting together to resolve the misunderstanding it's ended up posted here.
			{{abot}}
			== Potential paid article writing (or just very bad form) by @] ==
	Now no-one is asking you to apologise for making threats, because you say that you didn't intend your statement to have that meaning, and that's fair enough. But your statement was ambiguous, and someone did in fact feel threatened by it, so we are asking you to say that you're sorry that some completely unintentional harm resulted. I don't think that's ]. --]&nbsp;(]) 14:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop
	* Husnock apparently does. But that's OK, because it's ''everybody else'' who is the problem here :-) <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			| result = Nothing left to do here. ] (]) 00:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	** Again with the sarcasm and stating you know how I feel, much as you did here . So Morwen is totally free from blame? People can post on Misplaced Pages that they are fearful of thier life based on vauge statements and the person must then apologize? I will apologize to to the Wiki community, and plan to do so after getting more comments on the matter, but to Morwen personally- '''NEVER'''. To say why I won't would violate ], so I will simply state its due to personal feelings about that editor. -] 15:12, 13 December 2006 (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)
	::::Husnock, did you see the second part of my comment? We're just asking that you express that you're sorry your comment unintentionally resulted in harm. Without wanting to be presumptuous, I'm sure that Morwen would be similarly sorry if her misunderstanding has caused you any hurt. Can we all agree that we're sorry for the misunderstanding and put this behind us? --]&nbsp;(]) 15:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	*** It doesn't matter, actually. How many people have to tell you that you're ] before you believe it? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)		:Nevermind. Checkuser got to them first. You can archive this now ] (]) 22:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	**** At last, a personal attack. You will notice that, up to now, I have not called Morwen (or anyone) any names. But, now, you are calling me a dick. -] 15:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	***Did you read the essay he linked too? What do you think? ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 15:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	**** I think you should never call another user a Dick as I just was. If I called Morwen such a name, I would be blocked at once. I am trying to defend this position and dont need to be called names by other users for doing it. -] 15:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::* If you don't want to be called a dick, then all you need to do is stop acting like a dick. The essay at ] was written to describe situationsjust like this. You have said something that someone finds offensive, and instead of acting like an adult you have spent five or six hours completely failing to persuade anybody else of the merits of your case. Ten out of ten for persistence but minus several million for style. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			== PayPal Honey edit warring ==
	:He wasn't calling you a dick, he was pointing you to an interesting essay (that you need to read) by integrating it into his sentence. Can we calm down, please? ] 16:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Page protected. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	Ok, here's the comment that Morwen found threatening: "Not to go into a very toucy subject, but I would be careful telling a deployed member of the military they shouldn't edit on Misplaced Pages for whatever reason." Now, I've been subjected to death threats myself, and I can see why Morwen saw this threatening. A warning to "be very careful" combined with a implication both of access to weapons and the capacity to travel (both clearly suggested by the "deployed member of the military") is a very common formulation for a threat of violence and is very likely to be perceived as a threat of violence, especially by women. Couple with that the advertisement in Husnock's userspage that Husnock is trained in firearms and holds decorations for accuracy in their use, and his statement that he has "visited four continents and 19 countries" and the threat becomes far more credible. Morwen's perception of being threatened is valid and reasonable, and she should certainly not suffer any sanction for having had such feelings or at having expressed concern about them.
			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)
	Now, I don't think that Husnock intended any threat of violence, at least not explicitly, but was most likely instead lashing out aggressively out of frustration at his present situation, possibly combined with the stress of service in a combat zone. However, it worries me a good deal that Husnock is not willing or able to understand why someone would see his comments as threatening, and I therefore strongly suggest that Husnock consider taking a wikibreak until his personal stress levels have declined somewhat. It would be most unfortunate if stress related to editing Misplaced Pages interfered with the performance of Husnock's duties as a Naval officer, which are certainly more important than some Misplaced Pages article about Star Trek. ] (]) 15:18, 13 December 2006 (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 ==
	=== More drama ===
			{{atop
			| status = Forum shopping
			| result = Duplicate of ]. Please discuss there. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 16:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	at my talk page. ] - ] 15:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			}}
			Dear Wikipedians,
	:Charming. "Little girl, its time to grow up. Watch who you pick your fights with and remember who your friends are". I very much doubt this is a real Lt Colonel - they would have better things to do, and would be more concerned that one of their staff had been wasting his time on Misplaced Pages, rather than the actions of someone they don't know. IP address has been blocked for a week. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 15:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Actually, looking at the block log and talk page, make that a month. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 15:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Looking at the IP address, it does appear to be in ]. Oddly the IP seems to have ] at one point. ] - ] 15:33, 13 December 2006 (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.
	::That looks like someone expressing a viewpoint (granted, he shouldn't have called you a "little girl") But, should such a thing really be blocked? That looks like a legitimate edit from someone and I'm not just saying that because it supports my view of this. I would highly suggest unblocking that ip instead of a one week block with no warning, that didnt look like a personal attack and we can't assume that we know who that really was without evidence. It might be viewed as trying to "silence the opposition", so to speak. -] 15:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Given the IP's history of vandalism, abuse, and previous vandalism of a page involving you (see Morwen's diff above), I won't undo it, no. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 15:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	::: ] applies. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::I don't want to start yet another problem, but the talk page says its a general ip address out of ], which is a legitimate place a Lt. Colonel in Centcom would be. Also, should this blocked by people involved in the discussion supporting Morwen? It may be seen as blocking someone who disagreed with your position. -] 15:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::If how a US Colonel behaves, I understand why you're in such a pickle over there... ] 15:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Useless comment, Yandman. Completely useless. --] <b> μολὼν λαβέ</b> 16:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I agree with the block. - ] (]) 15:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::That post deserves either a strong NPA warning or a short block, but I am concerned that a week-long block on an IP described as above will cause too much collateral damage (an unfortunate phrase in this context, but it has an established wiki-meaning). ] 15:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::It doesn't seem bad enough to warrant that long a block to me, either. I thought it would be better to sit this one out and not comment on the appropriateness of a block or whatever, since this could be seen as improper. But it was certainly quite a nasty personal attack. ] - ] 15:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	Just for the record, a version of the post made to Morwen's talk page was also made to this page, again from this Lt. Colonel. The version on this page was removed as trolling. This situation is deteriorating rapidly. FWIW <small>(I am not an admin)</small>, I support Proto's block of that IP address used to make those posts. See ]. ] 16:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
	:Yeah, this has all gone far beyond ridiculous anyway. Move on, guys... ] ] 16:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	::] has it exactly right... Look bottom line is that editors shouldn't be adding content if they don't have access to their sources. Sometimes things that are written can be taken several different ways and it is clear that while ] didn't mean his statement as a person attack, ] took it that way and you can reasonably see why the text could be misunderstood. The IP Block was warrented because that contributor was adding nothing of value to this conversation and is simply pouring gasoline on a fire, though a month seems a bit excessive. All in all everyone needs to be ]. Apologies all around would be nice, but mostly this should just be dropped instead of continuing on ad infinitum because at this point it is just escalation of a misunderstood comment. Let it go.--] 16:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.
	I am still concerned about collateral damage from this block. The general policy is not to block shared IP addresses for long periods of time, certainly not for a first offense. ] 16:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	*It's not a first offence, though. A month-long block is probably too long, under the circumstances. A checkuser of the IP suggests that people using that IP rotate in and out, so 48 hours is probably enough to be rid of our 'Colonel' (whose existence I doubt, given the results). ] ] 16:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	* Check the block log of {{ipvandal|195.229.242.88}}. This is not a first offence. Support shortening of the block,though, for the reasons stated. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	Clarification: I meant probably a first offense by this particular individual user, not by the IP as a whole. Concur with Mackensen. ] 16:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	*Isn't this why we can now block anon IPs only? Anyway, shortened to 1 week per comments, although do the IP addresses really rotate that much? I have my doubts ... given this IP has leapt to Husnock's defense on prior occasions, it has clearly been used by the same person to offend before, and clearly can't rotate that much. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 16:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	**Actualy, the ip address vandalized my account on a previous occassion, not defended it. I have never heard of this person but I do know there are CENTCOM offices in Dubai. -] 16:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			Thankyou! ]] 15:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	=== Olive Branch ===
			: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 ==
	I will be the first to start this since its been suggested as a means to end this dispute. The dispute started when Morwen posted she was in fear for her life because of something I posted on Misplaced Pages. To this, I posted at once to Admin Noticeboard since I did not want to get an indefinite ban on Misplaced Pages for making a death threat. So, now, here's my final comments:
			{{atop
	#I apologize to the Wiki Community for the major thread this has evolved into and the disruption which some have stated it has caused.
			| result = Globally locked accounts may not have local blocks, but still cannot edit. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 19:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	#I apologize to Morwen for her getting scared. I ask that Morwen acknowledge that I am a married man with a family in the United States and the suggestion that I would travel to the United Kingdom to harm her is very offensive to me.
			}}
	#I request acknowledgement that at least two of the major contributors to this discussion were the same people who had major issues with me on recent AfD votes and, in the end, I was called a "dick" by one of them. This was offensive to me.
	#I ask that we all get back to editing and this not be used against me in the future (i.e. "You once threatened Mowen, so...") and we don't kick someone when he's down.
			] 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)
	With that I wish everyone a good night and hope everyone learned something from all of this. -] 16:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			:My comment seems broken. The wikitext is <syntaxhighlight lang="">
			] is labeled as a blocked sockmaster on their user page, and all of ] are blocked, but the master seems to be to not be actually blocked.
			</syntaxhighlight>For me, and in a private tab, the piped link does not render, and I just see <syntaxhighlight lang="">
			User:ArxhentiVirzi is labeled as a blocked sockmaster on their user page, and all of are blocked, but the master seems to be to not be actually blocked.
			</syntaxhighlight> <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I've fixed it for you. You were adding this page to the category. ] (]) 18:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:The account is ] which is why there is no local block showing. ] (]) 18:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Thanks! <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Yes, always look at the Contributions page to check and see if an editor is blocked or globally blocked. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== subversion ==
	:], it was nearly six hours ago that that I accepted you did not actually intend to kill me. I was scared by your comment, and while it gratifying that you are apologising for me getting scared by your comment, I still note you have not expressed the slightest bit of regret for your misadvised wording. I am perfectly happy to acknowledge that you did not have malicious intent, but where is your acknowledgement that your wording was infelicitous? ] - ] 16:47, 13 December 2006 (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.
	== Bad username ==
			: has been and is attempting to preserve their disruptive edits. Their edits include promotional content for a specific individual. ] (]) 04:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::who were blocked? Are you have argue with somebody or something? And you should prove that is promotional! ] (]) 04:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::IP blocked for evasion of the global block. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 05:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:(c/e) This appears to be related to edits made by ] which were manually revered by ]. Tismar was for "Long-term abuse". ]&thinsp;] 05:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			{{hab}}
			== Merry Christmas! ==
	I came accross a vandal with the username ]. I just thought that this was against the username policy.
			{{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)
	(Short and sweet)
			{{Abot}}
			== suggestion ==
	Cheers,
			{{Atop|This complaint has no merit.--] (]) 18:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			Suggestion of temporary block of User:ActivelyDisinterested
	''']<span style="background:#008">] ]</span>''' 13:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			As user add incorrect information, comment wrong behavior edit with not reliable sources.
	:Please send these to ] in the future. Thanks. ] 13:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			Thanks ] (]) 15:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Should admins be held accountable for false info and copyvios in user sandboxes they help ] to articlespace? ==
			: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? ==
	As the topic states. Should admins be held accountable for false info and copyvios in user sandboxes they help ] to article space? ] says no discussion of moves. I added a general comment to one proposed move (not discussing the move itself!) that since the person requesting the move has a proven history of copyvios, the moving admin should check the article before performing the move. Is this legit? And should they get in trouble should there indeed be copyvios? &ndash; ]] 16:06, 13 December 2006 (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)}}
	:Please consider ], both on the part of the author of this article and on the part of the admin. Nobody on Misplaced Pages has mindreading software ... if a page isn't an obvious copyvio, an admin can't be expected to magically know that it is. ] 16:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I'm confused by all this talk of "held accountable", but a simple note saying "hey, would someone please check this for copyvio, they user has a record" seems appropriate, although I wouldn't be too annoyed if anyone missed this. ] - ] 16:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I meant that if admins missed it, should they be warned about copyvio just as a normal editor would be? Should they be held as accountable as an editor if that happens? And to BigDT: It's not difficult to copy and paste two random sentences from the article into google. &ndash; ]] 16:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I do not think that this is a big deal unless it is a chronic problem. Many veteran editors and admins have edited articles repeatedly without realizing that they are copyright violations, even when it is clear to anyone paying attention that it is a copyright violation. Once, a prolific editor added wikify tags to hundreds of copyright violations (I suspect that he or she was watching new pages/recent changes or went through the articles on ]). That is the kind of case where someone should be asked to be more careful. If someone misses an extremely blatant copyright violation (such as the article saying where it came from and/or the word "copyright" appearing in it) or misses several less blatant but still obvious copyright violations, I would consider leaving a message on their talk page. -- ] 16:52, 13 December 2006 (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