Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:27, 25 July 2022

• 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)

Open tasks

• 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?

• 2 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 1 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 18 sockpuppet investigations
• 5 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 3 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 0 requests for RD1 redaction
• 57 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 25 requested closures
• 42 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 6 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Whatsupkarren / (Tariq afflaq) unban request (reopened)

• Special:permalink/1097008915#Whatsupkarren / (Tariq afflaq) unban request reopened from archive per email request

Whatsupkarren is requesting unblock/unban, and is sock of Tariq afflaq . Roy Smith noted in the prior unban request that user no longer has the original account password, and that he recommended requesting unban with this account. User is WP:3X banned as Tariq afflaq. This is, of course, a checkuser block.

• Whatsupkarren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Tariq afflaq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Prior unban request
• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Tariq afflaq/Archive

Request to be unbanned

It’s been more than a year, I haven’t made any edit on English Misplaced Pages, used sockpuppets or anything like that since I was banned a year ago, I fully understand why I was blocked, and then banned, I admit my mistakes, I own up to my irresponsible reckless activities years ago, I apologize to all of Misplaced Pages community, and promise that will never ever engage in such activities again. the ban gave me a chance to acquaint myself with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, I think the ban is no longer necessary because I understand why I was banned: 1. Sockpuppetry, years ago I created many socks ( 18, not mentioning non registered edits ) and impersonated some users, but I now know that I should not create accounts to mislead, circumvent blocks, or avoid any kind of sanctions. 2. Edit warring and vandalism, my approach to dealing with fellow users was rather barbaric, I now know that disagreements should be resolved through discussing the issue on the associated talk page or seeking help at appropriate venues. 3.I also know that I should remain civil and should not use improper language and should avoid responding in a contentious and antagonistic manner. I also want to add that I've created more than 50 articles on Arabic and French Wikipedias in the past year. I hope this appeal addresses all of your concerns, if not, please point them out. thanks for your time.

Carried over from user talk by --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Checkuser needed for starters, as this is a CU block and can only be considered after a CU has looked at it. No comment on the merits at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

   Unlikely but it's a noisy range. @Mz7: had the most luck last time and I believe it's worth a second set of eyes here in case I missed something. To be clear, barring new evidence, my findings clear the checkuser part of the block and mean this unblock request may now be considered on the merits. --Yamla (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• I haven't looked into this appeal too deeply yet, but it looks like at the previous unban request, I provided a decent summary of the background here and why I was opposed at the time: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive338#Whatsupkarren / Tariq afflaq unban request. I think at least this part of what I said back then probably still applies: If the community does want to extend leniency to this user, I would strongly suggest also attaching some unblock conditions, e.g. a topic ban from Syria-related topics, broadly construed. Mz7 (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Looking at the editting on other wikis, it appears to all be around Syria and people of Syrian decent, which appears to be part of the reason they were originally blocked. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• I'm always up for a second chance. I do think that a TBan from Syria-related topics, to be appealed after a minimum of six months, would be necessary - on the understanding that they would need to demonstrate a capacity to edit constructively in that time, not merely wait for it to time out then appeal. There would also need to be an agreement to stick to one account. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Unblock per WP:LASTCHANCE, with a six month Syria related topic ban and a one account restriction. Cullen328 (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Accept under the conditions of a indef topic ban for Syria, and an indef one account restriction, with either restriction being appealable after 6 months of actual editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Decline until they show any interest in editing any other topic. When was the last time that Whatsupkarren/Tariq afflaq made any edit to a non-English Misplaced Pages that wouldn't have been a direct violation of their topic ban here? I mean, their most recent Misplaced Pages mainspace edits were a month ago on ptwiki, to pt:Moise Safra—where they were re-adding claims asserting Syrian nationality to a biography, as part of a slow-motion edit war on that article. For reference, he was trying to make essentially the same edit (since reverted) to enwiki's Moise Safra in December 2020, just hours before his original indefinite enwiki block. (And again as an IP evading his block less than a month later. And then as a sock two weeks after that. And then as another sock three months later.)
  This editor has not shown that they are capable of editing anywhere outside of their topic ban. Instead, they've spent their time outside of enwiki exporting the same 'Syrian-tagging' disputes to multiple other Misplaced Pages projects. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Non-plussed by user's feeing that edit warring is not edit warring if they have a good reason for edit warring. An opinion shared by many of the edit warriors I have encountered. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  edit for the bot to not archive before close --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse Unblock per Girth Summit, Cullen328, and Dennis Brown above. Appealable-in-six-months TBan from Syria-related topics, agreement to stick to one account. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Lift ban, unblock with Syria topic ban and one account restriction as suggested by others. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment (I actually started closing, thinking it was clearcut, before realising that it's only actually slightly in favour of an unblock at the moment). @Whatsupkarren: - can you point to recent activity on another project on a topic other than Syria? What would you do here if you were unblocked but TBANNED on Syria? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Whatsupkarren emailing a response isn't the best thing to do - answering on your talk page with a ping is fine. Am I fine to post the content of your email response? Nosebagbear (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  Drat, just when it was getting good --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Lift ban, unblock with a TBAN on Syria stuff. WP:STANDARDOFFER. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• I don't exactly endorse unblocking, but I am not opposed either as long as the Syria topic ban is placed as a condition for unblocking. Am interested in reading the response to Nosebagbear's question above. Mz7 (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose 18 admitted sockpuppets used to deceive, threatening off-wiki hacking, impersonating an editor, and a nationalistic POV pusher to boot. They had almost a week to answer Nosebagbear's question & failed to do so. Timesink 101, can only harm WP. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Exclusion of Mathematical Finance From Financial Economics

A new editor (formerly editing on the topic with IP) User:Thesmeagol2 is trying to exclude my discussion of mathematical finance on grounds that I (professor of mathematical finance) have a conflict of interest. See Talk:Financial economics. It would be interesting to see why experts in a field can be excluded from commenting on it, say Medical Doctors prevented from discussing issues in medicine. (Let us ignore the separate issue of the conflation of the problem by editor User:SPECIFICO on the difference between the academic fields of finance and financial economics). I am certain that excluding topic experts from an encyclopedia is ultimately against the rules, but it would be interesting to see under which arguments. Limit-theorem (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

What are you asking admins to do here? Among several sensible things Thesmeagol2 said something a bit silly. The reaction should be to simply point out that it is silly and carry on with the discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

First off, claiming you are a topic expert is irrelevant and counterproductive. Second, yes the other editor may be misusing the term COI as we define it here. Third, this article remains in very poor shape, starting with the garbled lead which is not supported by well-sourced article content -- in particular the opening sentence which is nonsense and cited to a self-published webpage bit, ostensibly a college course handout by Prof. Bill Sharpe. On the merits, the new editor's contributions have been positive, including some of the content they have removed. I have suggested on the article talk page that this page should be merged with Finance, our article on the topic that is currently in much better shape and could easily absorb whatever relevant material from this page does not already appear at that one. SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Arguments pertaining to Randy in Boise aside, generally Misplaced Pages is governed by the principles of reliable sources and citations. There is no inherent policy that allows for the exclusion of scientists and experts on a particular subject, but experts cannot use their own expertise as a source unless it is backed up by secondary peer review from a reputable journal.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Limit-theorem. I suggest that you read Misplaced Pages:Expert editors. There is some excellent advice there. Cullen328 (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes thank you, I always provide citations. My problem is exclusion because of expertise. Best, Limit-theorem (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Nobody has excluded you, so -- fortunately -- that is not "your problem". As far as I can tell, the edit of yours that @Thesmeagol2: reverted did not provide a citation. Nor, btw is it clearly written so as to convey any specific meaning, as far as I can tell. Their edit summary said "deleted un-cited speculative commentary..." SPECIFICO talk 18:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I added 2 citations, very senior ones. My Reversion came in two parts. And they reverted my text and citations. Limit-theorem (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Right, you had to "add" them because you had already twice inserted your text with no source citations. But we should not be adding such content directly to the lead and the content and any sources will -- except for inherently contentious text -- be taken from the article body. Moreover, having looked at the sources you added, they are quite weak sources and do not really verify the text you keep reinserting. You should have used the article talk page to discuss and gain consensus for your proposed content. Instead, you claimed that you are a professor or teacher of some related topic and dismissed the editor's concern out of hand. SPECIFICO talk 18:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

They are not weak sources; one is an assigned textbook. Limit-theorem (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Anyway I came to confirm that expertise is not COI and citations >> no citations. Limit-theorem (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The textbook you cited is an undergraduate text in practical calculations for finance practitioners. That's not a good source for lead content on the broad subject of Finance, or as the article is titled, "Financial Economics. Please also, to ensure you don't suffer any more COI allegations, stop calling yourself an expert. And don't make easily refuted claims such as that you always provided sourcing when the other editor apparently was motivated in part when they saw your speculative unsourced ramble about math models in Finance. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Is this a personal attack? Limit-theorem (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

No. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Calling a "speculative unsource ramble" professionally phrased comments that were neither speculative nor unsourced nor a ramble? Not helpful For an encyclopedia contributor. Limit-theorem (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you tell this one has never made it through peer review? Thesmeagol2 (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not replying to your comment to argue, but to state to other editors the procedural fact that all Spinger Nature books are peer-reviewed, with the same standards found in Nature, see https://www.springernature.com/gp/policies/book-publishing-policies (look under books). This is particularly applicable to mathematics books. Limit-theorem (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I suspect that what @Thesmeagol2: meant was that if you had ever had your own work published and gone through the peer review process, you'd have a thicker skin and be more inclined to accept and respond constructively to well-founded criticism of your work. SPECIFICO talk 20:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Sphere Matchers

• Draft:Sphere Matchers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• LiliaMiller2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This draft is a hoax created by LTA LiliaMiller2002

He have a long history of creating Wiki articles about non-existent video games allegedly developed by notable companies.

Please see here Trade (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why you post this here rather than simply tagging the draft as a hoax and, if you wish, putting in the above explanation on the draft Talk page. In any event, I've deleted the draft.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Because this is not the user's home wiki? I don't see the harm in bringing cross-wiki vandalism to the attention of the admins in this board. –FlyingAce 15:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

That and i also posted here so the admins would not move the item to the draft next time. --Trade (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Ban removal appeal of PotsdamLamb aka Galendalia

The following is the appeal of PotsdamLamb for the removal of their ban. I am placing this here as a courtesy, and make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 06:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I am requesting an unblock on enWiki as I have made significant changes to the way in which I behave and interact with others. I fully understand my previous behavior was extremely rude and downright gross to other editors. The insults I hurled at others were uncalled for and would never happen again. Granted I may get upset again, however, I handle it with a conversation that is non-derogatory and constructive without name-calling, blaming, etc. The entire block was based on my behavior and which has now changed.Thank you very much for your attention to this unblock request and I look forward to the results. You can see a lot of the work I have done on simple Misplaced Pages. All of my accounts were locked by a user who falsely listed information about my account and they have since been unlocked. I work directly with stewards and and admins (we do not have many experienced editors on simple) on IRC when I have questions and the appropriate places to go when I have questions. I have learned a lot more about the workings of WP. I was blocked for 6 months late last year for the calling someone a name but have not done so since and I have had great, calm discussions since. I have expanded one article to a great extent and am working on my second one which is a BLP that I was able to save from being deleted. Just as a side note when I look back at the discussions on WP:ANI I disgust myself for that behavior. I am willing to take the standard offer. I do not have access to any of my other accounts (as stated above) because I use a password creator and my passwords range from 40-90 characters if allowed. This is my only active account I use and I am working on a bot on media that I am developing and that name is PDLArchiveer Bot (I believe). These are my only accounts. I look forward to getting the feedback from the community and being unbanned.

• Per the information provided above, TonyBallioni has performed the CU check and has verified no login from my account and no socking. He asked me to repost this on IRC. This was his statement Prefer public, but basically I told 331dot that since there are no logins I can see through CU, I believe your story on loss of access and there does not exist from a CU perspective any reason that would prevent an unblock. Since you're banned, it now has to go to AN. I would post a new appeal on the current account and ask an admin to copy it to AN. If there are any questions, you should be able to reply using PDL The prefer public was from me asking him if he wanted to chat in a DM or in public.

With that said, I am asking for this to be moved over to WP:AN and I will add the page to my watchlist. Thank you for your time and consideration. PDL_{OMG, What have I done?} 23:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose gave permission to unblock on CU grounds and on this account as there's nothing from a CU angle preventing it, but as the original blocking admin of the main account looking at the recent activity at w:simple:User talk:PotsdamLamb/Archive 3 reminds me a lot of what was experienced here before the initial block. There's a lot of rushing into things without understanding what is going on, discussions with admins and other experienced users with a lot of back and forth and an assurance in the rightness of their views. I don't see any personal attacks in the simple archive, but I didn't dive too deeply. In short: while socking does not prevent an unblock of this account and if the community wishes to unban it certainly can, I do not think the potential for positive contributions outweighs the risk of known disruption at this time. Note: I don't plan on following this discussion and I don't have AN watchlisted so pings/replies might go unresponded to, especially since I'm around less these days. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
• As one of the (many) admins previously involved with the Galendalia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) account, I am skeptical towards unblocking and unfortunately this appeal does not really convince me otherwise. This appeal mostly focuses on issues of incivility and rudeness towards other editors, which would arise from when Galendalia would make problematic edits and then face warnings or reminders as a result. That disruptive and hasty editing is key to why Galendalia was blocked in the first place- and this appeal really doesn't address it. While I could go into all the various issues which can be seen at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038#Broader issues with Galendalia's editing, User_talk:Galendalia/Archive_1, User talk:Galendalia/Archive 2, and especially User_talk:Galendalia, I don't think the energy is worth it. At this time, there's nothing that convinces me that unblocking won't lead to another demoralizing time sink. Sorry, no. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• As some who talked with Galendalia and who was his short lived mentor, I'm leaning towards opposing his unblock request. Seeing the appeal doesn't install confidence in me. I agree with Tony that this shows us that a lot of that problems that Galendalia had before getting banned (e.g., rushing into things without really knowing what is really going on), haven't really been fixed. Although I no longer consider Galendalia at risk of socking again, I think Galendalia needs to sort the problems that led to his ban first before appealing. I'm sorry Galendalia, but at time, I simply can't support a unban. Signed,The4lines |||| 20:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• (from their TP) I have been reading my appeal, however, I cannot post on ANI, but I wanted to answer the question that seems to be lingering. My edit count on simple is over 1k with no rollbacks of my changes (other than vandals). All of my contributions have been a net positive. I have expanded numerous articles, as well as, handling a lot of formatting issues, organizing page sections, cleared numerous categories with backlogs that had some sort of error on the articles and many other things. I also do have rollback rights on simple. One issue I had in the beginning on simple was with categories, which has since been remedied. I have stayed within what I know and have gone slowly and a matter of fact I posted that same advice to someone who was just blocked on enWP and started in on everything possible and caused some issues. I advised them to slow down, read through all of the policies, go very slow, preview all edits and if you are not sure, hold off and ask others for their opinions. I know it may be hard to determine if I would be a net positive on enWP, which is why I stated I would be willing to accept the standard offer to show the enWP admins and editors of what I can do so the proper determination can be made, without referring to the edits and arguments in the past I have had with editors and admins. Thank you and if you have any questions, I can directly answer them on my talk page here PDL_{OMG, What have I done?} 21:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Accusation of copyright violation and plagiarism against me

A user has accused me of violating copyright and plagiarism, and will neither provide any evidence nor retract the allegation despite being invited several times to do either. How should I proceed? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

This thing was already explained in the edit summary , all I said is to paraphrase things rather than add what exactly the source says. Also the lead section source of Top 10 best John Cena's matches says how significant and historic it was but ItsKesha keeps removing that their 2014 match was the end of their historic rivalry even tho source 1 and 22 implies that and I just paraphrased it. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with your allegations against me. You have accused me of violating copyright and plagiarism, you either need to prove this allegation or retract it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I already proved it on the edit summary saying the need to paraphrase and both source 1 and source 22, wwe and comicbook.com implied it was historic so I just paraphrased it but you won't accept because its not copy pasting, which is what you do, let admins review the page and find out then. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• To both, please read tedentious editing and WP:Bludgeoning, fight about content across three pages is pretty disruptive especially when you are both repeating yourselves over.

Now to the actual issues, Dilbaggg, wrestling is fake and should not be presented as reality. Misplaced Pages likes boring writing, no need to add emotions or qualify people as prominent writers. Also, there is zero reason ever to include a source twice simultaneously, once with a proper cite template and once with the raw link. The raw link serves no purpose there. Finally, stop using words like vandal, plagerism, and BLP because you clearly do not know their meaning on Misplaced Pages. Wrestling is fake, writing about fictional characters is not a BLP violation, content disputes are not vandalism and unless you have better diffs there is zero evidence that copyright or plagiarism plays a part in the dispute.

ItsKesha, just stop posting the same thing over and over again. Its not helpful here or on any other page where you repeat yourself and continuing a content dispute across three pages without waiting for any other editors to comment is just silly. Brevity is your friend. Slywriter (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter Thank you for ypur comment, I will just point out taht I am not the only user who had issue with ItsKesha, he removes warnings from other users and even admins, all can be viewed on talk page, but yes I agree with you i should not use thsoe terms like that either and am genuinly sorry, and ok I won't accuse ItsKesha anything, this is mainly sorrounding content dispute and yes I guess we wrestling fans do get carried away, but I promise I won't accuse editors including ItsKesha for that unless its proper reasoning. Thank you. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

But you still haven't removed any of the accusations? Whether I remove comments from my talk page is absolutely irrelevant and none of your business whatsoever, and has no place in discussions here. Your apology, which I don't accept as being genuine, doesn't excuse your accusations, which still haven't been retracted. It's not a "content dispute" to make such accusations which are still scattered all over the place. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Dilbaggg, with only a few exceptions, an editors is allowed to remove sections from their talk page, and doing so indicates that the editor has read the message. The removed posts stay in the edit history. Will you please withdraw the incorrect accusations that you have made against ItsKesha? Cullen328 (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok he may not have violated copyrights and will remove that, but my accussation below is legit @Cullen328, also he removed my comment here, thats what is aid, i never said he can't remove talk page warns, but I just brought that up because he does it as a tactic to hide his persistant behavior, but he can not remove my comment here which he had done if you check the history as this is not his talk page. Anyway ok I egt itsKesha gets lot of smpathy for kesha's picture and all, and I never said he can't remove talk page warns but just brought up the fact that he gets away with his undeniable abuses (if you check his edit hostory and all the similar warns he reciieved) by doing that. Guess the cute Kesha pic has a soft effect for him tho. Either ways to me he did plagarise, but I respect admin decision so will erase that part. But I request taht eh does not contiue t WP:EW and remove the PWTorch WP:PW/RS which i talked about in the section below. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me, you've just accused me again of plagiarism? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, just to clarify, are you actually accusing editors and administrators of bias towards me because I jokingly have a picture of Kesha on my userpage? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Do not flater yourself ItsKesha, I never said Admins are biased to you, I pointed out taht you do not take admins seriously and hide their warnings from your talk page, which would ahve been fine but you still violate the things they waarned you for. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

If you never said admins are biased, why have you apologised below? And why have you, again, accused me of plagiarism? This is absolutely pathetic. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Dilbaggg, your assertion that I am somehow influenced by a picture on ItsKesha's userpage is ludicrous and spurious. You are digging a hole for yourself. It would be wise to stop. Cullen328 (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328 I apologise deeply, i was frustrated that itsKesha always get away even with admin warnings just by erasing talk page wars and erasing talk page waarns is nothing wrong but he continues to do the things people, including Admins warned him not to do, and saadly Admins are too busy to review over 500 edits in his talk page history. They have a busy life and simply don't have sufficient time to review his case, and I can't take things to ANI as PW is in GS Anyway my commet was sort of uncivil, if youw ant you can punish me, unlike ItsKesha I take responsibilities for my mistakes, so please forgive me and if you want you can punish me but I request you to stop ItsKesha's aggressive EW behavior. I myself am guilty of content dispute with him but I am a human, I have feelings and I am just frustrated with how he turns things and its been that way with him for 2 years, anyway please accept my apology, I am sorry about that. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Dilbaggg, thank you for your apology which I accept. In return, I want to give you some advice which I hope that you will find useful. Do not edit Misplaced Pages when you are angry. Go smell some roses instead. Do not edit Misplaced Pages when you are frustrated. Watch some kittens frolicking instead. When you edit Misplaced Pages, edit with a level head, and strive to write logical persuasive sentences, and do your best to use proper grammar and to spell correctly. Never criticize another editor without providing persuasive evidence, and do not expect someone else to go searching for the evidence. That is your job. These are the skills of productive encyclopedia editors, and will also make your opinions on article content more persuasive. Cullen328 (talk) 05:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

ItsKesha's removal of major WP:RS contents claiming then not notable based on personal views and accusing me of lack of sourcing tag when very line of the aricle was complient with WP:PW/RS

I asked Its Kesha to request consensus for majotr changes in and but he refuses to do that and keeps erasing 7 years accepted WP:PW/RS based on personal views. He has a history of warning for aggressive editing but he always erases them on his talk page but they can all be viewed on his talk page history. Anyway i am done here, if I am the one at fault am sorry, but i didn't want to tell about ItsKesha's persistant agressive editing behavor, but I did, and if I am the one out, its fine, I just said fact, best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I've asked several times for you to prove these allegations or to retract them altogether. You can't accuse somebody of this. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

ItsKesha removed my latest message, he has no right to remove other people's comments, even if they are offtopic (which this is not as they are on similar topic) only admins can do that, if they do I will accept whatever decision they take. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm removing nonsense that has nothing to do with your allegations against me. You have accused me of violating copyright and plagiarism, you either need to prove this allegation or retract it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

its your history of disruptive and uncivil behavior, just FIVE of MANY recent examples by multiple editors on your talk page and yes since the matter is here all can be included, including the time you falsely accused me of adding bad citations when you are the one keeping one and removing my WP:RS contents: , , , . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilbaggg (talk • contribs)

That has nothing to do with your allegations against me. You have accused me of violating copyright and plagiarism, you either need to prove this allegation or retract it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a place all issues can be brought up and looked into, anyway one alst thing, you have no right to remove other people's emssages, this is not your personal talk page where you have removed so many warnings (including from admins), just similar to what it was here, nothing else left to say to you: Dilbaggg (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with your allegations against me. You have accused me of violating copyright and plagiarism, you either need to prove this allegation or retract it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes I did in edit summary I already said that you should paraphrase, and both source 1 and 22 implied its a historic match but you just copy paste. Anyway let admins decide, if its against me I will respect their decision, but I have the right to warn you to not delete other peole's messge regardless and all issues can be brought up here. No I will stop talking because I already explained but you keep saying I didn't, you are just trying ti bury my allegation under your texts, keep it up, I willrespect whatever admins decide. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I seperated the topics, happy now, also here is a false tag of article having unreliable source when all the sources were WP:PW/RS and ItsKesha insistes on removing wwe.com and wrestleview despite both of them being accepted sources and there being other sources like pwtorch, 411mania aned bleacher report. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Let me also say that pro wrestling articles fall under santions for editing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

This is exactly why i didn't want to bring these issues up, but ItsKesha always gets a free pass just by erasing all editors and even admin warnings from his talk page, his talk page history shows that, anyway you are right WP:PW is in GS, and I should be careful and won't ring up content disputtes here again. I am sorry for the trouble we caused, and I hope ItsKesha and me can work together in peace with cooperation. Bye. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I tried to be nice and let go, but User:ItsKesha continues to remove WP:PW/RS such as PWtorch a very reliable source: and adds sources like TMZ whih don't fall into Wp:PW/RS , and this has already broken WP:EW limit, yes he removed a little duplicate info, but he also intentionally removed WP:PW/RS PWtorch and the crucial info, and he says the quality is not good enough to im, who is he alone to determine that , I requested him to seek Wp:RfC many times he doesn't. I am a human, I have patient limits, I respect Misplaced Pages rules but this is a user who always gets away with WP:EW and stuff by always removing talk page warns, yes I am guilty of being dragged to content dispute too, I am sorry, but why shold ItsKesha always get away for his behavior just because he hides all his past warns. Does erasing talk page warns including from admins lets you get a free pass? Don't talk page histories gets checked. If he stopped the behavior after warning, its not an issue to remove them, but he doesn't. I restored the PWTorch info one last time and hope @User:ItsKesha doesn't shamelessly WP:EW after this and I am sorry to be dragged to this WP:PW debate under GS, we wrestling fans tend to be passionate but I request that Itskesha stops removing WP:pW/RS and claims he alone gets to judge an articles quality. Have a busy day ahead, so my last words, bye. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

One last thing regarding the Randy orton article, it does feel like WP:BLP violation, pro wrestling is scripted yes, but so are movies, if people remove large amount of contents from actors rticles such as Johnny Depp for eg, it will count BLP violation, I repeatedly requested Itsesha to seek WP:RfC but he will not do that because votes will not go in favor, , what is his problem in seeking RfC, and he had similar issues in the past in 2020 but that time project ws more active and they got to him and forced him to ask a consensus, sadly a lot of editors are inactive now : , anyway I know there is nothing wrong with removing takl page warns but Kesha has used it as a tool to evade any action and has even removed admin warnings and continued to do things he was warned for likeremoving WP:RS, doing WP:EW and stuff, sad thing is admins are too busy and do not have the ti e to review 500+ edits on his talk page history. Anyway this is the last thing i will say here, peace. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

(Multiple EC as I started replying hours ago then got busy with other stuff) First this edit by ItsKesha, was not right. I initially thought it was a hidden edit conflict or accident, but the above discussion seems to suggest it was intentional. Other than when removing outing or where the editor making the comment is a sock or troll, or maybe a very serious personal attack, no editor should remove a complaint against them at AN. It doesn't matter if the editor making the complaint has an existing complaint which you feel they have not provided sufficient evidence for, let the community deal with it if a WP:BOOMERANG is needed. Likewise if you feel it would be better to segment the threads, then it might be okay to do so, but don't remove the complaint.

As for the other stuff. Well an editor doesn't get away with edit warring because they remove warnings. You're supposed to show diffs at ANEW anyway and so the removal of warnings doesn't affect the ability to report edit warring to ANEW. Frankly ItsKesha has been around long enough it's questionable if warnings are needed.

Also "we wrestling fans tend to be passionate" is a well known problem and any wrestling fan should be ensuring their passion isn't causing problems. Notably I'd point out that wikiproject reliable source guidelines are effectively WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. They are hopefully useful in excluding those unreliable specialised sources for the area, as well as in finding specialised sources which can be used. But they should never be taken as some sort of bible of what sources to use.

In particular, reliable sources should not be excluded just because they don't appear in some wikiproject guidelines. This doesn't mean it's a good idea for an editor to go around replacing one reliable source with another, generally speaking there should be sufficient reason to do this, but this applies in both directions. And a source appearing in a wikiproject guideline is not by itself sufficient reason.

I would note WP:TMZ is not a good source so I can't imagine any reason why an editor would be replacing other sources with it. If the existing source is no good, then find another source. However the general point remains and no editor should be saying the BBC (to give a random example) is not a good source just because it doesn't appear in some wikiproject guidelines. In fact, if it supports the information, replacing pwtorch or 411mania with the BBC is likely to be a good thing since there's generally far less question over the reliability of the BBC so that's probably sufficient reason to do so.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the diff, it seems the TMZ was used as this was a statement made to TMZ. That's one of the few cases when using TMZ in BLP is probably okay although due weight considerations still apply if TMZ is the only source. (If no one else cares that this person said whatever to TMZ then probably it isn't very important.) Also I may have misunderstood the above statement I assumed "continues to remove WP:PW/RS such as PWtorch a very reliable source:<diff removed> and adds sources like TMZ" meant one source was being replaced with the other. But it seems these were separate events supporting different info. Nil Einne (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nil Einne User:ItsKesha recently broke his topic professional wrestling ban sanction on pro wrestling article by doing this edit and once again removed large amount of contents without seeking any consensus. Not sure this is allowed or not, but just letting you know about the topic ban evasion. Heres the topic ban log of his talk page which he might erase like he does with most warns: Dilbaggg (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dilbaggg: I suggest you either ping the editor who imposed the topic ban User:NinjaRobotPilot or open a new thread as it's likely your comment here will just be missed, and there's nothing I can do about any possible violation. Nil Einne (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I mean User:NinjaRobotPirate Nil Einne (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, if practical, I'd prefer someone else decide that. If I repeatedly sanction ItsKesha, it's likely to convince this editor that I have some kind of grudge. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@User:NinjaRobotPirate You are not the only admin to warn him, he has a history of disrespectfully removing admin warns from his talk page, you can review those all, but its fine to remove admin warns but not to repeat the behavior he was warned for. If he can get away with breaching topic bans, that would encourage others and also be injustice to those who did not get away by breaching topic ban. Either ways you are a very senior admin, I just wanted to let this behavior known, this is possibly my last message here and I respect whatever decision you take. Dilbaggg (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Am I missing something or do I not see a topic ban being imposed there? Can you link where a topic ban from pro wrestling was decided? — Czello 22:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Did you impose a topic ban from pro wrestling on ItsKesha? — Czello 22:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The topic is under general sanctions. There was no discussion. Go to User talk:ItsKesha, press control-f, and type in banned. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:AE

Getting a bit backed up and stale, if any admin has the time to help out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I strongly support this request. Huldra (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Jv.anthonny again

• Jv.anthonny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Already blocked once and also reported here before by ResPM, Jv.anthonny has been adding unsourced recording dates to infoboxes for a long time and have been given way too many "final" warnings, with no effect. Yes, WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, but this has to stop. Perhaps a longer block with a pointer to the talk page will make them communicate? --Muhandes (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• I went ahead and partial blocked from article space indefinitely and invited them to discuss here. Any admin can unblock at their discretion w/o jumping through hoops. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Martinevans123

The only actionable item I see is a proposal to convert the full block into a mainspace p-block, possibly in conjunction with mentoring. There was a slight majority of people who supported that idea, but not anything close to what I would call consensus. In any case, Martinevans123 has stated on their talk page that they "will be stepping back from the project for a while to reflect on things". As a matter of policy (or at least standard practice), we don't consider unblocking until the user makes a request. So, there's really nothing to do here until they do indeed ask to be unblocked.

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

I have blocked longtime user User:Martinevans123 and removed his Autopatrolled right due to persistent copyright problems. I see on his talk page three postings regarding violations of the copyright policy this year alone (March, June, today), and he has received numerous additional warnings (I see six warnings from myself alone in his archives; there are likely others). He has twice been blocked for copyvio (two short blocks: 2018, 2019). I am noting my actions on this board given the extent of the problem, as he has ~200,000 edits. A CCI will likely have to be opened. — Diannaa (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Disappointing. I thought better of them. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

If the community thinks it would be constructive, and if Martin is agreeable, I offer to provide supervision/mentoring. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Awesome --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're the right person to act as a mentor, since you did not seem to see what the problem was with the edit I posted about on his talk page back in March. — Diannaa (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

If people don't want me to, I won't. But I want to correct what you said about me, because I feel like it's a bit condescending. You linked to a version of his talk page, as of that comment that I made (a somewhat facetious comment, starting with an offer to spank him). But there was further discussion after that. Here is a link to the full discussion: . I actually did take it seriously, offered to help with a serious rewrite, and did a genuine rewrite myself, including the source material that Martin wanted to include, but rewriting it in a copyright-compliant manner. Here is the combined diff of my edits: . And here is a link to the source: ; anyone please feel free to check/compare. And Martin was cooperative with me. I'm a retired tenured university professor, and I find the opinion that I am poorly equipped to recognize plagiarism, well, troubling. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I've also been editing here since 2007, including FA work, and have never had issues with copyvio or close paraphrasing in my own editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

In spite of your initial flip remarks to which I linked, your proposed rewrite does look okay according to Earwig's tool. I want to say though, that your jocularity about the problem impeded my efforts to get him to take the copyright matter seriously. — Diannaa (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, there are times when editors, and particularly administrators, take themselves too seriously. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

My experience with Martinevans is that I have not seen him take any criticism seriously. In my opinion, he seems to have lots of banterbuddies on this site, and seems he to navigate articles and issues with an unwarranted degree of entitlement. The cited thread regarding the copyvio seems typical. SPECIFICO talk 01:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK, I'm not one of his "banterbuddies", but having seen/interacted Martin over the years I think that's overly harsh. Sure, he does default to flippancy generally (not just specifically in relation to criticism) which is not necessarily everyone'e cup of tea. But I don't recognise "unwarranted degree of entitlement". I have to say that Martin's flippant responses are often in contexts when other editors might well have got aggressive, genuinely uncivil, downright PA etc or is in the face of other editors' aggression, incivility, PAs etc. A little facetiousness is a small price to pay when it defuses/avoids what so often otherwise happens on WP. As far as the Copyvio is concerned, I have no comment other than if Tryptofish is willing to mentor and Martin is willing to go down that route then after his 200k+ edits, 100+ articles created and 15 years I would hope and expect that to be solution. DeCausa (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of the way Martinevans123 responds to stuff but that's neither here nor there. But I feel I should repeat something I've said before thought. While Martinevans123 is ultimately responsible for their actions, editors should consider whether the way they've responded in trying to support a friend who may be unhappy with a situation, have unfortunately contributed to this editor not understanding the seriousness of the situation and the urgent need for reform. This doesn't mean editors cannot offer words of support for their friend, simply that it should not come the the expense communicating the gravity of the situation. If not in the initial support, then later when their friend has had a chance to calm down. Since ultimately their friend changing their behaviour is not only for the benefit of the project, but likely the friend themselves. (As a lot of the time, we end up with this result where whatever problems their friend is causing can no longer be ignored so a long term block results.) To be clear, this is a comment on how we ended up here, I have no problem with the mentorship. Nil Einne (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm fine with Tryptofish mentoring. None of us are perfect, but Trypofish has the skills, and Martin will listen to him, which is just as important. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I am okay with mentorship as a last chance, but I am not optimistic that he will change his ways. People who get warned repeatedly for copyright infringement usually don't come back. SPECIFICO's comments make me even less optimistic. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this probably needs a CCI. Harry van der Weyden is also copyvio from (tagged instead of deleting to let others double check). There's also at least a sentence of straight copypaste at Lawrence Mynott. I'm sure there is more than what I can find in 5 minutes. —Kusma (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Coincidentally I have been writing a guide to copyright blocks at User:Moneytrees/Copyright blocks, which contains advice on when to block and how to appeal. I doubt it will be completely useful in this situation, but who knows. I do want to say though, I do not want to see conflict between people I care about here. I really hope that doesn't happen. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• I've enjoyed the odd bit of banter in the past with Martinevans123, and I think that SPECIFICO's comments above are unnecessary, and rather unkind in the circumstances. I cannot find fault with this block however - that latest Sam Smith article was indeed a direct cooy/paste job of an entire article - no one should be doing stuff like that, far less an experienced user whose Autopatrolled flag means that issues are less likely to be detected by others. Tryptofish's offer is generous, I hope that will offer a route out of this situation that gives us confidence that there will be no more similar occurrences. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• I've taken a look at that Sam Smith issue, too, and it's a clear copy-paste-edit-save. valereee (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  That's very disappointing and concerning considering the number of warnings he has been given. I like Martin a lot but he does seem to have a blind spot when it comes to this sort of thing.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• I am very reticent to support any mentoring because this isn't something that should require mentoring. These are the most basic copyright violations you can make. Someone with 200,000 edits should not be making them. This is a basic question of competence, and Martinevans spent all the time he was being given warnings continuing to use his talk page as water cool and soapbox, rather than changing his behavior. He can't even say anything close to a "my bad" or "I understand" the issue on his talk page—and has met previous warnings with hostility or contempt. What indication has been made that anything will be different after all these blocks and warnings? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse block, I'm sorry to say this about a longtime and valued contributor. But copyvios are serious as it runs afoul our licensing, as noted at WP:Copyright violations; and may cause legal problems. RD1 is specifically for this purpose. Indeed, the editing window has the disclaimer on it. If it's a copyvio: We. Can't. Keep. It. I am ambivalent on Trypto's offer, which is kind. It may help but these are persistent problems and unblocking should not occur without a very strong understanding about what is acceptable and not. Maybe wait 6 months and apply for the standard offer with a detailed appeal that describes what went wrong? Again, I'm sorry to say this because I believe Martin is here in good faith, but these are serious issues. Best, Jip Orlando (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• I appreciate the kind comments about my offer from some of the editors here. And I recognize that there may not be consensus for mentoring. Perhaps I did myself no favor by offering; Misplaced Pages can be a very insensitive place. But Martin has been a long-time editor and a net positive, and there is a difference between pride, and bad faith or incompetence. I am well aware of the fact that he has already had multiple previous warnings, and has a concerning history of recidivism. Despite my wiki-friendship, it has bothered me, too. In my professional life, I have been a hard-ass about not tolerating plagiarism – just ask the students that I flunked. I'm not naive about it. And I want to make it clear that my offer is not intended as a get out of jail free card. I would see it as something with:
  • a 6-month community editing restriction where he could not start new pages or make additions to content without my prior approval.

  And I would treat it as:

  • making him learn, not as me rewriting it for him.

  And finally,

  • a failure on his part to reform would lead to a reinstatement of the indef block.

  I don't see that as a risk to the project. I wouldn't offer this if I didn't believe in doing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish: he could not ... make additions to content without my prior approval. Is that practicable? That seems like potentially a lot of oversight. I don't know enough about how he works and how much content addition is what he does though. DeCausa (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Good question. I would likely slow him down, and that would be part of the price he would pay. I would assume that a failure to wait for me would result in a block. The way I see it, he would have to make a draft version in draft space or user space, and I would have to review it before it could go into main space. And any version that fails the test would be subject to revision deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• I can't fault the block - the article in question was a clear copyvio and had obviously been written by taking the biography on the subject's website and changing the odd word. It comes off the back of two prior blocks and two warnings from this year alone. The responses to the prior warnings were very flippant and to one of the very few people here who does much text copyright work. I'm also very dubious about mentorship for similar reasons to David Fuchs above. Hut 8.5 16:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• It occurs to me that I should say that I don't fault the block either. I really don't. I'm just trying to offer a solution. (And although it's true that some people simply cannot learn, that's not something that's true of everybody.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• At his talk page, Martin has agreed to a variation on this, with the block still in place (but with continuing talkpage access): . --Tryptofish (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Possibly a daft question, but where is the (C) copyright text at http://sam-smith.org/ ? Black Kite (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Copyright is automatic, it doesn't have specific copyright text. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I love that question, and if I can stop laughing long enough to show off my knowledge of the copyright policy, I'll try to answer it. There does not have to be an assertion of copyright for Misplaced Pages to recognize copyright. Absent an explicit licensing to the contrary, it is always taken as a given that the author of a work owns the copyright. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  • There's no need to be patronising - I understand that copyright is fixed as soon as the material is, but I was just wondering if that might have been the issue here? Only Martin can answer that, though. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Oh, Black Kite, I'm so sorry, I truly did not intend that to be patronizing. Sorry it came off that way. I was genuinely trying to explain how this works, and I genuinely was amused by the thought that the block might have had an incorrect rationale if there were no copyright violation – just think how pointless this whole discussion would have been if it were. Martin should have known that copyright applied, even without a notice about it, though. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  • My fault, I should have been clearer the first time. This is what happens when you edit in record temperatures (39C here when I typed that!) Black Kite (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Berne Convention is relevant here. Basically tl;dr in the absence of a disclaimer otherwise, it's subject to copyright. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  This is an example of why it'd be better if we all stopped talking about "copyvio" and "copyright violation", because those are complicated legal terms that none of us really understand, and instead talked about "license violation", because that's really the problem, which is that the text we're purporting to license CC-BY-SA is not actually properly attributed to the actual author. Forget about how close is too close paraphrasing and whether something is covered by copyright law in what jurisdiction or what notices or disclaimers it has... if the text we publish is not actually written by us, we are violating our own license. Every time we publish in mainspace, we're purporting to license the prose we publish CC-BY-SA, and we cannot re-license prose that was written by someone else. Levivich (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  (Forewarning: all of the following is a side note from the original issue.) The license that has to be considered is the one for the original text, and whether or not it is compatible with being relicensed as CC-BY-SA. If the text was released in the public domain, for example, and so all reuses are freely allowed, then it can be licensed as CC-BY-SA without attribution. If the text has a CC-BY-SA license, it too can be reused, though it has to be attributed (see the bottom of Length measurement for an example). Close paraphrasing often does have to get discussed, for better or worse, since many instances of copied text are done with some modifications. isaacl (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Case requested. This will take years to clean up with how little people actually care to clean up copyright issues. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for getting that going, and for tracking it down. About the time and effort needed for cleanup, that is indeed a significant problem across the copyvio area. Martin has indicated on his talk page that he is going to pitch in and clean up after himself (in userspace). I would hope that he will save other editors a lot of work, as well as demonstrate his willingness and competence to reform. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Given how things are developing, I think we can save editors some time and energy by no longer discussing the block here. Martin is accepting it and not going to contest it, and instead pursue an effort in user space to demonstrate his good will. There's no need to close the discussion, just that it seems settled that there will be no unblock for now. And editors can wait and see what happens. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Given the timing of the first edit made on Misplaced Pages, I would have thought the experience would be enough for Martin not to add copyrighted material in addition to numerous warnings. One bit of assistance between Martin and I recently was to try and stop content dispute on Will Young which has stopped thanks to a partial block. Hopefully the user will come back with a clearer mind on copyrighted content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iggy the Swan (talk • contribs) 20:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Given how much time and effort it takes other people to clean up copyvio issues, I've never understood why there isn't a sanction that goes like this "Until your CCI is complete, you can choose to be blocked or help clean up. If the latter, you may not add anything to any article except in the course of cleaning up past articles under the guidance of volunteers at CCI." I don't understand how we have (a) several CCIs open while the editors people are cleaning up after continue to edit other articles without pitching in; (b) people blocked who are willing to help with their own CCI, unless they're somehow totally helpless in understanding copy/pasting and close paraphrasing. In the immediate, this means: if Martin is down to help clean up, let him try before indeffing, and indef if there are any edits outside of the scope of the CCI. YMMV. — Rhododendrites \\ 20:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. DeCausa (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, that's a good point. I guess that when it comes to laying down the law, Misplaced Pages would rather cut off our nose to spite our face. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  From what I have seen and heard from others, these efforts generally simmer out after a few months. On a MUCH more positive note, people helping out with cleaning up their own messes makes it easier on us, especially if they're not WMF, Community, or 3X banned on other merits. As for why blocks first; people don't just stop when we request them to. We don't know if they're going to really go and help out at their CCI or are going to make more work for us, and we don't know if they even understand copyright. If they continue to edit as we open a CCI, we have to expand the list with even more edits. And especially to our copyright admins, they do not have the time to babysit an editor that they unblocked looking for edits that aren't in the vein of cleanup. I can see Martin getting an unblock, or at least a downgrade to a p-block from mainspace, if mentoring goes well, if he demonstrates understanding of copyright, and especially if he helps clean it up. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Why not just downgrade to p-block from mainspace now? Levivich (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  That's actually a very good point. Why not? Black Kite (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  I was thinking earlier that part of the mentoring should ideally be helping to clean up the mess that a CCI would likely be. In terms of the more general point though I don't see how allowing someone to continue to edit but demanding they participate in a CCI is helpful by itself. The whole point is that by the time we're blocking someone, they've been warned repeatedly but have demonstrated that they can't be trusted to avoid creating copyright problems, we can assume because they don't understand the problem. They have to demonstrate an understanding before their efforts to help out at CCI are going to be useful. This isn't like someone vandalising Misplaced Pages where we can assume they know. The alternative is they do know but don't care which is far more serious and I think many will be reluctant to trust them ever again even if they seem to be make a genuine effort at their CCI. Of course partial blocks are also still newish but still I'm not sure a change to practice is called for. Remember such blocks are one of several examples where indefinite does not have to mean infinite or even very long but the editor needs to convince an admin before we can allow them to return. And an editor can still use CCI to help demonstrate their understanding, just that they need should use their talk page since we can't trust their efforts as being useful. Nil Einne (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Though I agree in theory with having editors clean up after themselves before doing anything else, I appreciate in practice, letting editors continue with other activities is the carrot to get them to help, rather than just leaving. isaacl (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites: The majority of those who get blocked for copyright violations don't offer to help out at the subsequent CCI. If they do offer to help out and are subsequently unblocked, few actually help out at the CCI. Forcing them to help as an unblock condition has provided mixed results when I've done it. For the "try before indeffing" comment; if I understand what you are saying correctly, something similar used to be tried in the early days of CCI; a 48 hour block or so would be applied or the contributor would be warned after the CCI was opened instead of a block. This almost always lead to further violations, leading to that practice being discontinued. Just in the last year, I've had to block two users for copyright violations that occurred after their CCI was opened, when they should've been just blocked at the time (both cases were opened in 2014). Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Moneytrees: Hope you don't mind that I moved your response down for chronology reasons. But yeah, I was actually thinking of something I've seen you say in the past about a giant pile of work created by people who don't lift a finger to help clean it up yet somehow continue to work on other content (paraphrasing). It was frustrating to hear. I thought then -- and still do -- that in the cases where the workload is large, where people have been given lots of warnings and guidance, etc., that they should be required to help clean it up if they want to stick around. I get that many people would just head for the hills, but if they want to stick around, then great -- here's how to fix the mess. My suggestion wasn't quite what Trypto proposed, but pretty close: choose between being blocked and helping clean up, and if the latter and edits to articles unrelated to the cleanup will get you reblocked. What he proposed was close enough, and simpler, though I don't know how much an articlespace tban inhibits helping out with the cleanup. — Rhododendrites \\ 12:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• The CCI has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/20220720 (numbered names are used for real names/privacy related reasons.) It won't be filled out for a few days or so due to the large number of edits. For those wanting to help out, I have written a guide to CCI at User:Moneytrees/CCI guide. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  MER-C has filled out and culled the CCI at this point. I recommend collaboration to clean everything up. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'll try and set up a cleanup page soon. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• The mentorship idea, is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: change to a mainspace p-block

Per the last couple of comments above, I propose that the community endorse the idea that the indef block will be changed to a p-block from mainspace. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  • To expand on why I support this, there would be zero risk of anything becoming a problem in article space, and it would create a situation in which Martin could actually help clean up the CCI, as I believe he will, reducing the workload on other editors. He can demonstrate whether he can remain a net positive, and editors will be able to evaluate that. Should things turn out wrong, the block can always be changed back to an indef. What matters most is improving articles, not making an example of an otherwise good member of the community, and this is a risk-free way to accomplish that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support per, well, my support above. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support There are issues that need to be resolved for sure, and there are people willing to work toward that end. For all that's gone wrong in the past, let's try and get this long-term contributor back on track rather than show them the door. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Oppose I would not advise extending trust to someone who has repeatedly been warned and blocked about this single issue and yet is too lazy to obey a very clear rule. Anyone so foolish is not a value-add to this endeavor, even if other Wikipedians find them to be pleasant to get along with. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  • It works in reverse, too; trust me. Also, "lazy" is too harsh; go with something more sympathetic, like "stupid". Levivich (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator spewing of bile) To be blunt, that's childish. At his talk page, you can see me explaining this "very clear rule" (which, somehow, an awful lot of people find sufficiently unclear in real life, that it has to be taught to them), and him acknowledging that he feels badly that he previously misunderstood some of the distinctions between attribution and original writing. The rule that violations are bad is a very clear rule, but the line between what is and what is not a violation is something that needs to be learned. I spent considerable amounts of time explaining it to university students, including graduate students. And only on Misplaced Pages would it be considered a virtue not to be appreciated by one's colleagues. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oh, and he wouldn't be getting away with anything, unless the goal is for other editors to do more work just to make a point. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support, he can help with the CCI (and elsewhere) and there'd be no risk of making the CCI worse by adding more mainspace edits. No evidence of disruption outside mainspace. Levivich (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support as a final chance to change his editing. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  Reaffirming my support. Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support as a first step, hopefully some mentoring and discussion and soul searching will lead to a full lift of the block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose what exactly are we gaining by an editor who cannot be trusted to edit all of articlespace? I don't think stuff like keeping his political enemies list up to date is dearly needed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• I'm fine with this being changed to an indef P-block from (Article) and/or Draft: space, since that's how I typically make my copyright blocks. The change is mostly semantic, and it can make appealing easier. I'm not sure this whole proposal is needed though, you could just ask Diannaa if she'd consider changing it. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support per what I said just above this section. — Rhododendrites \\ 03:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Don't know (non admin comment) I've only just arrived here, and don't know the backstory, but as Tryptofish asks for community input here's mine.... as a "virgin" editor unfamiliar with this behavior and this user, I'd like to hear something - anything - from Martinevans123 that seems convincing of their grasp of the problem and feedback without straying into WP:GASLIGHT territory, or other form of WP:GAMING. If they can do that, then sure, do a temporary p-block from main space. But if they can not or do not provide such a statement, why are we talking about anything short of a global indef? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  @NewsAndEventsGuy: Just noting that the only thing close to a "global indef" would be a global lock or global ban and would have to be proposed on Meta. These only occur where there has been abuse on multiple projects or they are a spambot, which doesn't appear to be the case here given their history. TheSandDoctor 05:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess I'll plead lowly regular editor (not admin) naivete. When I said "global" I just meant indef from the english wikipedia. Of course, a preferable result would be a demonstration from this editor that they can modify their contribs in response to abundant feedback. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Sorry for doing this as an IP - I don't edit much anymore - but Martinevans123 is a significant net positive to the project. The issue here, for those who know him, is that he is a very relaxed and casual funny person. I think he felt that copying text off low-grade sites with no obvious copyright and with some paraphrasing was okay (what BlackKite was referring to earlier). From this process, he now clearly realizes that this is not the case (i.e. copyright is automatic and a serious issue regardless of origin), and will try and fix his problems. Experienced editors helping to fix their own CCI in a good faith manner, is a far better solution all round. 78.19.224.254 (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose if someone can't be trusted to edit mainspace then they shouldn't be editing here. Mainspace is, after all, the main point of the encyclopedia. This strikes me as very generous treatment for someone who hasn't shown any particular interest in the idea. Hut 8.5 11:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose It will not be doing Martinevans any favors, trying to sugarcoat this. He and his friends still appear to be somewhat in denial about the crux of the issue. It's not that he misunderstood something or other about our core writing and sourcing practices. The block is because he did not respond to feedback from others. That's not something that can be wiki-tweaked away. A hiatus and time for off-wiki reflection is the most likely to lead to a change of approach, and it would be doing him a disservice to keep him here, on-wiki but in a cage -- surrounded by well-intentioned friends who will only distract him from confronting the fundamental problem. SPECIFICO talk 12:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Martinevans123 has now put up a Wikibreak template, so a partial unblock seems unneccessary at this time. Perhaps if/when he returns, a partial unblock might be useful. — Diannaa (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  No, someone else put the template there, and it's now been removed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, he did add the template to his talk page, and it is still there. He mentioned he was unable to add it also to his user page, so I did it trying to help out, but was reverted.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, I see - thanks for the explanation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Given that Martin has made it very clear on his user page that he wants to take some quiet time away from here, I guess I agree that the immediate issue in this discussion has become moot. But I think that a basic human decency requires considering what he has actually said on his talk page, rather than just making shit up about what he supposedly thinks, which is what multiple editors, including some who should know better, have been doing here. He appears to intend to come back, but he wants to take his time and think seriously about the issues raised, noting that he wants to remove a lot of pages from his current watchlist so that he can focus on the content that will need to be fixed. He has been engaging with other editors there, who have been offering advice about the correct way to write content, and he is showing every sign of taking that input seriously. No flippant dismissal of any of it. He clearly wishes to get his act together, and eventually return to being an editor in good standing. As for such comments here as he cannot be trusted, that he keeps an enemies list (Are you kidding me? It's about Putin and Ukraine, not other editors!), that he is showing no interest in improving, and that he and his wiki-friends are in denial (Are you talking about me? Go ahead and answer that, I dare you!) – well, all of that reflects more on the editors who are saying those things, than on Martin and anyone else the comments are directed at. And those of you who are proud of having drawn a line in the sand, well you can go now and do the laborious work of trudging through the CCI without any help. Have a good time. Revised: I'm very sure that quite a few editors who opposed based on the callous and counter-factual reasons I listed here are not going to help with the CCI, although I respect and appreciate those who will help. Unfortunately, they will do that work without any help from Martin, even though he explicitly offered to do so. That's sad, very sad. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Revised. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish "And those of you who are proud of having drawn a line in the sand, well you can go now and do the laborious work of trudging through the CCI without any help. Have a good time." I don't think that's a very fair thing to say to people who might work on it. I am going to try organizing a cleanup for the CCI and I will probably be the person who spends the most time working on it (I spent at least 500 hours cleaning up the Blofeld one). Like all other CCIs I want to complete it as soon as possible with minimal drama. I don't think my comments above are drawing any lines in the sand, I am trying to work through this peacefully. The less help we have, the longer it will take to complete the CCI- I don't think it's fair to Martinevans to have it open for so long, whether he wants to return to editing or not. It seems counterintuitive to want it to be open for longer to spite those not wanting to change the block. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Moneytrees:I just re-checked your own comment about this proposal, and you are not one of the people who opposed it. In fact, you said that you would be fine with changing the block (perhaps without a full discussion, although Dianaa has opposed the proposal, so I doubt that she would have made the change as you suggested). All of that taken together, I too do not think of you as having drawn a line in the sand. I wasn't directing that comment at you, and I wouldn't want you to take it personally. I recognize and appreciate that you have been, throughout this dispute, trying to resolve it peacefully. Indeed, when I first made that mentoring offering, so was I – but we can see where that went. So I'm not spiting those who want to work on the CCI, so much as those who wanted to spite Martin, and who, in so doing, are going to make it harder for you. How ironic: there are editors who opposed this proposal, and who will then have created more work for you. You should ask them if they are going to help you, before you ask me. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish, who exactly are "those who wanted to spite Martin"? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  First, Moneytrees said "to spite those not wanting to change the block." I didn't say that. Then I said "So I'm not spiting those who want to work on the CCI, so much as those who wanted to spite Martin, and who, in so doing, are going to make it harder for you." Let's not take words out of context. Yes, it will be more CCI work without Martin helping, than with him helping. We can quibble over whether or not all those who oppose the not-unblock-but-alter-it are doing it out of spite, but there are certainly some who are doing it for really flawed and really insensitive reasons. And some of them have no intention of helping out with the CCI. Indeed, I pointed out a large number of supposed reasons that are counterfactual, and only one editor has responded to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  I don't necessarily expect everyone who participates in a noticeboard discussion about a copyright block to participate in the CCI. I would expect the person volunteering to mentor the blocked party to assist with it, if only to have it be closed faster, although I could understand if you quietly chose not to - it's shit work, firmly in the no fun zone.

  But you are going further than that, making sure to sarcastically announce that you will not be helping out and casting aspersions about "those who wanted to spite Martin". Your response to me doubles down with the suggestion that there are people doing this to spite Martin for some reason, even as you refuse to identify who those mysterious parties might be.

  This behavior is beneath you as an experienced editor. No one in this discussion that I have seen appears to be forming their opinion based on a personal grudge against Martin specifically. I hope you strike your aspersions, and I hope you rethink assisting with the CCI - if not for the sake of the regulars there, then certainly for Martin's sake. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't make it sufficiently clear, but my major concern in saying that was that, as a result of being blocked, Martin, not me, would be prevented from helping with the CCI, even though he had said explicitly that he felt bad and wanted to help. (OK, maybe belatedly.) At the start of this AN thread, I offered to help by mentoring. I'm pretty sure that was a constructive offer, and I said it very sincerely. I've been quite taken aback by how that turned into criticism of me, even though I'm not the topic of this discussion. I don't know, maybe it's the weather. But I've had some time to calm down, and I see a lot of other editors have, too. Peace. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish: Wow! I did not mean to upset you any further. In lieu of "somewhat in denial", I could have said "denying", "ignoring", "failing to confront" the crux of the problem. I can see that "in denial" might suggest to an already aroused reader that I was saying that some users were in need of mental health intervention. But I don't think that's suggested by the text, context, or tone of my remark. Nor have I seen anyone else who was offended by the wording.

  I must say that your "how dare you?" -- an elevated response to my comment -- does seem consistent with my few brief comments on this page. To answer your direct question, I was referring to a group and its interactions. You are among those in the group, so that's the extent to which I was referring to you. My view hasn't changed, and its unclear to me why this heated discussion is still ongoing. SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for actually replying to my question, which I had not expected. And I appreciate your effort at clarification. To clarify my own comment, I'm not upset, but rather objecting to what I think were wrong-minded comments. I actually am taking on board the feedback I've been getting here, even if that isn't obvious, but my views haven't changed either. As for why this discussion is still going on, I said yesterday that I thought it had already become moot. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Absolutely not. Martinevans has had numerous warnings and numerous chances to correct his behavior. An editor without his level of clout would have been indeffed long ago. He can come back when his CCI is completed; I look forward to his unblock in 2032. This isn't a daycare, this is an encyclopedia, and Martinevans is either unwilling or unable to respect our copyright policies. I don't care if he wrote 5 million articles, he doesn't get special treatment. Copyright infringement puts Misplaced Pages at risk and cannot be tolerated at all. There are no exceptions, no matter how much one likes the editor in question. I'm quite disappointed by the old boy network that has shown up to protect one of their own here. Until he shows a full and complete understanding of the issues that lead to his block, he should not be allowed to return in any capacity. And no, before someone claims otherwise, he has not done that yet. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm an old fish, so don't call me a boy. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support. A block should be the minimum needed to prevent problematic behaviour, and that behaviour has only been in mainspace. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure what a p-block would achieve here. Maybe I've missed something, but it feels like the real-world equivalent of putting petrol in your car and then tossing your keys into the river. I don't know if Martin has made an unblock request, but if he does, and it comes with the usual of admitting their edits are an issue, not to do it again AND to help out with the copyvios that would be a better option IMO. Lugnuts 10:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't understand the supposed benefit to the project here. These copyright investigations are necessary and an enormous drain on everyone's time. If you don't understand how copyright works then you really can't participate in this sort of project. It's at the core of everything we do here. Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• Just a note: there are some accusations of "old boy networks" and "friends" that are showing up to defend Martin. When the decision isn't but , it's hard to see this as a case of WP:UNBLOCKABLES. Nobody seems to be advocating for doing nothing. Speaking as one of the people "defending him" (by supporting a ban from articlespace to try to get him to help clean up the messes he made), I don't know if we've ever interacted outside of perhaps an old noticeboard thread. — Rhododendrites \\ 17:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Even though nobody is suggesting a complete unblock here, this is still extremely generous treatment for someone who has done something like this, especially without so much as an unblock request. Normally an experienced editor would get an indefinite block and would only be unblocked if they could make an unblock request showing they understood the problem and that it wouldn't happen again. The exceptions are cases when the blocked editor has a "fan club" who are willing to push back on their behalf in noticeboard discussions, as WP:UNBLOCKABLES describes. Tryptofish has 132 edits to Martinevans123's talk page. Hut 8.5 19:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for counting. If you had bothered to read them, you would have found ones, prior to the start of this dispute, where I advised him that he was doing some things wrong, including some about copyvio, and offered to help him fix it. As for the lack of an unblock request, Martin did say at his talk that he would welcome the opportunity to do something like this, and I was influenced by that when I proposed it, but once he stated that he had decided instead to take a break and reflect on it, I posted here that I thought the proposal was now moot. Personally, I use the phrase "fan club" to refer to those who are unfair critics, looking for a chance to score points, so I guess I'll add you to mine. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Tryptofish's flippant remarks TNT (talk • she/her) 18:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - This would only be workable, if his mentor is shown what he wants to add or delete from a page. The mentor would then judge the proposed edit as acceptable or not (i.e. if it's copyright violation or not). If acceptable the mentor would be allowed to make that (via proxy) edit. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  You are correct about that. It's what I offered to do – on those terms – at the start of the discussion, but clearly that is something that will have to be postponed to some later time. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a grand proposal & hopefully will be adopted, someday. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Ban Tryptofish, mainly per their remark below regarding Ritchie. I suggest a ban since it is the standard procedure for failed standard offers. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Yawn. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Misread Tryptofish's request. In this case, I have no further comments. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - if he requests this and agrees to use his time here to help out in the CCI then support. But allowing somebody to muse in userspace or project space without doing the work to fix their mistakes to me is a non-starter. He has to IMO a. want and request such an unblock, and b. agree to help out in the CCI. Then sure p-block. nableezy - 00:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Boing! said Zebedee above. Softlavender (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support - AGF. Atsme 💬 📧 16:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Misplaced Pages's copyright policies are very important. (They're very important to me personally, too). Kudos to those editors who invest a lot of time an energy in this sloping field of scree. Kindness is important. (Again, to me personally as well). Kudos to Tryptofish for overall tryptic and inspiring kindness. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  You're thanking the editor who's repeatedly attacked others in this very thread for kindness? Are we even reading the same discussion? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  I guess we're reading it differently, that's all. Not that uncommon in my world. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  Let's remember, on Misplaced Pages, it's unkind to offer to mentor a user who needs help, and it's unkind to take up an idea first raised by other editors, and make a proposal that, in fact, would still have left the blocked user largely blocked, and it's most definitely unkind not to let falsehoods stand. After all, criticizing someone via false statements in an oppose is just AGF, but pointing out the falsehoods is a failure of AGF, because everyone has a right to oppose a proposal without having anyone else reply to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  You'll note I have not criticized you for offering to mentor Martinevans123. I don't necessarily have any problem with that, though I think it's also a nonstarter until and unless Martinevans actually fully addresses the issues that lead to him being blocked. You can want to help him, but he also has to be willing to be helped, and to demonstrate he understands copyright, what a copyright violation is, and how to create articles without violating copyright in the process. I don't have an issue with him as a person, but his editing has been wholly unacceptable, as demonstrated in detail by SandyGeorgia farther down this thread. What I do have a problem with is you repeatedly casting aspersions, assuming bad faith, and in general bludgeoning the hell out of this thread (I count 36 comments by you here thus far). Your snarky comments and borderline attacks on CCI editors were totally uncalled for. In a nutshell, you've more than made your point of view clear here. Continuing to comment on everything is not doing you any favors, and you've toed if not crossed the line several times as far as ABF and casting aspersions are concerned. I recommend you let other people have a say. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  My objection is to your bludgeoning harshly criticizing someone else, who merely committed the sin of thanking me. You could have expressed your say without condemning someone just for having said thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Please review the definition of bludgeoning (WP:BLUDGEON) . "Bludgeoning the process is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own." I have made 4 comments here, including this one. You have made 38 and counting. It is completely wrong, and a personal attack, for you to falsely accuse me of "bludgeoning", as described at Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack?, which includes "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." Review your own behavior, which by and large has been reprehensible. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  I've struck and revised the word bludgeoning. You want diffs? Here they are: , , , , , , , , and . Every one of those is a diff by Martin on his talk page, expressing sincere remorse over what he did, seeking to better understand how to do it the right way, and expressing a wish to clean up after himself. I'll stipulate that this is all post-block, and not everything is perfect. But I've shown, with no shortage of diffs, that he is willing to be helped. You said just above, without diffs, that he still has to show that he is willing to be helped. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Come to think of it, isn't it an attack to fault someone for thanking someone else, and in so doing, attack the person who was being thanked? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  When an editor withdraws a comment by striking through it they are acknowledging they were wrong to make it and apologizing for it. Continuing to hold it over them is just as crappy as having made it to begin with. Though Tryptofish, and I say this as somebody who has trouble not responding to crap when I see it, there comes a point where the number of times a username appears has a direct negative correlation with their preferred action occurring. Being able to recognize that point with my own username is still a weak spot, but I can sure as hell see it in other usernames. nableezy - 03:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose having looked at this list, individual clearly has complete and utter disregard for copyright and is a liability to the project, being a longstanding editor, there really is no excuse for not comprehending policy. Embarrassing. Acousmana 21:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  I see you've been here since 2016, and just since the beginning of last year, you have about 7 warnings for edit-warring and the like on your talk page. Embarrassing? (Yes, I know I should probably back out of here, but sheesh.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  a petty comment that's almost as embarrassing as the list of egregious copyvios. Acousmana 22:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  My comment pretty much exactly tracked yours. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  No your comment is a petty ad hominem. You feel disgruntled that an editor has a view that runs contrary to yours. In your imagined hierarchical ordering of things "experienced" editors deserve a carte blanche when it comes to laissez faire editing. That my friend is some bullshit right here. Acousmana 08:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  But telling me what I believe, even when it's contrary to what I've said, is not petty. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  whoa, my friend, are you that bored? seriously, step away from the screen. Acousmana 20:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish: We can all see this user's talk page, their edits and the nature of their comments here, and can make our own obvious assessment. Nothing to be gained from responding. DeCausa (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Acousmana ...aside from that, to be clear, not every edit on that list is a copyright violation- it's simply a review of every major edit the user has made. In fact, the vast majority of them are most likely not, I would guess only 20% at maximum are issues. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  ah, OK, so only about 1057 violations then. Acousmana 22:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a deeply unfortunate case. I don't know this editor, but I encourage everyone supporting this partial unblock, especially Trypto, to select fifteen articles at random from the CCI and clean them. (The more the better, of course!) I'd estimate 75% of large (>2000 character) prose contributions (i.e., contributions that are not additions of tables nor reverts) contain copyright violations. WP:C is fundamental and nonnegotiable policy, one of the few with legal ramifications. I can't support an partial unblock with mentorship, unless both the mentors and Martinevans himself show an earnest desire to assist at this Augean stable of copyright infringement. Some people have already stepped up, so thank you to them. For Martinevans, as a start, I suggest he help by providing access to obscure sources that he's used, for example Dean, Richard, (1988), Gawthorpe Hall - Lancashire (see Gawthorpe Hall). From his talk page he can state whether the associated edits were problematic/explain his thinking, then others (e.g., mentors) can check his work and deal with the edits at CCI. That addresses concerns of both accountability and actual understanding of copyright. But addressing this mess will take thousands of editor-hours; not funny at all. Ovinus (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  I now read through his user talk (should've realized there'd be more discussion there) and I think there's hope. I'll ask for sources there, as I suggested. But not a partial block yet imo. Ovinus (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Acousmana. I don't see why such a longstanding user with more than 200,000 live edits should be having issues with one of the most crucial Misplaced Pages policies. Even though not every edit on the list they provided may be a copyright violation, "only 20% maximum" is still deeply concerning. With this in mind, an indefinite block is more than justified and fair here. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 20:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm really uncomfortable with the idea of a mainspace p-block. If an editor cannot be allowed to edit the mainspace, I don't think we need to engineer a way for them to edit in the other namespaces. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support - basically this mess is going to be easier to sort out if Martin is willing to work with the community that it is going to be without his input. Given that there are editors willing to mentor Martin, we should try this. As has been said above, should the prove not to be effective, we can always revert to indef. It is at least worth trying. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts from a probably involved Ritchie333

I've just come to this and I don't really know what to say, except to give a few pertinent views.

• I like Martinevans123.
• I can't fault Diannaa's block. User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios explains most of my thoughts, although that's more geared towards deletion instead of blocking.
• I note from Martin's block log that at least one earlier block was criticised and overturned on review.
• I am happy to be a mentor to Martin, however I'm probably not the right person to do so as everyone will think I have a conflict of interest. Specifically, while I'm happy to hear that an unblock might be considered when Martinevans123 can "provide a statement describing how copyright applies to Misplaced Pages, show that you understand our copyright policy, and make a commitment to follow it in the future", it does strike me that I've basically written an essay providing the answers. I would recommend the same course of action that was offered to elisa.rolle (talk · contribs) - I can't remember the specifics but I note she was indef blocked for copyvio, and subsequently unblocked. So there is precedent.
• The CCI, sounds like a truly thankless task - it's a dirty job but someone's got to do it. I might see if I can drop in to help a bit.
• Although I set up a CCI for Edelmand (talk · contribs), I didn't block them, though I appreciate in that specific case it was because they had gone inactive. I probably would have blocked if they had returned to editing (almost certainly if those edits contained copyvios).

So I don't really have any answers at the moment, just some thoughts that might be helpful. Ritchie333 11:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Psst Ritchie: don't even hint at an offer to be a mentor. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Observations from SandyGeorgia

• Georges Gilles de la Tourette, helpful but unformatted ref
• James Joyce, no violation found content subsequently removed, not FA level
• Beaver, no violation found content subsequently removed, not FA level

But I found concerning edits at what was then an FA, autism:

• 17:49, July 16, 2014 inserts cut-and-paste from BBC source, not a WP:MEDRS compliant source
• 20:20, July 16, 2014 after revert, reinserts the same cut-and-paste text but citing it to a different primary source, still not WP:MEDRS compliant
• 20:36 July 16, 2014 after second revert, inserts the same cut-and-paste text from the BBC, but cited to now a third source: the source does not verify the text.
• 20:46 July 16, 2014, Doc James corrects the source and adjusts the text; the unhelpful, rather meaningless statement remains in the article today.

PS, I'm still trying to figure out what a p-block is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

A "partial" block – one that only affects certain pages, namespaces, or non-editing actions, see here. Often used for 3RR violations (blocking people only from the page they were edit warring on) and copyright blocks (blocking people from main- and draftspace). --Blablubbs (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! (I note that Misplaced Pages:P-block is red. At The Time of This Writing.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure thing. The link is now blue. --Blablubbs (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd also suggest potential mentors to take the time to explain BLP policy, e.g. Special:Diff/860013167, Special:Diff/1070643576 and Special:Diff/1047214533 (found during clean up). Ovinus (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Deeper in now, an additional concern is emerging about the checking; I have seen editors mark diffs as cleared of copyvio when they have blatant cut-and-paste. It looks like the CCI checkers are going to have to check some of the CCI checks. Most likely, mine, too! I have scanned dozens of diffs that are outright cut-and-paste that I don't have time to fix, so I have to just pass them by and leave them for the next editor; one has to either have the time to rewrite the content, or if it's insignificant enough, remove it and, in either case, request a revdel. Because I'm still COVID-groggy, I have been copping out and looking for the short and easy ones, of which there aren't many-- passing over the cut-and-paste diffs as I go. But I did finally come across the first instance I've seen of what looked like it could have been considerable original content written by Martinevans123 here. Now, I'm not a chemist and I don't know if dimethyl sulfate and dimethyl sulfone are the same thing, so the content could have been at the wrong article, but the edit was immediately reverted as not helpful content at that article. So at this stage I am yet to find the value added.This brings me to a question that I hope either Martinevans123 himself, or anyone advocating for an unblock, will answer before I enter an opinion on the block proposal above (which I haven't done yet); could someone please produce an example of a significant amount of original content written by Me123? I have not yet come across one; I have mostly focused on page two of the CCI. What is the most valuable work done by Martinevans123, and what is an example of his original content that he is most proud of, that isn't just adding quotes or infoboxes or filling in bare refs? As a followup to that, if he truly wanted to help on the CCI, he could be making lists now in his userspace ... it is clear by now that most of his content additions are cut-and-paste. It would be much simpler on all of us if he just let us know, yea or nay, whether most of his book-sourced content is also cut-and-paste, for example. And if every time he cites the BBC, it's cut-and-paste, so we don't have to check (I haven't found one that's not). If Martinevans123 wants to help, and wants to be unblocked or partially unblocked, he could be lending a hand right now, by just stating the facts so we don't have to look so hard to find them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, thanks for your interest in copyright cleanup. Those diffs are old, but since the removal was done right away, it's still possible to do revision deletion. I have now done so. — Diannaa (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I continued looking beyond my own article interaction with Me123, and there is a consistent amount of cut-and-paste copyvio everywhere I look, whether old or recent. As a non-admin, it's hard to know how to best help without constantly pinging for revdel; continued on Diannaa's talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

As valereee has kindly pointed out, this was a "copy-paste-edit-save" i.e. there was actually some "edit" there, where I tried to re-write the original prose and leave out all the material I could not re-write. Obviously I did not try hard enough. I find it incredibly difficult to "paraphrase" lists of facts in chronological order e.g. the galleries where Smith had exhibitions. I also attributed everything of course, probably explaining why I was blocked within five minutes. I'm not sure what percentage of my 205,768 edits have received copyvio warnings. But in this situation, it seems that all of the other edits count for nothing. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Sandy, thank you for doing all that work. I've interacted closely with Martin, mostly in userspace, but I have done very little content work with him, so I have not been in the habit of checking his content work. In fact, despite statements to the contrary in this discussion (which, let's face it, has gotten way too heated for anyone's good, on any "side" of the dispute), when issues about his copyvios have been raised on his talk page, I have responded more than any others of his talk page participants by trying (probably not firmly enough, in hindsight) to explain the problem to him, and I have taken it on myself to rewrite the material that needed to be rewritten. One comment by me, about a copyvio where the way to rewrite it was particularly hard to see (mostly names of family members and bandmates), has gotten far more attention here than due weight would call for, but even in that incident, it was me who went and repaired his edits. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully we can turn our attention, soon, to ways of catching similar sooner. I see that starting to happen below. Cleaning up after the fact is SO much work, and done by so few. I was urged to check out the diffs at the CCI because I did not previously hold a negative impression of Martinevans123, but was dismayed to think that encouragement of serial copyvio offendors might take hold on his talk page (as I have seen in other instances). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The thing that sticks out to me most was that Martinevans was warned several times for this behavior, but did not seem to adjust his methods. I believe it was in good faith, but I'm not sure if this was just a communication issue on everyone else's part (that people just needed to be more firm). Of course that would have helped... but what if people who have made copyright violations in main space were put on probation where their edits would be scrutinized by, say, putting them on a bot-generated list? Regardless of their edit count and tenure? Then, after they've made some number of appreciable prose changes without issues of copyright, they can be removed from the list. Yes, it would require extra oversight and work, but such prophylaxis would more than make up for the time, by preventing mega CCIs. But I'm not an admin, much less a copyright-focused one, so I'm not sure how practicable that'd be. Ovinus (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

In that regard, something that could easily be done by any admin going forward from right now would be, once a copyvio is found, if the editor who made it is someone who looks like they can still be a net positive, to issue the standard warning, but then, tell the editor that they, themselves, must clean up any copyvios before doing other work, and that they will be blocked if they don't do that. (That's another way of saying "probation".) That would be somewhat less than the bot list, but it also would be fairly straightforward. And it would be a good preventative for cases like the one here, because the editor would have to confront the issue right away, and would be much less likely to keep on doing it until the situation reaches what we have here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to make this work in practice. Editors with persistent problems in copying sources generally need assistance to understand how to rewrite text, and someone will need to verify the results. Editors that are felt to be net positives often have hundreds if not thousands of edits. Editors who haven't already responded to feedback by going back and reviewing their own edits are probably not strongly motivated to work solely on re-examining hundreds/thousands of edits. I do like the principle in theory of cleaning up after yourself, but I think a quick trigger on asking editors to only review their own work would serve to dissuade a lot of diligent editors who slipped up once, without much gained benefit from those with a longer history of problems. isaacl (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with Isaacl on both points. It’d be nice if we could train someone up to understand copyright and then let them clean up after themselves. But—and I don’t mean to be doubting good faith or be demeaning—it requires continuous and strict oversight. As to the “slipping up once thing”—yeah, I can see that, but how often does that happen? The length of the period could be adjusted based on the severity of the edits. But maybe that’s needless bureaucracy… anyway, back to work Ovinus (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

As recent as February 2022. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

June 27, 2022. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

We may have to do that; I found copy-paste from a book source yesterday, in Greenhalgh Castle. If all his other prose additions are copied or lightly/poorly paraphrased, we will at some point have to make the assumption that the content sourced to books needs to be removed too. Results so far are very grim, sorry to say. — Diannaa (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm finding unsourced content in smaller diffs across a lot of different years. Most of it is written basically enough that even without a source I can safely say it isn't closely paraphrased. Some of it isn't that basic, and without knowing where it came from, at this point we may need to presumptively rewrite, especially with this high of a frequency. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Tangential discussion on possibility of a Copyvio algorithm

This AN discussion

I'm fully aware that I've been told that I've been making too many comments in this discussion, but I feel that this is necessary for me to add, and I'm very sure that it's constructive. I've been trying to figure out why this discussion has been pushing my buttons to such a large degree, as I am not someone who makes a habit of this sort of thing, and something important has occurred to me.

This hasn't simply been an AN discussion by the community about the issue that Diannaa raised in the opening post. It's become something really mean-spirited, really ugly. And I've realized that a lot of the criticism of Martin has taken the form of what is all too often seen elsewhere online. It happens all the time, at social media sites and in comment sections. I want to be very clear that I'm not saying this about everyone, but it does apply to some here. People make themselves feel better by, anonymously, grouping up to say exagerrated negative things about whatever is at hand.

Martin got blocked for doing something genuinely wrong, and I want to be very clear that that's on him. But Martin also got cancelled, and that's on us.

Those, including me, who are looking for constructive solutions that still include Martin being blocked and that require him to take an active role in fixing his mistakes before he can return to doing anything else here, are being told that we want to give him carte blanche. That doesn't even make sense; it's just over-the-top. And someone who merely said thank you was attacked for having said that. Not simply being disagreed with, but being told that they must be out of touch with reality. What does that say about us as a community? What comes next, reverting barnstars?

I have no illusions that I'm perfect, and I've walked back some of the things that I originally said. And so have some of those who see the issue differently. I thank them.

This happened here in a pretty big way, but it isn't something new. WP:CESSPIT has long been a shortcut to ANI. And I remember from very early in my editing, a time when a posse of single-purpose meatpuppets showed up from the Something Awful website, to deplore the supposed wrong of including an image from a manga on a page. At the time, more than a decade ago, there was simply a perception here that anyone can edit, and we had to just count their !votes like anyone else's, so the image was deleted at FFD. Since then, of course, we've learned how to use Template:spa, and that wouldn't happen today. Now, we need to learn how to conduct a discussion of an editor's wrongdoing without spilling over into wild exagerrations of what the person had done. It should be possible to review a block without going beyond a sober and objective examination of the facts. Just as we have come to learn how to discount SPAs, we need to learn how to make administrative noticeboards less of a cesspit and more of a place for determining how to get back to constructive editing. Not virtue-signaling by exagerrating how awful somebody was.

We, collectively, need to figure out how to do better.--Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tryptofish I suspect you will find this comment rude, but you didn't offer any suggestions to "sort this out". Perhaps you could move your opinions to the talk page or the Village Pump? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

You're right that it was a poor choice of header, so I changed it, thanks. But I feel strongly that it needs to be here (we already have tangents about CCI bots and the like), and I would object strongly to moving it elsewhere. (Once the discussion gets closed and archived, I'd be happy to pursue it further at the Pump or elsewhere.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Another good reason for it to be here is to make it visible to admins, who play an important role in setting the tone here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

If I could have Martin unblocked & you set up as Martin's mentor? Then it would be so. Alas, it's not entirely in my hands. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that. But I really don't see my comment here as being about changing the block. What I want is to address the larger, and very real, problems with this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I understand. But, I can't elaborate on that 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

If you seriously believe that indefinitely blocking someone for serial copyright violations, and editors agreeing that the block was appropriate, is "cancelling", you clearly are too biased to be of any use in this discussion. There's zero way to spin this - Martin has committed massive levels of copyright violations, as we have already learned in the CCI (I personally removed multiple instances of blatant copying earlier today). He cannot be allowed to edit, in order to protect the encyclopedia from further damage. That's not "cancelling", that's protecting us from getting sued out of existence and preserving the integrity of the encyclopedia. You're allowed to think highly of Martin and be his friend. But just because he's your friend doesn't mean he gets special treatment, and every post you make here actively hurts his chances of ever getting any sort of unblock. You're making things worse by acting ridiculously. This subsection you just created is incredibly foolish. Please, if you actually want to see Martin able to edit one day, STOP POSTING IN THIS THREAD. JUST STOP. He's not getting unblocked anytime soon, and again, you are only making things worse for him with your participation here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

protecting us from getting sued out of existence All other things aside, this is extremely hyperbolic. What would actually happen is that the WMF would get a DMCA take-down notice, and then they'd take down the offending copyvio, per their DMCA policy. It is very important that we don't have copyvios or plagiarism on the website, but not because we're going to get sued, or get sued out of existence. When volunteers clean up copyvio, they are protecting the integrity of the project, but they are not really protecting it from legal liability; that's handled by WMF Legal. It doesn't really help to go about spreading the falsehood that CCI is what's keeping us from being sued out of existence. Levivich (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The DMCA does require a service provider to have has adopted and reasonably implemented...a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers (, p.26). If you don't do that then you lose the protection of being a service provider (which would be very bad). Now I have no legal training, and there may well be something which means that clause doesn't apply to this case, but we know very well that this user is a repeat infringer and we are seriously considering allowing them to continue to edit anyway. If nothing else I can't see regulators or the public reacting well to this. Hut 8.5 08:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

and we are seriously considering allowing them to continue to edit anyway Nobody is doing any such thing; a p-block from mainspace prevents an editor from editing. As for the DMCA, having a group of untrained random volunteers from the internet patrol for copyvio is not a reasonable policy. The WMF are doing things to ensure DMCA compliance, and relying on the volunteer community is not one of those things. Nothing we volunteers do matters when it comes to legal liability. It matters to us, it matters to the readers, but it won't matter to the courts. Levivich (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I dont really buy the canceling bit, an indefinite blocking is not a community ban. Martin is still free to request an unblock when he can demonstrate that he is able to understand and comply with WP:C. Hell Id assume Diannaa would herself change the block given that demonstration. Some of the opposes seem unreasonable, but you are taking nearly all of them as an attack on Martin and an attack on you. I agree that there are things about this discussion, and most AN(/I) discussions that are dispiriting (including the comment above this). I dont know all the overlapping and conflicting cliques here, but you can see some of the opposes, and some of the supports seemingly, are based on those shifting alliances. How to fix something like that? No clue. Maybe any person that has had any positive or negative direct interaction with Martin gets one comment and no responses. But I think your framing here is showing your closeness and friendship with Martin, I cant otherwise explain calling this canceling. nableezy - 00:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I have had no interactions with martin and have nothing against him, beyond the fact that he committed large quantities of copyright violations for years. He seems like a nice person to me. But unfit to edit here I'm afraid. I am being militant because too many times copyright concerns are ignored until we end up with situations like this. And I fear any sort of unblock will only bring us back here again with even more copyright violations to clean up. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Then drop the anger and the derision. It isnt necessary. nableezy - 00:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty much with everything Nableezy said. (Including I agree that there are things about this discussion, and most AN(/I) discussions that are dispiriting (including the comment above this).) Really, I don't know what the point of this whole thread is anymore. It's not doing any good for anyone. As far as I can see, the only thing to be done is for Martin to work on his understanding of copyvio (if he wants to come back) and let's see whare we are once he's done that. DeCausa (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me the thread has done a lot of good, as lots of editors are pitching in to help at a very large CCI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I agree. Even though I still feel his block should be upheld, it's not like Martinevans has been banished to the shadow realm, never allowed to read or edit any Wikimedia project again. Not only should the community hold him accountable for his persistent copyright violations, but Martinevans should hold himself accountable as well. Ultimately, I hope that he'll acknowledge his wrongdoings and do better in the future. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 03:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I hate to pile on here, but I'd also ask Tryptofish to please relent. No one here has a vendetta against Martin, I have never met him and I hate putting people down. While some of the opposes above were truly mean-spirited, most simply reflect genuine frustration with severe violations of policy. You say, and I agree, that we mustn't spill over into wild exaggerations of what the person had done, but I don't see where that's really happened. That's why I suggest you take a random sampling of his edits to understand the extent of the problem. I hope this particular discussion can be soon closed and discussion move to CCI or Martin's user talk, as appropriate. Ovinus (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Canceling does not mean ban. It means performatively condemning him beyond what actually is the case, even though what happened is indeed bad. I never said anyone was doing it out of a vendetta. And I said quite clearly that it was not everyone, but rather some. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Closure requests#Requests for comment

Reposting here per Dennis Brown, I posted this to BN and he suggested I bring it here. I was adding something to this closure requests page and I noticed what appears to be a very long backlog. Maybe some admins could pop by and close some RFCs? Seeing some very very old discussions there ahead of that one I added that makes me worried about whether this backlog is getting enough attention from consensus-judging-experienced admins and editors. Best wishes, Andrevan@ 12:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I've knocked out most of these. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks ScottishFinnishRadish!! Andrevan@ 19:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Just noting that the other categories of closure requests could also use some TLC :). Femke (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

gadget notice

Misplaced Pages:EditNoticesOnMobile will be launching as a default gadget. It is limited to mobile users who are using Minerva skin. A waved approach is being done, wave one is only admins. Should something break, it can be instantly disabled via MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition. Please report any issues to Misplaced Pages talk:EditNoticesOnMobile. You (admins) should not see anything from this unless you edit an article with an edit notice, while logged in as an admin, while on mobile with Minerva (en.m.wikipedia.org mobile front end site). Best regards, — xaosflux 23:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

DeaconShotFire

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

It's going on 2 weeks now. Would an administrator make a decision on @DeaconShotFire:'s reinstatement request, please? Best to not leave such things open ended. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh good grief. Please let admins handle this sort of thing. Will carry it over when I have time. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

DeaconShotFire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is requesting unblock.

Please see block log].

Preamble @Bishonen: blocked indefinitely (~eight months ago) "After three shot-across-the-bow blocks in a month, with no improvement of the user's disruptiveness". In the run-up to the indef, there were three short blocks, and there was edit warring, accusing Bish of clearly loving exercising her fake power, and when called on that, asking @Liz: if she was the back up. Not to mention disruption and personal attacks at Talk:Donald Trump. User lost talk page access, but it was restored by Yamla after UTRS appeal #58923.

Unblock request--- I'm requesting an unblock because I find it now to be unnecessary. I admit to engaging in harassment, edit warring, and an unsubstantiated accusation of political bias, which can be found quoted through this link. I had 4 blocks last year, ending with the indefinite one in October. Instead of harassing people and brute forcing my edits to articles, I intend to engage with articles' talk pages (particularly now that I have more time to afford to Misplaced Pages). If this proves to be insufficient, I will engage on the policy application noticeboards, dispute resolution noticeboard, or begin an RfC (which I've participated in previously). I have a history of edits that are still in place today on major articles. In fact, the only reason I'm requesting this now is because every time I read an article and see something improper, I have the urge to correct it. I understand concerns held by the blocking administrator and those handling my UTRS; and I don't believe they are still warranted now that I know more about Misplaced Pages and its customs. Many thanks. DeaconShotFire (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

carried over by me, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock Don't think the problems will recur. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not seeing a need for a TBAN or 1RR. No need. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock for now, with a real chance I'll change my vote in the future. I expect DeaconShotFire to account for their behaviour as described by Bishonen here, but I don't see that this has happened yet. Perhaps these concerns could be addressed with a topic ban on politics and WP:1RR, or perhaps there are other ways to convince the community that it would be a good idea to unblock this user. Note that I was tempted to vote "weak support" on the basis that reblocks are easy. I'm not convinced this user will follow up, though, given they haven't edited in more than two weeks. That could be our fault, though, not carrying this unblock request to the board quickly enough. --Yamla (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, the not posting relentlessly seeking unblock, but instead patiently waiting, might indicate a readiness to return. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

  @DeaconShotFire: If you're still here, please respond to the concern raised by Yamla/Bishonen. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

  Reply carried over Response to @Yamla from WP:AN: It's unclear what you meant when you said I haven't accounted for the behaviour listed by the other user; I've apologised for it and stated I have no intention of repeating it or anything akin to it. Furthermore, why would I edit anything in the past three weeks? I only yesterday received any kind of reponse. DeaconShotFire (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

  carried over by me from user talk --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral - If he gets unblocked? It'll be up to him to practice what he promises. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
• Is there a reason why this is at AN? I understand the need for transparency but it could have been done at DeaconShotFire's talk page, as he is not community banned - although he effectively will be if this appeal is declined here. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

  Cause it set for two weeks, and I felt I owed it to them to bring it here. I mean, two weeks without a decline or accept tells me that no one is ready to commit on it on their own either way. Certainly I was not. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• I was involved in the talk page discussion that immediately preceded the indef. I conditionally support an unblock, seeing as it's been long enough and he's acknowledged some of the reasons behind the block. His unblock request and reply to Yamla miss some of the block's rationale, including the battleground behavior. The articles he intends to edit make future content disputes likely. A recognition of past battleground behavior and a commitment to avoid it in the future are my only conditions for support. (Non-administrator comment) Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Reply carried over Response to Firefangledfeathers from WP:AN: I've addressed the reasoning and my prior battleground behaviour behind the block; I've stated I intend to utilise talk pages, RfCs, and noticeboards, rather than brute forcing my edits and engaging in behaviour like I did. That content disputes are likely if I'm unblocked and edit pages such as the ones I've listed on my talk page is irrelevant when I've stated I won't be engaging like I did previously. Many thanks. DeaconShotFire (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

    carried over by me from user talk. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

    • Hi DSF. In your unblock request you acknowledge "harassment, edit warring, and an unsubstantiated accusation of political bias". It is my understanding that you engaged in battleground behavior that extended beyond those three forms of misconduct and that this additional misconduct was named and explained in Bishonen's block rationale. It would be very possible for you to reengage in that behavior while still adhering to your commitment to "utilise talk pages, RfCs, and noticeboards". I can't support an unblock without an addendum to your acknowledgements and commitments. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
      • Reply carried over I'll say here and now that I won't be engaging in battleground behaviour. Many thanks. DeaconShotFire (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

        carried over by me from user talk. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

        • Thank you. This is a little less than I had hoped for, but the future-facing part is far more important than the historical acknowledgement. This pushes me to endorse unblocking. Good luck, DSF. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• (unarchoived as unclosed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC))
• Support unblock I see I commented earlier; let's just resolve this as it's not fair to DeaconShotFire to have it dragging on. The responses are satisfactory, I think they deserve another chance. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support unblock Since this wasn't a community block & even the admin who opposed isn't strongly opposed, IMO their patience during this month+ long wait would warrant a ROPE/SO situation. Battleground tendencies can be tempered with such patience. If they are unblocked with a TBAN or 1RR (or with a threat thereof), that suits me, too. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support. If nobody has seen a good reason to decline the request in nearly two months, unblock by default. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Worth taking the risk. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support - fully agree with Boing! said Zebedee. BilledMammal (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata templates on biography articles

This may perhaps be more suited to the Village Pump, but I'm looking at this from more of a policy standpoint. Does anyone know of a discussion or RFC that would allow for the use of {{Infobox person/Wikidata|fetchwikidata=ALL}} to be mass added to articles? Matsmetal had added the template to a large number of articles, many of which were reverted by Nikkimaria due to sourcing issues. Matsmetal is now restoring the templates claiming talk page consensus is needed to remove them and noting that discretionary sanctions are involved. My overriding concern is that the addition of the template is adding an infobox to each article that includes information not supported by reliably sourced article content contrary to Template:Infobox person. In addition, the template adds an infobox that is not locally editable as it's importing the data from another project. This all seems...less than ideal. I've raised my concerns on Matsmetal's talk page, but am asking for additional input from a wider audience here. Is this common practice and I've only just now stumbled across it?-- Jezebel's Ponyo 20:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Apparently Matsmetal has been edit warring to restore the disputed template for months. Per their talk page they believe that Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions applies, though the dispute isn't as to whether an infobox should be included, but if this specific wikidata template should be used given the referencing concerns.-- Jezebel's Ponyo 20:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I seem to recall reading at some point that there was actually consensus against importing wikidata info like that. Seems like something Fram would be familiar with. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I found Misplaced Pages:Wikidata#Appropriate usage in articles which mentioned Misplaced Pages:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

There's also Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 128#RfC: Wikidata in infoboxes, opt-in or opt-out? Nthep (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

From my reading of the 2018 RfC linked by Bison X, there was consensus that the inclusion of the wikidata templates to articles could be allowed if and when the concerns regarding reliability were addressed. That does not support the mass addition of the template across biography articles, nor edit edit warring to restore them when concerns regarding the reliability of the data are raised.-- Jezebel's Ponyo 20:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Wikidata#Appropriate usage in articles says these should be done carefully and deliberately, that certainly doesn't appear to be the case here. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

As Mats has shown no indication that they intend to stop performing these edits while the issue is under discussion, or to discuss it, I have blocked them temporarily from article space. Any administrator should feel free to undo this block without further discussion with me. DrKay (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Interesting that their very first edit here was to add the wikidata template to Milad Doueihi.-- Jezebel's Ponyo 20:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

A large proportion of these infoboxes seem to highlight Guggenheim awards, which used to be tracked as a category until it was deleted in April 2020. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• I would support that block under WP:DE simply because they are continuing to perform actions they know are contentious rather than WP:COMMUNICATE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Quite the interesting behavioural overlap with these blocked Slowking4 socks.-- Jezebel's Ponyo 22:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Chaudhry Masood Ahmad

Could someone please protect the page? Trade (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected for one week - BLP violations sourced to a YouTube video. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Quick protection of new Indian president's page

Droupadi Murmu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Already pending request. See Talk:Droupadi Murmu#Applying_semi-protection_to_this_article. Venkat TL (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Semi-protected by Sdrqaz for one month. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Challenging the NAC at Talk:Technoblade's RfC

I wish there was somewhere other than WP:AN to bring this but according to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE this is the place to bring this. This is not an attempt to argue the underlying dispute, only to challenge the rationale of the closing comment.

There was an RfC on Talk:Technoblade about the use of various sources supporting a statement in the article. This comment was closed by User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers in this comment here. In this closing comment, he made the rationale that there was no consensus for PinkNews as a source because two editors were for it and two editors were against it. Nothing wrong there (even if he admits that he completely overlooked one person's comment disagreeing with SMH as a source). However, he then said that because two people were for SMH as a source and only one person was against it (again he overlooked one comment against this source) that this makes a consensus for its use. Later in his closing comment that number somehow became four supporters for it without explanation, and in his talk page comment the number again changed to three supporters. He then goes on in the closing comments to make a recommendation that the PinkNews source in the article should be replaced with the SMH source because PinkNews has no consensus for its inclusion, whereas SMH does.

As of his last talk page comment (I've already linked it above but it is here) he is saying that a 2:2 split over a source is not a consensus, but a 3:2 split over a source is a consensus, and therefore the article should use the version with the consensus for it and replace the source originally used. This last part was specifically his recommendation, something that I am not alone in being concerned about as the administrator BusterD also went to his talk page about this. There was no argument that the quality of the supporting comments for SMH were superior and based on policy or anything, just that it was a 3:2 vote, and that 3 is 1 higher than 2 therefore it's a consensus. When there's roughly the same amount of editors opposing and supporting something, that is not a consensus, and this is my issue with the close, is that because one additional person supported one thing than the other, it's being defined as a consensus and then being used at the closer's personal recommendation that the one source replace the other, something there was no consensus for, especially when taking into account that the closer overlooked one of the commenters when deciding his close.

I am asking that this close be reviewed as I believe that the rationale that a 3:2 split over a source creates consensus for it is a flawed argument inconsistent with Misplaced Pages's understanding of what a consensus is, as it is not a simple vote where the higher number decides the outcome, especially when the numbers are otherwise even but off by 1.

I have notified Iamreallygoodatcheckers and also BusterD since I mentioned him above. - Aoidh (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that if you're closing an RfC that has four different options but which only five editors replied to, you're going to struggle to find consensus on anything unless everyone agrees. Having said that, I don't see any consensus whatsoever to avoid using PinkNews. Black Kite (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: I want to be very clear, there is no consensus against using PinkNews. The last statement is what I felt would limit future contention; it's not supposed to be a mandate against PinkNews. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  The issue isn't the no consensus comment, it's that you're saying there is a consensus for the other source, and how you then lean on that supposed consensus to make your own opinion in a closing comment that the first source should be replaced, rather than sticking to a summary of the discussion. There was no consensus for what you claimed there was, especially when by your own admission you overlooked one of the commenters contesting what you said there was consensus for. - Aoidh (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I said SMH had a rough consensus because many people in the discussion spoke highly of it and believed it to be reliable; a total of 4 people in the discussion believed it to be reliable. Only 2 didn't want it's use. There was even one person who preferred a primary source being used but still expressed that they believed the SMH specifically was important for establishing WEIGHT. The only reasons PinkNews was ruled no consensus was because it got a little less support. I think the fact that 4 (a majority of the 7 total !votes) with literally 4 options believed this source was usable amounts to a rough consensus. I think that is reasonable. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Having said that, the only editor who specifically suggested that SMH was a better source than PinkNews was someone who'd been summoned by a bot to a page that they don't appear ever to have edited... Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

There were 2 who recommended it, but I don't that is relevant to this discussion because the closing should not be construed to say PinkNews should be replaced by anything. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Why does the number in support of the source change every time you comment on it? It was 3 when you last mentioned it on your talk page, and it was 2 when you first mentioned it in the RfC close. My issue with your close is how something that close is somehow a consensus which you then lean on to make your own suggestion, when the source that got literally 1 less comment in support of it is "no consensus". There was no consensus for anything in that RfC, and the close should reflect that. The close needs to reflect the discussion, that's my only issue here, because as it stands it's a suggestion, not a summation. There was no consensus for SMH, just as there was no consensus for anything else. - Aoidh (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

It's 3 on the talk page because you were not including the person who supported both PinkNews and SMH at one point in your count, so to keep it consistent with you I also removed. However, It's 4 when you include that person, and 3 when you don't. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I know this is annoying, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, but the whole thing was just a big No Consensus, and should have been closed that way. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yup, exactly. Overturn to no consensus per Black Kite.—S Marshall T/C 18:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn, No consensus Even for this rather weakly written and sourced article page, the RfC was thinly participated with little valid reasoning and no agreement that could support the close. I also note that the closing editor has been fairly active doing non-admin closes and has gotten into trouble with them before. I see little policy-and-sourcing based evaluation of the !votes and too much of his own POV, either one of which will undermine his efforts as closer. I'd suggest he focus on other activities for a while. SPECIFICO talk 19:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn - the SMH piece is an opinion column, as pointed out by several participants, so it can't be used to support a statement that a BLP subject has ADHD, per WP:BLP policy. Closer missed this. Levivich (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  WP:BLP doesn't necessarily apply here since the subject of the article passed away last month; however, I did object to using the Sydney Morning Herald column in the RFC because it's a WP:RSEDITORIAL issue. Mahalo, Musashi1600 (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Musashi1600: Recently deceased people are also subject to BLP policy. ––FormalDude talk 21:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• My two cents: not a trainwreck (as mentioned, we've all seen bad closures, and this isn't one), but the RfC was closed too early, before consensus could be established—the RfC was only open for 2 weeks. I commented in the RfC, but I believe a consensus was inevitable if it were to have gone on a week or two more. SWinxy (talk) 05:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn to reopen Wouldn't reopening a RfC be a better solution? I think there is significant clash in the RfC, but perhaps more participation might lead to resolution. An RfC in which editors have made good faith argument shouldn't have their discussion short-circuited by one weak close. I hope the discussion in which participants already invested has a chance to more fully develop. BusterD (talk) 09:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn — I specifically object to the closure endorsing the Sydney Morning Herald column because it's clearly not a reliable source for any purpose on Misplaced Pages (BLP or otherwise) per WP:RSEDITORIAL. Mahalo, Musashi1600 (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn to no-consensus; close was a WP:SUPERVOTE and not an accurate determination of the consensus. Link20XX (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn to reopen; IARGAC, if you aren't seeing consensus but you have an opinion, just go ahead and !vote. valereee (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn and re-open. There isn't a clear consensus there and the RfC had run for a relatively short amount of time (13 days) relative to most RfCs (30+ days). No reason to close it early. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Revdel request (not privacy related)

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

This. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Why? The revision is 15 years old and existed for less than a minute – and it's a garden-variety complaint. Which criterion of WP:CRD do you believe it meets? --bonadea contributions talk 07:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Threatening legal action. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 08:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

a) Please make your posts a bit more informative. "This" is about as opaque as it gets, and your fellow editors are not mindreaders. b) That still doesn't answer the question "Which criterion of WP:CRD do you believe it meets?". Legal threats are not routinely redacted. c) That's not a legal threat unless you look at it sideways and squint a bit. d) It's 15 years old. --bonadea contributions talk 09:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I concur with bonadea on this one. Primefac (talk) 10:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The Equalizer

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

There was an oppose consensus to move back on 10 February 2021 from the talk page. I see yesterday evening it got moved without any consensus by Steel1943. I am not good at moves, don't want to mess it up. Maybe someone can fix it back? Govvy (talk) 10:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Govvy, the sole oppose struck their vote a couple of days ago, which likely prompted the move today. Is there still an issue? Primefac (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Govvy, you appear to have missed the requested move discussion dated 11 July 2022. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, strange,

1; Having another look, I seem to have missed the bot post which is at Talk:The Equalizer (1985 TV series). Had no real idea there was a move discussion as it was on a brand new page I didn't see, have on my watchlist.

2; Shame I didn't get a curtesy ping! Since I was on the last comment.

3; The move discussion didn't seem open that long for a move discussion! O well!! Govvy (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The C of E Tban appeal

Good morning everyone. This is an appeal against my topic ban from WP:DYK participation. Having had 6 months to consider what happened and think about the effects of my actions, I do recognise the drama that I caused and the harm it can do to the project and others. I apologise for what I did in creating articles crafted around creating controversial DYK hooks, I recognise that is not the right way to edit on here now. I understand the collection of credits is not the primary reason for being here. With my time away, I have been working on some WP:ITN articles and collaborating with others. I have helpfully been guided by advice given by @Floquenbeam: and kept to the tban (despite some users asking me to cross the ban). I would like to be able to return to DYK to help build preps and also to help contribute.

In accordance with a suggestion made by @Boing! said Zebedee:, I promise that I will not nominate any smutty, sweary or provocative DYK hooks and I also promise that I will not ever edit, adjust or add anything into an article solely for the purpose of making a DYK hook. I give my word, I will adhere to what I have promised. I would like to ask the community for forgiveness and for the chance to prove I have changed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Imposed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1088#The C of E and DYK. —Cryptic 11:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• Just a quick note that I got the ping, but likely won't be commenting on this. My only involvement was to read the clear consensus in the ANI thread Cryptic links above, and enact it. Apparently, I actually thought a lesser sanction would have worked, but I only know that because I read it in my closing summary, not because I remember coming to that decision. I have no special insight into this appeal, pro or con. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  One more note: When CofE refers to my advice, I made several comments between 13 and 21 Jan on their talk page, but to save people a little time, I'd say my "key" piece of advice was here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support - You faithfully served the t-ban, sought advise during that time from administrators & so IMHO, the preventative measure is no longer required. PS - FWIW, you've never harmed me concerning the topic, in anyway :) GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• I am inclined to support this request but I fear that the smutty, sweary or provocative DYK hooks is wording that may be too narrowly crafted and leaves the barn door wide open for other types of disruptive DYK editing. I supported the topic ban back in January. My concern is that this editor fancies themself as a provocateur who admitted The reason why I did the sweary hooks was partially out of amusement as I feel it can bring a little bit of fun to Misplaced Pages. I expect to see an overt repudiation of that disruptive attitude and a rock solid commitment to never get involved with controversial DYKs ever again, with an understanding that an indefinite block will be the result of any such trolling. Cullen328 (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• I think I can support this, with the pre-existing ban from proposing DYKs relating to British or Irish politics, Religion, and LGBTQ topics, left in place. I share Cullen's fears a little, as The C of E has in the past had a tendency to take things very literally and fail to see beyond the words of a restriction and understand the core meaning behind it. But I can't really fault the commitment made here, and I hope I'm right in my understanding that it means there will be no more pushing of boundaries. This will, of course, be a last chance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, I mean exactly what Pawnkingthree says below - revert to the restrictions in place immediately before the current total DYK ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

• Very qualified Support with the caveat the pre-existing ban stays in place per Boing! above, and that there's absolutely no skirting round the edges per Cullen. Just ... stay well away from anything that could be construed as a problem. Black Kite (talk) 10:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• The only way I would support a return to DYK would be if all the September 2020 restrictions were left in place; ie. a ban from British/Irish politics, religion and LGBTQ, a ban from editing his own hooks when they are in a Prep era, and the ability of any independent reviewer to veto any of his proposed hooks. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, The C of E has done good work on-Wiki and he is an expert on many things. There are many topics where he's largely been been problem-free. On the other hand, I cannot forget the memory of what he used to do and what got him into this position in the first place.

I would be willing to support him being given one more chance, provided that his existing DYK restrictions (i.e. the ones about preps or avoiding anything to do with LGBT/Religion/Irish politics/etc.) would remain in place. I would also suggest that he seek out a mentor to collaborate with him on every DYK nomination to help ensure that he doesn't accidentally fall afoul of his restrictions. In fact, while I don't know if there's consensus for this, I would also suggest that his restrictions be expanded to British politics in general as well as anything to do with British colonialism, as there have been concerns regarding his hooks and interests in those topics before. Finally, it should be made perfectly clear to The C of E that this his last chance and any violation of the things that got him here would almost certainly result in him being banned from DYK again. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Which is why I want the chance to prove I have changed from that. And I think it would be a little unfair to remove the total ban but then start bringing in new restrictions beyond what was already in place beforehand. I cannot demonstrate the difference if I am not permitted to edit in certain areas that I were not banned from prior. The main reason for the initial ban was predominantly based on the provocative stuff, which I have apologised for and I recognise what the consensus seems to be building to. Why would I throw 6 months of personal development and my Misplaced Pages account away in asking for unbanning just for the chance at 1 last risque DYK? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

This is really just to make sure you won't blow your chance. Many here are willing to give you another chance but we may not all be confident that you have changed. Like you said, you have to prove it with your edits and actions. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I read the existing "British or Irish politics" ban as already including British politics in general. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think he should be banned from British politics in general because he's done some useful work there. It's politics regarding the Orange/Green divide in Ireland that has been the problem IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe he shouldn't be banned from British Politics DYK in general, but as I read it he already is. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, I think it's counterproductive to ban him from British politics altogether as I think he's written a number of articles on British politics that are useful contributions and which otherwise would probably not have been written. It's the orange/green issue where the problem has been IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Possible misunderstanding here, sorry. When I speak of British politics in general, I mean in the context of DYK, and as opposed to only DYK for Orange/Green issues (as DYK is what this ban is all about). I don't mean to suggest extending any such ban beyond DYK. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Note to Gatoclass and others: The C of E's actual topc ban is The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed., and comes from Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive270. So far as I know, that's still in place, and isn't anything that can be undone here. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

And that I know can only be undone by arbcom, not here. It's just the ban on DYK I am asking for to be lifted. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Qualified support - I thought the previous ban was overkill as the user's behaviour was already under control after the earlier ban, but agree with Boing!, Black Kite and others that the earlier ban on certain political topics, religion and LGBQT topics should remain. As it happens I am also inclined to disagree that the user need refrain from hooks containing profanity as these can be vetted by the community like any other, but he definitely needs to stop arm wrestling with other users over the choice and/or wording of his proposed hooks, in particular, editing or substitution of his own preferred hooks in prep. Struck as already dealt with in a previous remedy. But I would also like to see him banned from approving April Fool's hooks submitted by other users, because his judgement there has over a long period of time proven at least as flawed as his judgement of his own hooks. Struck as extraneous to this discussion, see below. Gatoclass (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Part of the thinking behind the total DYK ban was that the community can't be expected to keep crafting ever more finely-honed specific bans for individual editors. In the end it just has to come down to The C of E to get it right. So I'd oppose any further attempts at refinement, and just lift the total DYK ban - and it's up to The C of E to take it from there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I shouldn't have brought up the April Fool's issue here, as it's probably not something the community as a whole need consider. It's probably an issue best left to the DYK community itself to deal with, so I might take it up there once this discussion is resolved. Gatoclass (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• • And if the community is kind enough to do so @Boing! said Zebedee:, I will endevour to ensure their faith in me is not misplaced. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support with no restrictions. A second chance should not come with multiple caveats like some double secret probation. There are enough checks and balances in place at DYK so that no damage can come to the project. Hooks are often pulled and fussed with many times before they ever see the main page. Also, the participants in DYK will have a heightened awareness regarding the editor's contributions in DYK. We could use positive constructive contributions from The C of E. I came here after seeing a notice on the DYK talk page. Bruxton (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Bruxton, I'm not weighing in here on either side, but I'd suggest maybe it's worth considering whether the restrictions that were already in place might actually be helpful to CofE in knowing where the boundaries are. This is a person who very much wants to respect boundaries but has a difficult time finding them without clear statements on where those boundaries are. The restrictions that were already in place are ones that most people detect and generalize from fairly quickly for themselves. I'm not saying you're wrong, but at DYK there will be very limited patience for CofE not detecting boundaries, and I'd hate to see removing those clear boundary statements turn into something permanent. valereee (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The restrictions were put in place precisely because the checks and balances failed. There is a reason why The C of E was prohibited from editing his own hooks in prep, from proposing certain kinds of hooks, and why the hook veto practice was imposed. All of these were responses to his previous actions. I understand that you're relatively new to DYK and Misplaced Pages as a whole and was not here at the time those restrictions were imposed, but they existed for a reason. Now, if The C of E is allowed to return to DYK, having those earlier restrictions imposed will allow The C of E to avoid doing the things that led him into trouble while still giving him a chance to contribute productively to fields where he had no trouble. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose @Valereee and Narutolovehinata5: Thanks to both of you for the messages. I thought I might point out that I have about 58 successful DYK nominations and I learned my way around the place. My own hooks are regularly pulled and stuck - and discussed etc, but I never intend disruption. It appears this editor has intended to disrupt for several years. I was not aware of the 2020 arbcom discussion. And I only became aware of issues when the op proposed a DYK that I commented on back in January. So based on the years long disruption and on the comments by @David Eppstein: and Narutolovehinata5, I withdraw my support for lifting restrictions. Bruxton (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bruxton, sorry to ping you again, but could you clarify whether you're still supporting lifting the t-ban, which was actually what CofE is asking for? The various editing restrictions at DYK were already in place before the t-ban was placed; people here have brought those up as a secondary question, some saying they support lifting the t-ban as long as the restrictions are left in place. CofE wasn't actually even asking that those be lifted, as far as I can tell. Just the t-ban. valereee (talk) 10:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: Oppose. Lots of other areas of the project to contribute as BD2412 has stated Bruxton (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The supposed apology and promise to do better does not address the much earlier and long-lasting problems that led to the earlier ban from proposing DYKs relating to British or Irish politics, Religion, and LGBTQ topics. My impression is that the broader problems arose as a way to lash out against that earlier ban. Unless it is addressed, we still have a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per David Eppstein. Even if the ban is lifted, a total lift without added restrictions - along the lines of what Bruxton is proposing - is completely unacceptable. I don't understand why CofE is determined to get his restrictions lifted on DYK hooks, considering that he can be productive in other areas of Misplaced Pages and especially considering the extraordinary disruption he brought to DYK in the past.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think he's asking to have all the restrictions lifted, just the total ban but with previous restrictions still in place. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  • That is correct @Boing! said Zebedee:. I will be asking for some further clarification on them if the total ban is lifted to avoid any misunderstandings. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose absent both the pre-ban restrictions and ensuring that the set of restrictions going forward clearly and unambiguously cover past problematic behaviors, including the warping of articles that was the proximate cause of his total DYK ban six months ago. After that ban, in the discussion on his talk page, The C of E pointed out that he doesn't pick up on subtle hints or implications and needs direct, clear clarification on what is allowable. I would go further, based on past experience at DYK: if someone tells him not to do something and his interpretation of a specific Misplaced Pages policy is that he can do it, he'll ignore that person and go with his own interpretation, even if it isn't just one person telling him no. That's why he had all the restrictions prior to his full DYK ban, and why they need to be in place and clearly defined if the ban is lifted: The C of E has great difficulty seeing why what he wants to do would be problematic, and hasn't been able to refrain from testing—and blowing through—the boundaries. I agree with Cullen328 that the C of E's initial offer/proposal is too narrowly crafted (why "solely", for example?), though it does cover areas not in the original restrictions that I think need to be there. Otherwise, we're setting up a situation ripe for failure. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm having the thought of if The C of E could have some kind of DYK mentor if he's allowed back into DYK. Like he would have a co-nominator for all of his DYK nominations, who would tell him if what he's doing is right or not. The co-nominator could also serve as an additional check to make sure whatever he writes (article and hook-wise) either doesn't fall under existing restrictions (i.e. no Irish nationalism, etc.) or doesn't try to skirt around them. Also, a co-nominator could ensure that thinks like his "cock" antics before do not happen again.

I think my biggest fear here is that we could see a repeat of the incidents that led to the "cock" article incident. The comments made above regarding boundaries is a good point and I fear that The C of E could return to his old ways where he pushed the boundaries of what he was allowed to work on. His comments above seem sincere and he does seem to be trying to atone for what he did in the past, but given what he's done before, I'm not sure if his apology here is enough. I'm not against the idea of his total DYK ban (as opposed to merely the other restrictions) being lifted, but I wouldn't support the ban being lifted outright without checks or assurances to make sure that what happened before would not happen again. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: After reading this again (showing how the problem is DYK for him), the admitted problem with boundaries, and knowing that C of E could not get the message operating under a more limited restriction, already: trusting again seems a very big ask, and this is not a second chance, it is, at least, a third. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• Respectfully oppose. Misplaced Pages is over 6.5 million articles and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) more needing to be made. There is a tremendous amount to be done without raising the specter of DYK drama, even if it is just in the form of lingering bad experiences. I would wait at least another half a year. BD2412 T 23:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support I thought the ban was heavy handed and overkill. --evrik  03:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support So they were banned for promoting the words ""fuck", "dick" and "cock" on the main page" (per the ANI case) via DYK?! And yet Gropecunt Lane was TFA once upon a time. Seems a bit heavy-handed. Lugnuts 08:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Some things need to be clarified here:

Firstly, the hook that actually did get promoted never used the term "cock". It ended up being a normal hook.

Secondly, what got The C of E into trouble at the time wasn't necessarily the use of profanity itself, it was how he did it. The article repeatedly used the term "cock" instead of "rooster" even though the sources for the article largely used "rooster". Indeed, at one point the article even had the phrase "Dick's Cock" which was never used in any source. Although many DYK editors are disinclined to promote hooks featuring profanity, they're not outright prohibited, but there has to be a good reason to use them and more often than not hooks that would have featured them are written in such a way to make the profanity less explicit, largely citing WP:GRATUITOUS.

Thirdly, had it just been a one time thing, The C of E would have probably have been given at most an admonishment. However, he had a previous history of trying to push DYK hooks that featured subjects with profanity and profane names simply for the shock value, rather than the encyclopedic value. For example, he had a DYK nomination where the subjects were New Zealand geographic locations whose names had the N-word and tried to make a hook out of that. Needless to say, said nomination was ultimately rejected. Another time, he tried to promote a hook that called Muhammad a thief. Regardless of your opinions of Islam, such a hook was obviously a ticking time-bomb and needless to say, the article ultimately ran with another hook.

And finally, The C of E wasn't necessarily banned from DYK just for the profanity issue. It was due to a pattern of pushing the boundaries of his existing restrictions, and rightly or wrongly, the community felt that banning him from DYK altogether was more effective than further increasing his existing restrictions. The "cock" article was the last straw, but it wasn't the only thing that led to the DYK ban. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Lugnuts If it was just the profanity thing ... but that wasnt the original problem - see the links here and my comment in this AE. That's why I've suggested above that the CofE goes nowhere near any of these topics. Black Kite (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Ahh, I didn't see/know about that. Yes, going nowhere near those topics would make sense. Thanks. Lugnuts 10:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Closer request - I would just like the closer to spell out continuing restrictions, as it seems a little unclear. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  I've been reading closely with an eye to possibly closing, and yes, several oppose !votes seem to specifically be using the idea of lifting the restrictions that were in place when the t-ban was placed as one of their/their primary reason for opposing. The ones I've noted, besides Bruxton whom I've already pinged above, are @WaltCip, @BlueMoonset, and @Alanscottwalker. An edit to clarify whether you're objecting to the lifting of the t-ban from DYK (rather than being opposed to lifting the earlier DYK restrictions) or are opposed to both/either would be helpful to the closer, as CofE's actual request here is only about the t-ban, not about lifting the other restrictions. ETA: FWIW, right now most 'support' !votes are specifying that the support is contingent upon the earlier restrictions not being lifted. valereee (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I think another thing worth pointing out is that some editors above are not confident about lifting the DYK ban entirely because there's the fear that, even if the total ban is lifted but the original restrictions remain, he would return to his old ways of pushing boundaries. If the total DYK ban is to be lifted, there probably needs to be measures to ensure that said boundary pushing would or could not happen. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Which restrictions? Perhaps list them now, so everyone is clear.

But I brought up the 2020 AN, not for the restrictions, but because the statements there by CofE and others indicate a root of the problem of warping articles, of not being able to exercise good editorial judgement, pushing for main page ethno-nationalism, racism, ridicule based on sexuality, etc., is involvement with DYK, itself. And that somehow CoE, did not get the message, leading to another draining AN, which are not cost free for anyone. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

To quote the prior ANI, The C of E is banned "from proposing DYKs relating to British or Irish politics, Religion, and LGBTQ topics", from "editing hooks he has proposed or for articles he has nominated, created, or expanded when they are in a Prep area", and that any DYK hook he proposes can be vetoed by any independent review, where said veto cannot be appealed. In addition, there are also his restrictions relating to Irish nationalism, but as those are ArbCom-imposed they could only be overturned by ArbCom and not here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I think AE restrictions can be appealed at AN.

And at any rate, my earlier comment was not about the restrictions themselves, it was that they did not stop the disruption. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Since it's extremely unlikely C of E has changed either their views or personality in any substantial manner, I see no reason to lift restrictions that are doing their job perfectly well. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The point here is that the total ban from DYK was never necessary. The C of E had already been banned at DYK from all the topic areas where his behaviour had been problematic, namely, Irish politics, religion and LGBTQ issues. Those bans remain in place and there has been no proposal to lift them. He ended up getting a total ban from DYK for a hook with a double entendre on the word "cock" which he had submitted for April Fools Day - precisely the kind of thing that he and many other users have successfully submitted for the day in question on many previous occasions with little if any complaint from the wider community. He had, in short, every reason to think such a nomination was acceptable for the AFD special occasion, and I submit that it was manifestly unfair and a double standard for the community to suddenly turn around and impose a blanket ban for the very same kind of material the community has found acceptable on many previous occasions.

I have certainly had my own issues with The C of E over the years, indeed I doubt that anybody here has spent more time trying to get him to recognize the problematic nature of some of his nominations. But I also think the problems were well in hand after the first, limited ban, and that the blanket ban has probably achieved little else but discourage participation from an erstwhile prolific content creator. Gatoclass (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Really? You think it is helpful here to repeat yout failed arguments and rejected position from last time? You want a renewed argument about the already instituted consensus on the ban, in which the community rejected each one of your points including your blinkered view of the underlying evidence and problems. Your already rejected argument can only convince that problems will get worse and worse if the ban is lifted, there will be more boundary testing, more bad editorial judgement, more skewing of articles, more attempts to disrupt the main page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Gatoclass Whilst I think CoE should be given another chance, it has to be clear what the issue is. He wasn't banned from DYK for a single April Fool's joke , it was a continuing issue of a number of things, and he didn't "get the point" even after the tban (see Joe Roe's comment at this appeal, for example). Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support. The editor has not violated their topic ban in the past six months and shows a genuine understanding that there are no chances beyond the one that they are asking for. Topic bans are meant to be narrowly tailored towards preventing disruption. If the previous restrictions remain in place (which The C of E seems to clearly agree to), and The C of E understands that the community wants to keep WP:GRATUITOUS content off of the main page and will hold the editor accountable if they try to put it on the main page, then I would see no reason why a blanket ban is justified; the ability for any single editor to veto any hook proposed by The C of E is more than enough to ensure that only unobjectionable hooks by The C of E will actually make it to the main page. The only way that a blanket ban could be justified over that would be if such a high proportion hooks by the C of E were gratuitously inappropriate that it would disrupt the DYK review process. I think that the editor understands not to be pushy in this manner anymore, and a final chance makes sense to me. If the user were to engage in repeated bad-faith hook creation over the next six months, I would expect the blanket ban to be returned. But, if good behavior were to continue at DYK for another six months, I would expect the community to gradually release restrictions as the user demonstrates that they no longer will act disruptively at DYK. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article

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

A little concerning to open Misplaced Pages today to find a giant picture of a confederate flag beside a White Patriots poster. Then only to find that the article is about a British Neo-Nazi... Should we really be including Neo-Nazis in the featured articles? 167.201.243.112 (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTCENSORED. The Germans don't shy away from teaching the Holocaust, neither should we shy away from past and present-day extremism. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, you wouldn't have opened "Misplaced Pages today to find a giant picture of a confederate flag beside a White Patriots poster" and then found out the article is about a British Neo-Nazi. There's no image like that on the main page. You would have seen that the article is about a British neo-Nazi and then clicked through to see the image once you knew what the article is about. I think the "principle of least astonishment" is followed. DeCausa (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Open the Misplaced Pages app right now. You'll see it... It's the main picture for the article. The guy's face is cut off but the top half of the photo has everything described above. And the preview/summary right below "John Tyndall was a British fascist political activist. A leading member of various small neo-Nazi groups...." 167.201.243.112 (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I feel there's a difference here. You are referring to teaching, having discourse, and ensuring information is available. By all means it must in order to have freedom of information. That is different from promotion. Promoting such views on the front page is hardly different from the conversation above about a user promoting profanity on the main page. In addition the featured articles are also sent via subscription to users who have signed up. Misplaced Pages is effectively disseminating those extremism views to a vast audience, both users who may be offended or hurt/threatened, and potentially an audience receptive of such content, opening the door for further spread of extremism 167.201.243.112 (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Nice... y'all really don't get how things like this do impact diverse communities through the nation, especially in today's political and social climate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.201.243.112 (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

A Wikpedia article, including a featured article, is not an endorsement. And what do you mean by "the nation"? Misplaced Pages caters for about 200 nations. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

We actually did run a Confederate flag image on a TFA last year - Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/April 28, 2021, with no complaints. Hog Farm _Talk 19:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The IP editor is correct that the app pulls the infobox image so yes, if you open the Misplaced Pages app, the first thing you see is John Tyndall standing in front of a Confederate flag. If you engage with Misplaced Pages through a desktop browser (as I expect most editors do) then you don't see the image without clicking through and the effect is probably lessened. Mackensen (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards