Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nableezy (talk | contribs) at 22:08, 25 December 2023 (→Appeal of the removal of EC membership for User:DMH43: reply to Folly Mox). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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?

• 0 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 0 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 1 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 5 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 25 sockpuppet investigations
• 8 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
• 35 requested closures
• 51 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 7 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Unblock/unban request for 20 upper

a) one-account restriction

b) this is a last-chance unblock - any further misconduct will result in an indefinite block.

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

• 20 upper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• This has been carried over from UTRS appeal #81911 pursuant to the discussion there.
• @Yamla: found no recent evidence of sock puppetry, so checkuser consideration has been cleared.
• Talk page access has been restored.
• User was WP:3X banned earlier this year, and had been blocked earlier for one year by @UtherSRG: for unsourced content, and other concerns which user has addressed in this request.

Request carried over below. (Formatting adjusted.)

I'm writing to request the removal of my block placed on me in February 2023. Despite the fact that the block log stated that I had been barred for repeatedly adding unsourced content, there were other reasons for my blocking. I was originally blocked because I included redundant deletion requests, produced original research, tried to game the system, removed talk page notices, failed to properly cite my sources, and included copyright infringement in publications.

I've since been studying copyright, and have devoted numerous hours to honing my skills in avoiding plagiarism and too-close paraphrasing. After using AI for several months, as well as YouTube tutorials, expert assistance, and publications, I now know enough about copyright to be able to paraphrase properly. In an attempt to see if I could create an account and make changes, I made my first sockpuppet account (Kodfounder). I had no knowledge of the sock puppetry policy at the time and naively believed it to be acceptable. After a failed attempt to request an unblock on my main account, I was furious and decided to edit using my sockpuppet. However, there was a catch: the sock account had been automatically blocked. At this point I understood that having multiple accounts while blocked was bad, but I instead issued an unblock request to deceive any administrators that this was an instance of collateral damage. The administrator who was evaluating it and who also happened to be a CheckUser was simply intrigued by this. As a result of the affirmative check, I was indefinitely blocked.

My fury increased as a result of the block on my sockpuppet, so I went ahead and built another sockpuppet (Dancing Dollar). I edited on this account for a few months in an effort to show the community that I could be a useful editor. I then made the decision to indirectly confess to my behavior after learning about the UTRS and standard offer, and as a result, I was banned per WP:3X. I gave up trying to maintain the act and decided it was for the best.

My sockpuppetry behavior was completely unnecessary, and only made things worse. I couldn't control my urge to edit Misplaced Pages. I feel awful for my sockpuppetry. I never intended for my behavior to be disruptive but failed to acknowledge the sockpuppetry policy. I humbly admit to using sockpuppets, and I have now permanently disclosed those accounts. While I was blocked, I went ahead and personally insulted some of my fellow Wikipedians (SandyGeorgia and UtherSRG), which caused access to my talk page to be suspended. My behavior was wrong, and I shouldn't have done it. My block was also brought on by a lack of understanding and communication (WP:CIR and WP:IDHT). I was incompetent to edit Misplaced Pages, as can be seen in the Administrators' noticeboard/Archive349#User:20 upper, because I disregarded straightforward directions, gave the impression that I hadn't read everything, and worst of all, I made no attempt to collaborate with the community.

Since then, I've come to understand the value of the community. Since my block, I've improved my communication abilities significantly, and I truly feel competent to edit Misplaced Pages. I have now been gone from Misplaced Pages for 6 months without any sock puppetry or block evasion. In that time frame, I've been editing Wikimedia Commons. I've read Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines extensively and I'm happy to respond in my own words to any inquiries the community has on policy. If unblocked, I will concentrate on undoing vandalism, general copyediting, new page patrolling, and taking part in community forums like the Village Pump. Even though there are no justifications for my conduct, I am prepared to take action in order to demonstrate to the community that I genuinely care about this project and never intended any harm. I'd like my talk page access to be restored, and this request to be taken to the Administrators' noticeboard. Sorry for the long read.

carried over by-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

User:20 upper, you say a lot of the right things, but I can't help thinking that we couldn't believe what you said before, so why should we now? I note that you say you "couldn't control urge to edit Misplaced Pages". Please try to control it: editing Misplaced Pages should be a pleasant experience, not an urge. And I also note that you say you will take part in new page patrolling. I don't think that someone with your history should be passing judgement on others' work. One last question (which you may choose not to answer for privacy reasons): how old are you? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Reply carried over-- @Phil Bridger: Regarding your initial query, I have changed my ways. In the past, I've said good things while acting inappropriately. However, I've since realized that socking is wrong, which is why I've chosen to acknowledge my actions and finally abide by the rules. Considering that I haven't socked, complied with the policies & guidelines, and edited Commons while away from Misplaced Pages, I believe that the block is no longer necessary. How old am I you ask, well, all I can say is that my brain has not fully developed, so yeah. 20 upper (talk) 4:46 pm, Today --carried over -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The whole "brain development lasts until 25" is a myth, for the record. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

That just goes to show what I believe: that some teenagers are very mature and some old people are very immature. The difference is that young people almost always change faster, i.e. that the first differential is usually greater. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

That's not really a myth, brain development still happens into the 20s, it's just that there is no hard boundary, e.g. 25 or 24 or 26. Laurence Steinberg is quoted in the piece you linked saying "There's consensus among neuroscientists that brain development continues into the 20s, but there's far from any consensus about any specific age that defines the boundary between adolescence and adulthood." It should be noted, though, that "brain development" is a relative measure, not an absolute one, so a 20-year-old may not be as mature as they will become, and yet already more mature than some other people will ever be. Levivich (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Support conditionally Based on the ban on 3X, personal attacks made towards others, and their last socking activity being just over the usual 6 months, I'm hesitant to support at all a ban appeal, but their extensive editing history on Commons since is what tilts me over to supporting. However, given the first few problems, I'd only be able to support this on the condition that 20 upper is restricted to one account, and may be blocked without warning for any continuation of unsourced content additions. EggRoll97 21:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support conditionally per EggRoll97 above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
• Very weak support - it deeply concerns me that an editor blocked for copyright violations now "know enough about copyright to be able to paraphrase properly". To me, having spent several months working with AI tools to learn how to "paraphrase properly" strikes me as learning to more covertly copy from copyrighted works, rather than learning how to write properly in their own words. We also know that LLM content generators are capable of crafting completely fabricated references to support their completely fabricated content. It would be an oppose from me, but EggRoll97's assertion that their contributions to Commons have been productive tips me into the WP:LASTCHANCE column. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 23:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Non-administrator note User:20 upper, if you want to be unblocked, you need to show the Misplaced Pages community that you are competent just like you are with your 700,000+ edits on commons.wikimedia.org, not only promise that you will change your behaviour. If your UTRS appeal gets accepted, this will likely be your last chance here. We, at English Misplaced Pages (as well as all other wikipedias), take a serious view against personal attacks. Personal attacks are very harmful towards the community and deter other users in a negative way. Also make sure you cite a reliable source when you add or change content. Furthermore, you must not use more than one account for inappropiate reasons (please also read about that). So to summarise, always stay cool while editing and do not repeat the same behaviour that caused you to be blocked. This is all so that the Misplaced Pages community can trust you again. ST7733B (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support conditionally per Eggroll97. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support conditionally as per Eggroll97's request above and also ST7733B's request that the user understand this is a last chance reprieve. The community has a tolerance level that once breached the offender may not be able to come back from. I believe 20 upper would also benefit from some mentoring/guidance though it needs to be understood that whether they select to accept mentoring/guidance or not they, and they alone, are still responsible for their edits. --ARoseWolf 16:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Dozens upon dozens of questionable redirects created by now-blocked user

• JailBrokenIPODGoneWild (talk · contribs)

Today I've discovered that Special:Contributions/JailBrokenIPODGoneWild, a user now blocked for harassment, had created dozens upon dozens of questionable redirects related to public transportation. The redirects are all from color terms to a specific transportation line or service in systems where lines are depicted with colors on maps but not referred to by color in conversation or in official operations. The problem is that these redirects have qualifiers in front of the color terms like "Dark" and "Light", when nobody speaks like that, at least not in America. Nobody will say "Take the Dark Red Line"; people just say "Take the Red Line". If a given system has multiple lines or services that share a core color with different shades, the core color title should be a disambiguation page. Example of redirects that I just turned into disambiguation pages today are Green Line (Metra) and Orange Line (Metra). Again, very few if anyone would actually use the color qualifiers in conversation and thus I'm led to conclude that these redirects are implausible. The issue is the sheer quantity of them - way too many to list at RFD. How do we proceed from here? Taking Out The Trash (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Holy crap. This user has created a whopping 12,000 redirects, and that's not including the 500ish additional redirects that have already been deleted. There's no way that all of those are valid. This may be a bigger issue than it seems on the surface. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Some redirects appear valid (e.g. List of countries by calling code) but the majority appear to be nonsense. I think we need community consensus to allow admins to review and delete at their discretion. GiantSnowman 22:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
• Looks like a 13k editor that was not blocked for socking, so WP:G5 and WP:NUKE is not an option here. Their activity and the block were both over a year ago. Looks like they were on the redirect autopatrol list at the time of their blocking, so all their stuff got autopatrolled. RAL at the time of their blocking, with them on it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
• Notified: Misplaced Pages talk:Redirects for discussion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
• (from RFD): This is, uh, not good...

  The worst part is that many of the redirects look plausible, at least the most recently created ones.

  I think the best way to proceed is to have a formal, community-wide discussion on Are Such Redirects Helpful or Valid, preferably at the Village Pump, and if community consensus is that they are not, and that they would be deleted at RfD, then mass-delete them as a community action. (Non-administrator comment) Cremastra (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• This user has had plenty of redirects come to RfD before and I think they should probably continue to be handled that way; I fear that the mere fact of being blocked for an unrelated reason could place unwarranted scrutiny upon these redirects. While some of these redirects may be undesirable, their problems seem at a glance to generally be in the class of "implausible search term", not very harmful, rather than "targets wrong place", actively harmful. At the least, the most recent redirects are very helpful creations. J947 ‡ 01:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  • I skimmed through a few hundred of these redirects and most seem at first glance to lie somewhere in the space between "probably fine" and "implausible search term"; nothing Neelixual. Is there a way to find the ones that have inbound links? Folly Mox (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Was it unrelated? Was it for harassment at all?

It is unclear from Special:Diff/1106477198 what prompted the 2022 block by Daniel Case, or the determination that this was a trolling/harassment-only account. I haven't found any noticeboard or talk page discussion since the 2009 discussion of the creation of redirects at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive579#Redirects for every street in Manhattan. I haven't found a single talk page contribution from this account in 13 years, so it is perplexing what the trolling/harassment was. And the block log entry is no help.

Uncle G (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Looks like it was in response to this AIV report, which just expressed concerns about the redirects. I'd be curious to hear how people reached the conclusion that this was a vandalism-only account/troll: at a glance most of the redirects appear to be pretty clearly in good faith, whatever one might think of their usefulness. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I RfD'd a few of JBIGW's creations, and wasn't surprised to see them blocked eventually. (I'm not dismissing Uncle G's concerns about the procedure of the block, but in either case that level of WP:COMMUNICATE was going to lead to a block sooner or later.) My perception of JBIGW's redirects in general, though, is similar to Folly Mox': Most probably weren't worth creating, but at the same time don't need to be deleted. Before we go too far talking about a CSD X3 or whatever, could someone put together a list of, I dunno, 20 redirects they think would almost certainly fail RfD, and say how many redirs they had to go through to compile that list? Right now it's hard to get a feel for the shape of the problem, and if it is such a massive issue, this shouldn't be too hard to put together. -- Tamzin (they|xe|she) 04:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• It is more that Taking Out The Trash said above that JailBrokenIPODGoneWild was blocked for harassment and J947 commenting that this was unrelated and could result in unwarranted scrutiny. But from what Extraordinary Writ has turned up the block log entry is misleading, the block was actually directly about the redirects, and they were characterized by Sir Joseph as vandalism.

  That report was made on 2022-08-24; the most recently deleted redirects, created on 2022-08-20, were the ones from Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 18#MBTA Silver Line line redirects; and the most recently not-deleted redirects were the likes of Postal code (United States) and List of Internet top-level domains (country) which may be useless, but which as Extraordinary Writ says do not really say vandalism-only account let alone trolling/harrassment.

  They also contain KOP, Pennsylvania and 84, PA created that day which seem unlikely but conceivable search terms that are fairly obviously in line with the target articles's contents. And from the previous month Geography of State College, Pennsylvania and its ilk seem uncontroversial and Government of Veracruz actually got used by someone else in an article.

  So I think that you are right, and both a case for vandalism and a case for "Holy crap. 12,000 redirects" need to be made with examples.

  Uncle G (talk) 10:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  For the record, I think Postal code (United States) is a great redirect. How am I supposed to remember what they call their postal codes? Zippers? Something like that. Cremastra (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  In this case, the best solution is to have Postal codes have a list of links to individual countries' pages where they exist (possibly as a navigation box); I believe that parantheticals generally make unneeded redirects, except where either there is the potential for a future article, or where an ENGVAR-alternate article with the parenthetical already exists (e.g Orange (color)). Animal lover |666| 08:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm generally lenient on redirects – my criterion is, is this potentially useful to a reader?, as they are after all WP:CHEAP and generally harmless (they are usually a small net-positive, even if they seem unusual), but we should probably leave theses specifics to later. (And I'm aware I'm probably not wholly within policy with my views). 🎄Cremastra 🎄 (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Changes to two MediaWiki pages

Could a sysop please implement the changes proposed here? Seems to be uncontroversial and hasn't had any objections for a while. To summarize, proposed changes are:

1. To delete MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-email.

2. To move MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallow-email to MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed-email.

Thanks. EggRoll97 22:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Did those talk pages get notified? Perhaps the folks that created those pages would want to weigh in. @Dragons flight and Primefac: –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Notice tossed on the talk pages of both MediaWiki pages as well as the talk pages of both creators, and WP:VPT. EggRoll97 23:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

VPT probably wasn't necessary, and I already pinged the creators, but I suppose it doesn't hurt. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@EggRoll97: I don't see any real issues with this, but, filter 247 is going to need to be updated, and I have a question that I haven't seen answered: I'm pretty sure there's a way to find which filters are using which warnings, like you see in any filter's history. Any idea where that is and can you confirm usage? -- zzuuzz 11:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Correct, filter 247 will need either an EFM or an admin (who will need to assign themselves EFM if not already assigned) to make the change to the template used to change it from disallow-email to disallowed-email. The warning-email template states it is used by filter 247, but since filter 247 is disallow, it does not actually use the warn template anymore. As for a way to find out which filters use it, I'm not sure of one, but I just checked all the filters manually, 247 is the only one using those pages as messages. EggRoll97 21:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. -- zzuuzz 23:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

CU check by Bbb23

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

I would like to draw your attention to a recent CU investigation conducted by administrator Bbb23, leading to the blocking of the user Dynasty Power. Despite the completion of the CU check, no conclusive results were presented by the administrator to affirm the alleged connection between the investigated account and Dynasty Power. Upon inspecting the CU check page, it is evident that the administrator proceeded swiftly with the blocking action without providing explicit evidence or establishing a clear connection between the account in question and Dynasty Power. This lack of transparency raises concerns about the validity of the decision and the fairness of the process. In the interest of maintaining a just and accountable administrative environment, I kindly request other administrators to conduct a thorough and impartial review of this case. It is essential to ensure that any punitive actions are based on concrete evidence and adhere to established protocols, fostering a sense of trust and fairness within our community. Your prompt attention to this matter is appreciated, and I look forward to a resolution that upholds the principles of transparency and due process in our administrative procedures. 62.74.55.242 (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

You are confused, no CU investigation occurred there. --Yamla (talk) 10:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Then why was Dynasty Power blocked? 62.74.55.242 (talk) 10:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:DUCK. —Wasell 10:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

An IRC for users who need to discuss their onsite relations

Say that I need to have a conversation about onsite interpersonal relations. It need not necessarily be confidential, but it is the sort of talk that I would rather only users rungs on the ladder higher than I (the admins) be reading, and I would detest it appearing anywhere in the site's talkspace and being recorded and logged in a page history. I thought there was an IRC for lower-ranking users like me to discuss things like this with admins only, but as it turns out, I might be wrong. This conversation would be about me, and my request for one cannot go ignored. I checked the IRCs at WP:IRC, and not one of them seemed like the chat room suited for general discussions related to onsite editing to be read only by admins and the users starting them. All I have left is this noticeboard with nowhere else to look and no better place to go to. I still want the conversation, but not so openly and definitely not on this noticeboard. Is there a place for such discussions that I have been unaware of? FreeMediaKid$ 10:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

If there's any sort of privacy-related aspect, always err on the side of caution and contact the oversighters. But from what I can gather from your message, it sounds like you just need to find an admin (or other user) you trust and send them an email. I'm not aware of anything on IRC or the like that would be quite what you're looking for (you can't access #wikipedia-en-admins, and #wikipedia-en-revdel is designed only for revdel requests), but maybe someone more familiar with those programs can correct me. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Assuming this has something to do with User_talk:FreeMediaKid!#November_2022 - Misplaced Pages values transparency and everything within reason should be conducted on-wiki. If you still think something needs to be oversighted, instructions on how to contact the oversight team were provided in that section. In my opinion the request does not meet the threshold for either oversight or revision-deletion, but the oversight team are the experts on that. By emailing them, there is a record kept of your request internally, which is also advantageous for transparency reasons to the alternative (which is IRC where no records are kept). Daniel (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Extraordinary Writ that emailing an admin of your choice seems like a good way to handle this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@FreeMediaKid! Admins are not "higher" up on the ladder than you are. They have permissions that allow them to do things like delete articles or block users, but other than that they are just users like you and me. Their opinions don't count any more than any other users. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

For the record, there is an IRC channel that fits the bill of "admins are the only ones who will see it" - #wikipedia-en-revdel . All admins in the channel are voiced and only admins can see what is posted by non-admins. Primefac (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Appeal of the removal of EC membership for User:DMH43

I (@User:DMH43) recently obtained EC membership. Since then, I have made several edits to ARBPIA pages (see https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/DMH43). Today, I had my EC membership revoked by User:ScottishFinnishRadish, see https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:DMH43#Extended-confirmed_revoked. Quoting this user's message:

you rushed to 500 total edits and then immediately switched entirely to editing ARBPIA topics exclusively. That is a clear case of WP:GAMING just to regain access to ARBPIA.

I argue that my edits were not a case of gaming based on the rules described. The Gaming page describes restrictions as being preventative rather than punitive. I would consider the removal of my permission as punitive since no one has brought an issue with the contents of my edits (which I don't think have been controversial in any sense). The Gaming page does describe a case of gaming to gain EC access:

An editor makes many unconstructive edits in a sandbox to become extended confirmed, and then makes controversial changes to extended confirmed protected articles.

This is very different from my case. The example described is a clear manipulation whereas my edits have been valuable phrasing, formatting, citation and content improvements.

User:ScottishFinnishRadish also suggests I edit strictly non-ARBPIA pages for a few months. But this is not mentioned anywhere in the rules. This suggests that the action taken against me is punitive.

User:ScottishFinnishRadish also linked two recent cases (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1144#User:President_Loki and https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1144#500/30_gaming_for_ARBPIA_editing) of users Gaming to gain EC access. Both cases are very different from mine. Specifically, the user mentioned in the first link has ~296 edits wikilinking "genus". The user mentioned in the second link has a HUGE number of very tiny, arguably useless edits. In contrast my edits are arguably much more substantial, very few are under 20 characters changed.

Based on the above, I think the action taken against me is unjustified (and strictly punitive, not preventative) by the rules and I should have EC membership restored. DMH43 (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

1) This account was open on 15 November.

2) The first actual edit was on 1 December - just over 3 weeks ago.

3) The first 100+ edits were in ARBPIA, in violation of 30/500. The user continued to edit in ARBPIA after being warned by me and other users, and stopped doing so only after I opened a complaint in AE.

4) After the complaint, the user started editing in other topics, many of the edits not very substantial.

5) As soon as the user got to 500 total edits, including many violation edits because they had edited in ARBPIA, they again started editing exclusively in ARBPIA, adding much POV material.

Seems like a clear case of WP:GAMING. Dovidroth (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Everyone can feel free to check that discussion which has now been archived without action. And they can check that I messaged you to notify that I would undo your reverts. None of my edits were controversial or malicious. None of my edits have been challenged as POV. DMH43 (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've also notified Dovidroth of this thread since they seem to have been quite invested in reverting you.

As for my opinion on the merits of the request, I'm not convinced that this was really gaming the system. Did the user rush to 500? Sure, but the edits, in my opinion, seem to be at least fairly reasonable on the surface. I'm also not really convinced the standard generally established in other cases like this was met here. I don't think ScottishFinnishRadish was wrong here, but I also don't think the revocation of extended confirmed was particularly necessary, and I don't see a reason that it shouldn't be returned to them. The links ScottishFinnishRadish gave to the editor on their talk page as examples of gaming don't seem very egregious, and it seems like the editor, while maybe a bit inexperienced, does still know what they're doing, and the page they made in ARBPIA is still up. Based on this, I would support returning extended confirmed to the editor. If they're really becoming that problematic in ARBPIA even with extended confirmed, blocks still exist, and so does a friendly talk page discussion. EggRoll97 17:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I would say that immediately reverting one editor a half-dozen times as one of their first actions after gaining autoconfirmed demonstrate problematic ARBPIA editing already, and also demonstrate the problem with gaming extended-confirmed with minor copyedits with the goal of returning to ARBPIA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Those reverts were undos of reverts performed because I didn't have EC. No issue with the content was raised at the time. And I notified said user. DMH43 (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I would argue my reverts are the most benign edits I could have made, since no issue was raised regarding the content when i originally made these edits. DMH43 (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I didnt go on a reverting spree of a specific user. DMH43 (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The fact that this user is calling POV-filled edits “benign” shows a lack of sensitivity to ARBPIA and that they are not ready to edit in this area. Dovidroth (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Those arent POV-filled edits, and if you had a case for removing them except for them being made by a non-ECP editor you could offer that. You dont though. nableezy - 14:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with nableezy above. You could have explained that instead of just spamming "reverting editor not 30/500". You could have put a detailed edit summary in there, for what you actually thought was wrong with the edits. The editor was trying to contribute in good faith, which frankly it's a shame we don't just IAR these early ARBPIA edits and actually put a descriptive edit summary instead of spamming the same non-descript "user not allowed in here" garbage. Getting new editors acquainted is a problem, and this is part of it. EggRoll97 14:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagreed with the edits, but there was no need to state that as you were non-EC and not allowed to edit in those articles in the first place. And I did not receive any notification that you were reverting me. Where do you think you have notified me? Dovidroth (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I had tagged you on the talk pages. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Scars%20of%20War,%20Wounds%20of%20Peace?title=Scars_of_War,_Wounds_of_Peace&diff=prev&oldid=1191425028 DMH43 (talk) 19:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

As a matter of procedure, @Dovidroth: I'm pretty sure your reversions on Scars of War, Wounds of Peace above are actually a violation of ARBPIA4, remedy 6, stating in part, All primary articles will be subject to the ARBPIA General Sanctions. {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} should be added to the talk page of affected pages, and {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} should be added as an editnotice to affected pages. The presence of the templates is required before the General Sanctions can be enforced on primary articles. As that particular article is part of the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), ARBPIA restrictions shouldn't apply unless the editnotice and talk page template have been applied. Regardless, it seems the editor wasn't actually prohibited by 500/30 from making those edits. POV is a different issue, but that can be hashed out separately. EggRoll97 19:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

EggRoll97, while there are separate additional requirements for sanctioning editors for restriction violations, there is no such requirement for the extended-confirmed restriction to exist and apply in the entire topic area. Special:Diff/1188566854 is a fine revert and Special:Diff/1187991384 (2023-12-02), from an account created 2023-11-15, is a clear violation of the extended-confirmed restriction independently of the edit count. This doesn't mean that DMH43 has to be blamed for not knowing about it; it just means that your procedural concern is invalid. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

You used the automatic edit summary that says that you are reverting me. That is not exactly informing me. Either way, your cannot assume if I reverted you saying that you are a non-EC editor that I otherwise agree with your edits. Dovidroth (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

"Rushing to 500" is GAMING, and the policy at WP:PGAME should be updated to reflect modern understanding. This isn't the clearest cut obvious case of gaming ever, but yes if the first 100 edits, three weeks ago, are in violation of ECP, then someone putters around for awhile making edits like this and this and this (all trivial) and these (non-trivial, editor's most-edited article outside ARBIPA space, may be a genuine improvement, lots of references removed), and then immediately abandons the prior topic area to leap back into EC with seven reverts of the same editor and then publishes this (removing balance from Wikivoice, refbombing POV statement including a citation "by" |last=Nast |first=Condé with the balance unformatted, adding contentious material with a built-in {{cn}} tag at time of edit, then reinforcing the POV with an added paragraph at the end of the subsection): this demonstrates both intent to game, and unreadiness for constructive editing in ECP topics. Folly Mox (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

The first and third edit are also nontrivial from a conceptual standpoint, which i am happy to explain.

I also don't consider what I've done as abandoning. I am excited to edit pages which I havent had a chance to edit yet, which is why I am engaging more with ARBIPA content recently. DMH43 (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

"Trivial" was not the most appropriate description of your edits in the statistics and mathematics space. Your contributions were definitely better than the type that (for example) changes a single punctuation mark or adds a single wikilink. For what it's worth, I do sympathise with your position, and having looked more fully into your post-EC edits in ARBIPA, I definitely picked the most problematic one to link to (it was chosen arbitrarily).What I was trying to convey was that your editing while waiting for EC wasn't the kind that engaged with any policies that will be necessary to understand for editing non-disruptively in contentious topic areas. I do see you've engaged appropriately at Talk:Oslo Accords, and your ARBIPA edits like this and this seem unproblematic. But both this edit and the one already linked above show that you haven't learned yet how to correct problems with your citations, which is going to be important in a contentious area; this edit and this edit display a propensity for placing quotes that align with your POV in eye-catching blockquote templates in prominent locations, the bit about removing balance to put your POV in Wikivoice I mentioned above, and the removal of all the references that didn't align with your vision for Statistical hypothesis testing concerns me.Reverting the same editor on seven articles as soon as you were technically able to does give the impression of an antagonistic perspective. It's fine to disagree completely with someone else, but hopping straight to reversion instead of attempting to reach a compromise is how articles get disrupted. Reversion should feel icky, not triumphal. The goal is always productive collaboration, not our own preferred prose.One major problem with ECP is that it's a purely numeric threshold standing in for what would ideally be a qualitative test of applicable competencies. The assumption behind the idea is that if someone has been editing for a month and made five hundred edits, they'll be sufficiently familiar with the rules for constructive collaborative editing, and sufficiently invested in encyclopaedic improvement, that they should be able to edit whatever articles call their interest. But if someone spends that month (not even, in this case) and those 500 edits making small edits in a space where they're not even interacting with other editors and then leaps directly into the most contentious topic on the project, the process hasn't worked.I'd like to see an understanding of WP:NPOV, an approach of attempted compromise before resorting to reversion, and closer attention paid to citations. I'm not an admin and I don't usually edit content in contentious topics, so my opinion here shouldn't be taken too seriously, but I wouldn't oppose restoring EC after a brief period demonstrating collaborative editing in a non-ECP CTOP, or even just a personal reflection accurately describing the problems with the edits made before the permission was revoked. Also, WP:PGAME should be updated. When policy lags behind practice, it confuses people. Folly Mox (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I characteristically forgot: please don't add unsourced prose with a {{cn}} attached at time of edit. Even if done for the best of reasons it can lead to undesirable results.Noting also for the crew that (per Zero0000 and nableezy) my understanding of PGAME as practiced may be in the minority, on the "overly strict" side. Folly Mox (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Ive brought up several GAMING violations in the past, they were all for doing mindless edits repeatedly with a clear intention to get to the restricted topic. But doing mindful edits with that same intention has never been treated as GAMING before, even when the intent to return to a CTOPIC is plainly evident. This editor, from everything Ive seen of their edits, will be a positive to our goals as an encyclopedia. There were editors previously who very plainly edit from the polar opposite of the POV spectrum that I encouraged to stick around because I also saw their edits would be a positive as an encyclopedia. Eg here. I think it would be healthy if we sae more of that instead of editors attempting to use procedural roadblocks to stop what is plainly a good faith and productive editor who is trying to follow the rules. nableezy - 22:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

The points you brought up are:

• I didn't edit pages which allowed me to engage with other users
• I started editing ARBIPA pages when I was given access
• I have shown some issues formatting citations and possibly other content
• I haven't made edits outside ARBIPA that clearly show an understanding of WP:NPOV.
• I reverted a user's edits who had reverted me for no reason other than I was new and did not have EC permission.

But none of this is close to breaking any rules, as far as I know. I followed the rules in good faith which is clear from my edit history. If the rules aren't sufficient and the "process hasn't worked" isn't that a call to update the guidelines rather than to punish me as a new user?

In response to your other comment, thank you for pointing out that I shouldnt use cn expecting someone else with find a citation. DMH43 (talk) 14:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse SFR's action, close AN thread appeal, user should receive a warning. The user does not understand what they did wrong. They should read Gaming the system and Righting great wrongs, and receive a warning. Andre🚐 05:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  Can you be more specific? DMH43 (talk) 06:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  If this is a case of gaming, someone should be able to show me a case of another user who made similar edits and also had their EC membership revoked. So far, I have only been shown users with a history of very clear bad faith edits. DMH43 (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  That is not a reasonable request as there is no way to either contact every Admin who has removed ECP or search every instance. And it shows to me at least you aren’t listening or not understanding what you are being told. Doug Weller talk 21:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: issue warning, endorse permission removal, restore permission at 30 days after first edit and 500 main space edits, notwithstanding any findings of misconduct, which should be treated separately. DMH43's account will be 30 days old on 30 December, and has made 490 main space edits. I agree that gaming against the spirit of 30/500 has clearly occurred, but the edits seem to be themselves in good faith, even if they are trivial or minor. Their request to restore permission has also provided greater scrutiny on their editing. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I also note that this is not the designated process for requesting restoring permissions, but we might as well determine this here; the relevant editor brought this here and we are not a bureaucracy. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Since this was a logged AE action, I told them they could appeal here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• Deny appeal and use the standard process for restoring in the future. No need for other sanctions. It is a bit of gaming, but they are also a new user (we assume). I would imagine that ScottishFinnishRadish would be willing to restore after a short period of worthwhile contributions. SFR was within their authority to issue the sanction and I see it as a reasonable admin action, but the actions that led to the sanction weren't the most egregious case of gaming, so I have faith a balanced approach will be taken when reinstating EC. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Deny appeal per Folly Mox and Dennis Brown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 08:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• I don't get it. It is true DMH43 did many early edits contrary to ARBECR. No argument there. But I wonder when editing exclusively in ARBPIA after becoming EC became a crime. Many editors edit exclusively or almost exclusively in ARBPIA. I also don't see the "gaming" claim. I've seen lots of gaming of the 500/30 rule and they didn't look like this. Most the edits are substantial, including some of those described above as trivial (such as this and this which correct actual errors; as a mathematician I am qualified to say that). Specifically, I contend that on looking at DMH43's first 500 edits (your prefs might determine how many display at once) they don't look out of the ordinary. They do not consist mainly or even largely of trivial edits. And it took 20 days to reach 500, which is not a particularly fast rate of editing. Zero 13:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  "Trivial" was an inapt descriptor. Pretty much everything in that paragraph was inapt to a degree, particularly the structure, and also on reread using "balance" in two different meanings a few words apart. I've attempted to explain myself a bit better above in the cold light of day. Zero0000, are you able to comment on the filer's rewrite here, and whether there's anything concerning about it? Folly Mox (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• Restore after 100 more edits - I dont see any GAMING at all, there were ECP violations, not gaming ones, earlier. Those edits shouldnt count towards the 500 to become extended confirmed, but this is not gaming, those are constructive edits that took time, not mindless adding whitespace or changing and reverting their own change, or making slight modifications to categories or templates. But the claim of gaming appears to have little to no substantiation, I see no "rushing" to 500, and I think it pretty normal for an editor to revert edits that were made for a reason that no longer applies. Hell, when Dovidroth was unblocked as a sockpuppet he restored his edits that had been reverted for BANREVERT. And why wouldnt he? The cause for the removal wasnt valid, so he was entitled to restore them. nableezy - 14:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

In the middle of this appeal, this user complained about me on another user's talk page. This continues into a possible WP:Battleground behavior. Dovidroth (talk) 16:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

The battleground page describes behavior which disrupts Misplaced Pages. Nowhere in my post do I suggest any disruptive behavior, rather I point out a few cases that seem to me to be bad faith edits. This post of yours suggests you are taking my edits personally, whereas none of my posts have been personal in nature; they are all content based. DMH43 (talk) 17:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Posting a complaint about a user on another user (not an admin)’s talk page is inappropriate and borderline WP:battleground. And on what basis do you claim my edits are bad faith? Seems like an ordinary edit dispute. Dovidroth (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

You haven't engaged with the content of any of my edits, just reverting them despite some of them were correcting obvious factual errors (such as misattributed quotes). DMH43 (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I am glad to engage with EC users. I am allowed to revert anything in ARBPIA from a non-EC user that I disagree with without providing further explanation. “Anyone is free to revertany edits made in violation of a ban or block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule.” WP:Banrevert. A non-EC user in ARBPIA is effectively the same thing as a ban. Dovidroth (talk) 17:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Any reasonable third party would consider your reverts as irresponsible and borderline harassment of a new editor. DMH43 (talk) 19:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I showed you in the policy that what I did is legitimate. Falsely accusing me of acting irresponsible and abusive because you don’t like it will not get you anywhere. I hope the admins reviewing this case will see that this user is interested in pushing his POV without following the rules and that they should not be allowed to edit in ARBPIA. Dovidroth (talk) 19:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

On the block of User:沖倉瑶里

On Special:Diff/1187948591, User:沖倉瑶里 (CentralAuth) was reported to AIV as a "Japanese LTA", probably recognized as a sock of w:ja:LTA:ISECHIKA, a WMF-banned user. However, this is likely to be a false accusation. ISECHIKA tends to create socks on jawikinews (like this) and autocreate accounts on other ja projects (沖倉瑶里 created their account on jawiki instead). Additionally, the LTA often engages in disruptive edits like adding insulting comments on articles about people (like this, adding "gross") or rewriting valid descriptions to invalid ones by replacing characters (like this, rewriting 水 "water" to 氷 "ice" in a company's name). These tendencies aren't observed in any of 沖倉瑶里's contributions on jawiki, and the edits aren't even disruptive. It looks to me like an innocent user was wrongly reported as an LTA, so I would like to request a review of the block. Thank you. Dragoniez (talk) 09:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I assume you’ve approached the blocking Administrator and failed to convince them? And have notified them that you’ve posted here? Doug Weller talk 09:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Note that the person who made the AIV report also asked for the account to be unblocked here. I've notified the blocking admin. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you 0xDeadbeef, and I apologize if I failed to follow how this kind of matter is usually processed on enwiki. Dragoniez (talk) 10:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy to unblock if there's been a mistake. It would have been quicker just ti ask on my talk page but never mind. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply! @Dragoniez: on enwiki, it is usually preferred to contact the blocking admin before posting at the noticeboards, please keep that in mind in the future :) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate all your help. And I WILL keep that in mind. Thank you all again! Dragoniez (talk) 10:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Welcome user

Can you please take a look at the username Sniggering (talk · contribs). I tried to welcome the user after the user themselves made anti vandalism efforts. It is currently a problem because the page is protected that only Adkins, template editors and page movers can create it, and suggested to come here or at WP:RFPP/E. Please take action as needed, maybe advise the user to change their username because non Admins, template editors or page movers can't initiate their talk page. Thank you. Toadette 12:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I’ve welcomed them, that doesn’t seem like a new user to me. Seawolf35 14:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, their username is currently against the title blacklist, but they were created on the 22nd of this month. Not sure how their account creation didn't get blocked by the TB. EggRoll97 14:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards