| Revision as of 16:52, 12 August 2008 editLifebaka (talk | contribs)15,116 edits →Ceedjee deleting History again now on Operation Nachshon: protected the page (indefinate)← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:23, 24 January 2025 edit undoVoorts (talk | contribs)Administrators21,247 edits →WP:BLPN closures: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply | ||
| (999 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| <noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}} | |||
| |algo = old(7d) | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |counter = 368 | |||
| |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 700K | |||
| |counter = 160 | |||
| |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |||
| |algo = old(48h) | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |||
| }}{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude><!--S | |||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | |||
| |header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |||
| |archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive | |||
| |format=%%i | |||
| |age=48 | |||
| |index=no | |||
| |numberstart=255 | |||
| |minkeepthreads= 4 | |||
| |maxarchsize= 700000 | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| --><!-- | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}} | |||
| <!-- | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- | ||
| New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. | New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. | ||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- |
---------------------------------------------------------- | ||
| --> | --><noinclude> | ||
| __NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude> | |||
| {{notice|'''If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message ] instead.'''}} | |||
| ==Open tasks== | |||
| == PalestineRemembered == | |||
| <noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}} | |||
| {{Administrators' noticeboard archives}} | |||
| {{Clear}} | |||
| {{Admin tasks}} | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| </noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove--> | |||
| == Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request == | |||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;"> | |||
| {{archive top|status=no consensus|result=This has been open for more than a month, much longer than most ban appeals, and it is basically deadlocked, both in numbers and valid arguments. This is therefore closed as not having consensus, which defaults to the block remaining in place. ] ] 21:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :''The following discussion is preserved as an ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' <!-- from Template:Archive top--> | |||
| The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}: | |||
| ---- | |||
| {{tqb|I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: ] and ] (note that the two other accounts –- ] and ] -- at ] was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me. | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid silver; background: cream;" | |||
| | | |||
| This discussion has slowly progressed from an initial proposal (which I suspect was expected to be rather "routine") for community-based banning, to a "support / oppose ban" stage, through to a forum for providing evidence, and eventually into a thread mainly containing general commentary on the consensus for / against the proposal, bartering on alternative proposals, and presentation / rebuttal of evidence. | |||
| Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (], ], ]) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at ]). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see ]). I have created over 900 pages (see ]), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance ], ], ], ] or the event ] that is barely mentioned at the English ]. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see ] and ]. | |||
| In amongst all this, I can't safely say there is any sort of consensus, let alone consensus for the community ban. To that end, I am closing this thread as "no action taken", but with a number of recommendations: | |||
| However, as I have learned from it, I will never use multiple accounts anymore and adding controversial content without doing a proper fact-check. I will always listen to users, be constructive and be friendly. I will make sure you will not regret giving me my account back. I would like to work under the account ].}} | |||
| *PalestineRemembered has gained for himself over the years a "cloud over his head", whereby he is clearly not regarded well by substantial volumes of the community. Indeed, that may be for good reason -- PR's past conduct has not been exemplary, to say the least, and the fact he has recently ran through 4 mentors (] has actually filed for a community ban) is not exactly heartening. Whether formal action is needed by the community or not is difficult to gague (as noted by several editors in the below discussion, strong evidence in support or opposition of the community ban has not been '''clearly''' presented (there has been evidence, but presented mid-way through the thread: ie., the situation changed) -- although the lack of evidence is, one supposes, ]). Therefore, from here on in, a more detailed deconstruction of evidence (] may be an appropriate forum), with opportunities for structured presentation (''sans'' the chaotic backdrop an AN/I thread often provides), discussion, and analysis (with a view to whether PR ''does'' deserve sanctions). | |||
| ] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *<p>Future proposals to install a community ban (whether specifically related to PalestineRemembered or not), regardless of forum, should involve detailed presentation of evidence in support of the proposal. No matter how infamous a name is, it is simply not acceptable to pass a sanction on the grounds of aura alone: hell, if Grawp was hauled up here, I'd still like to see some evidence -- if only to allow folks who haven't handled that case before to review the case and case an ''informed'' vote.</p><p>I note that the initiator of this thread attempted to present evidence in support of his proposal -- fair enough. However, the limitations of AN/I as a forum (read: things may descend into madness quite quickly, and there's often no recovery for a thread from that) mean that any detailed analysis of that evidence was nigh impossible. Short of restarting the entire thing, or moving to a forum that supports presentation, deconstruction, and analysis of evidence (the arbcom case model springs to mind, as does RFC to a lesser degree), there wasn't much that could be done.</p> | |||
| :'''Support unbanning and unblocking''' per ]. ] (]/]) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *''New forum needed?'': at present, the arbitration committee seems to have the most superior model for rational consideration of a case (in contrast to the rest of the Misplaced Pages-space model, at least). Parties and editors have the opportunity to present detailed evidence; community input is solicited and reviewed; evidence is analysed, with problem editors identified as necessary; remedies to combat the problem editors' conduct are drawn up; remedies are whittled down (via voting for the Committee) to the most "beneficial-to-the-project" models, with all others discarded; eventually, after sufficient pause and deliberation, and a notable amount of 'room to breathe', a decision is made -- and, although not always perfect, it does ''work'' at least. Naturally, as a community we don't wish to rely on a Committee forever: the Wiki model simply prefers community-based decision making, through consensus-building discussion. Yet, we have little hope of graduating to such a model, when any attempts to police our editors conduct through the passing of (sadly, necessary) community-based sanctions, are hampered by a lack of an appropriate forum? RFC is the closest we have to offering any opportunity for a calm environment with room to present evidence, discuss at length (but without clutter), and move to a decision. Perhaps a new forum, or a review + rethink of our existing forums, is necessary. Let's learn lessons from the failure of this thread to reach a consensus simply because ''too many people commented''. Decision-making should be scalable. | |||
| * Quoting my SPI comment ]: {{tq2|I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of ''block'' evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as ] of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-] unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is ''banned'', and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like ].) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here. ... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an ] unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.}}That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at ], which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ] violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *''Problem editors:'' obvious here, but editors who are problems need to be kept in check. Whether a removal from the areas in which they are driven to ''be a problem'' is in order, or a removal from the project all together, or any similar remedy is passed... We need to ensure that editors who poison our editing environment are quickly remedied, and their influence re-balanced.<sup>This is not a comment on this case specifically, but a general reflection.</sup> | |||
| *'''Support''' per above.] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Endorse one account proviso. ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: ]. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would '''Support''' with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of ]. — ] ] 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they ''seem'' to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. ] (]) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. ] (]) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' User seems to have recognized what he <!-- before someone complains about my use of the gender-neutral he, this user is male per what they've configured settings to be --> did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. ''']]''' 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Weak Support''', the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. ] (]) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :*'''Oppose''', I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. ] (]) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support'''. Completely support an unblock; see my comment ] when his IP was blocked in April. ] (]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see ''clear'' evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like may well be on notable competitions, but with content like {{tq|On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.}}, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. ] (]) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Currently '''oppose'''; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. ] (]) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{yo|Ahri Boy }} Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. ] (]) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. ] (]) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "]"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. ] (]) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. ] (]) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::See . ] (]) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. ♠]♠ ] 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). ] (]) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. ] (]) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:: I think saying that {{tq|I will never use multiple accounts anymore}} and that he wants to {{tq|make constructive content}} would indicate that {{tq|the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.}} ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. ] (]) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... ] (]) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:: And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}. ] (]) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to ]. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''] ]'''</span> 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. ] (]) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Fram and PMC. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question''': Is SvG the same person as {{U|Slowking4}}? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by ]. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">]</span> (]) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **No. ] (]) 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' basically per ], particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get ] without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). ] (]) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since ] was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.<br />'''Support'''. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --] (]) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{yo|Moscow Connection}} Your ''comments'' are as valid as anyone else's, if you explain your reasoning, <s>but please note that this is a discussion, not a straight vote, so just saying "support" doesn't tell us much.</s><small>It has been pointed out to that they did do that, I guess the break threw me off. </small> ] ] 21:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Conditional support unblock''' (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use ] for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. ]] (]) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I can't repeat what Beaniefan11 say enough: "Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}." This should assuage any doubt in the mind of the reviewing administrator. ] (]) 15:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Claims of "It's been seven years!" fall on deaf ears when you find out he's been socking all along and as recently as a year ago. Fram and PMC have good points as well. Show some restraint and understanding of your block and ] is yours. ] (]) 23:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' with a little ] and conditions suggested by Joseph2302. Yeah, given the timeframe, I'd say having to submit their creations to AFC for the time being is a sufficient middle way for the yes and no camps. ]@] 00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - Large-scale sockpuppetry is very harmful, and was continuing for years after the ban. ] (]) 20:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abottom}} | |||
| == Lardlegwarmers block appeal == | |||
| Apologies for the ] of the closure statement, but I had a few thoughts I wished to 'air'. | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = Essentially unanimous consensus to not unblock. ] ] 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| * {{userlinks|Lardlegwarmers}} | |||
| Hopefully we can proceed from here and make some good progress. | |||
| I blocked Lardlegwarmers yesterday for one week for a violation of ] from COVID-19. This was about ], although I subsequently noticed ] as well. LLW has asked me to copy their appeal here. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement from Lardlegwarmers === | |||
| I have only been very active editing Misplaced Pages for about one month, even though my account is older. I was blocked for pushing a minority POV in the talk page for Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory, which I understand. For context, this issue wouldn't have even come up at ANI except that there was this very old account making borderline uncivil comments constantly, and I took them to ANI myself and it boomeranged. One thing that I learned from that experience is that Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement, and that I am probably not going to be the one to fix it.<ref>]</ref> Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed; my edits were in good faith and I was really just attempting to talk it out with the other editors who did not agree with me. But I understand that the norm in this space is to walk away if there isn't any uptake of my ideas or take it to dispute resolution instead of continuing to try to convince people. The current ban is for making a comment on an AE thread, not a Covid-19 article. I was on the page for a totally unrelated reason and noticed that a user I recognized from the Covid thread was being discussed. My comment was mostly about user behavior and reflecting on the underlying dispute itself, not Covid-19. Also, on my user page I quoted ] discussing his view on Misplaced Pages's approach to Covid-19 , which I'd assumed was permitted because it's my own user page and it's really a comment about the state of Misplaced Pages as a whole. The admin who blocked me, @], blanked it from my user page. If the community won't let me keep that quote on my user page, then fine, we'll leave it removed, but I wish they would have just asked me to remove it and described why instead of editing my user page. A block for this stuff seems harsh. Thanks. | |||
| {{talk reflist}} | |||
| === Statement from Tamzin === | |||
| Excerpting my comment on their talkpage:{{tq2|Usually we only warn someone on their first topic ban violation. However, in your case, the fact that both violations occurred within hours of the ban being imposed, and that they were belligerent rants treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground, made me judge that a short block would more clearly communicate just how far you are from what is considered acceptable conduct. Even if you didn't understand that the ban applied outside articles, you should have understood that the community found your editing about COVID disruptive, which should have been reason enough to not make those edits.}} <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Discussion among uninvolved editors === | |||
| *This is clearly a topic ban violation - and it came less than a day after it was imposed. Even if assuming in good faith that they didn't know it was a topic ban violation, their unblock request shows not only that they don't understand what they did wrong, but they attempt to justify it with statements such as {{tq|Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed}} which is borderline a personal attack (veiled insult that others weren't being grownups); {{tq|which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement}} which is confirming they still don't understand why they were topic banned nor why they were blocked for violating it; and quoting Larry Sanger's ] promoting comments on their userpage after their topic ban. To summarize, I have no confidence that the user understands what they did wrong, and I would go so far as to say the user attempting to skirt the edges of their topic ban and supporting another user trying to promote fringe theories on Misplaced Pages merits an indefinite community ban. TLDR: '''Oppose unblock''' and ultimately would support indefinite ban due to the flagrant violation, lack of understanding, and no belief that after the 7 days is up they will not go straight back to trying to ]. I won't be the one to propose that, however. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 03:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't see how an unblock is possible when Lardlegwarmers clearly still doesn't understand what a broadly construed topic ban means. To be clear, there's no need to ask the "community" whether you can keep your topic ban violation. The only hope for you to be able to obey it is if you are able to decide yourself, especially after you've been told by an admin. While we do try to educate instead of just blocking, the "community" isn't here to help you understand the limits of your topic ban. ] (]) 04:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Should clarify that despite what I said above, I'd weakly oppose extending the topic <del>ban</del> <ins>block</ins> to indefinite at this time. While I'm not hopeful Lardlegwarmers is going to be able to obey it given what they've said, I think it's fine to give them rope after the <del>ban</del> <ins>block</ins> expires and apply normal escalating blocks. Since we're already here, perhaps this will somehow help them understand that yes the community requires you to apply it broadly on anything to do with COVID-19 throughout Misplaced Pages. They should consider this very short rope though and notably the next time they feel they need to ask the community whether they're violating their topic ban when they are, it might be the last time. ] (]) 20:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Sorry mixed up ban and block above twice, now fixed. ] (]) 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock''' as the user looks to have no intention of following Misplaced Pages guidelines with their request. It is only a week and will give a change to think about how to change. ] (]) 04:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock'''. It truly takes some ] to cite a Signpost piece authored by the admin who blocked you to support the proposition that you're being railroaded. '''Weak support for an indef''' because that's what Lardlegwarmers seems to be speedrunning. ] (]/]) 04:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock'''. The topic ban was on ''the topic of COVID-19, broadly construed'', not ''the topic of COVID-19 directly in articlespace''. And the topic ban was violated, not just within less than a day, but ''within three hours'' of it being imposed. On top of that the unblock request could be a case study for ]. I won't call for an indef ], but when the block expires Lardlegwarmers should bear in mind that any further violations of the topic ban will be their last. - ] <sub>]</sub> 10:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''No unblock''' - Basically per Lardlegwarmers: they don't appear to understand why they've been blocked. An indefinite block seems very likely in this editor's future and we certainly should consider cutting out the middle-man and just skipping to it, but I'd like to give them at least some chance here to understand why they were blocked. ] (]) 10:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose unblock''' - While I usually support giving editors ] to demonstrate improvement, this case warrants a longer wait. The user acknowledges pushing a minority POV and failing to disengage per ] norms, but their justification suggests a lack of understanding or acceptance of policies like ], ], and ]. Their off-topic comment in an AE thread, despite knowing the sensitivity of such spaces, and the policy-violating content on their user page, further reflect ongoing disruption. I recommend they take time to reflect and gain a better grasp of Misplaced Pages's collaborative culture before requesting an unblock again. ] • ] ⚽ 11:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose unblock'''. I agree that absent change from this user an indefinite block is likely. For their benefit, if you're the subject of a topic ban, broadly construed, about COVID-19, you need to be editing in an entirely different topic area. Think of something that you're interested in--television shows, football, English gardens, science fiction books? Take a week and think on it. ] ] 11:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock.''' What is there left to say? This conduct feels like appellant's purpose is use Misplaced Pages as a battleground and to soapbox their views rather than to build the encyclopedia-- to remake Misplaced Pages as they think it should be. My feeling is that a week won't be nearly enough. The railroad comment is appallingly full of not understanding that their conduct is not acceptable in a collaborative project. ] (]) 12:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:PS: What Tamzin said in her statement above. ] (]) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Whilst I don't believe user will be able to change their approach, I feel an indef would be premature for now. We should give them a chance to mend their ways. ] (]) 12:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *An account that ] is topic banned, violates that topic ban immediately, and posts a ] unblock request that thoroughly ]. Whoever closes this should be considering indef, not an unblock. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Indeed. ] (]) 14:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock''' this specific response {{tq| Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement}} is indicative of their viewpoints and why they're not ready to contribute. They continue, {{tq|my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed}}. These demonstrate that they still do not get it, and rather project their self-perspective is that they are actually a victim of people who are abusing the rules against them. . I proffer that this is going to be a consistent problem until they acknowledge that they were violating policy. Zero indication that they know how to positively contribute, just perhaps a vague inference that they'll avoid getting in trouble -- because -- we'll I'm not entirely sure they've communicated what they will do differently, but rather simply say that {{tq|a block for this stuff seems harsh.}} ] ] 15:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Notwithstanding the harsh situation I presented above, to be clear I '''oppose indef''' for now. A new user should have the opportunity to overcome early (while significant) setbacks, which is what TBANs are designed to encourage. I am encouraged by things like YFNS corrective behavior in a prior AN discussion, and can only be hopeful and AGF that might apply to LLW here. We need more passionate, subject matter experts, as contributors to this project, but they ''absolutely must contribute positively'' and following established PGs. ] ] 16:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock''' and support an indef. I am pretty confident in saying that this is where we will be heading after this block ends. ] (]) 15:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock''', clear violations of the topic ban. Don't oppose indef, but I'd like to at least give him the chance to figure out exactly what we expect going forward. --] 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support block, oppose unblock, oppose indef''' - this is a topic-banned newbie's first violation, in the heat of the moment after the restriction was imposed. Tamzin's block was the appropriate response. The unblock request is wholly inadequate, but jumping straight to indef for this sort of violation is a pretty extreme overreach. If they go back to violating their sanction after this block expires, ''then'' let's talk community ban, but they should be given the opportunity to edit constructively while respecting the restriction. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 16:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock, oppose indef...however...''' I am sympathetic to their point of view and their general "right" (we don't really have rights here on WP) to post their opinion on a subject, even one as contentious as COVID-19. I think the blanking of the user page is a step too far. We shouldn't be in the business of deleting negative opinions about Misplaced Pages; while the statement was in reference to COVID-19, it doesn't mention it within the claim and is more a critique of Misplaced Pages at large and mass media than its relation to COVID. I would let the statement on their user page stand/restore it. Larry Sanger's statement is not a ], it is a reasonable ''opinion''. There were loads of statements/claims about COVID/its origin/mandates/treatment/vaccines that, despite their widespread implementations and presentation as "the science", later turned out to be misleading or untested conjecture (examples: no studies on masking effectiveness with a large population vs the coronavirus, 6 foot spacing, lying to the American public about wearing masks because health care professionals needed them more, lab leak theory, military connections to the Wuhan Institute, US funding of WI, etc). '''HOWEVER''', civil discourse ''is'' essential. That means that discussions about COVID were fraught with battlegrounds and bludgeoning. As such, we have additional restrictions for COVID discussions and other contentious topics and LLW needs to follow them. LLW did not do so and has shown a consistent flaunting of these restrictions and a weeklong block is a reasonable start. In summary, the quote isn't unreasonable to leave on their user page (give them that latitude), but a weeklong block for the other behavior should stand. ] (]) 16:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:They added two comments to their userpage. Both were critical of Misplaced Pages. One was also critical of ] and other aspects of the US government's COVID response. I removed the latter. It doesn't matter whether Sanger's opinion is fringe or not; what matters is that he was talking about COVID. I would be quite the hypocrite to remove something from someone's userpage just for criticizing Misplaced Pages, as I have a fair bit of that on my own userpage. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::There's some pretty big overlap there in criticism of Fauci and how it is handled on Misplaced Pages. Again, I don't feel THAT is a significant violation of COVID editing restrictions (beyond the fact that they did it despite such an editing restriction). Anyone can completely skip over it if they wish. {{ping|Tamzin}} playing devil's advocate for a moment, what if I published the same thing on my user page? Would it be ok? Would it be ok if I posted it on LLW's user page (as long as LLW was ok with it, of course)? I realize we're getting in the weeds of a "what-if..." but if so, what's the substantive difference between me putting it on a user page and LLW doing the same? ] (]) 17:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::If you posted it to your userpage, it would be fine (although not that constructive), because you are not topic-banned from COVID. If you posted it to their userpage, that would be ] for a banned editor, since I'd struggle to believe you have an independent reason to think that particular quote belongs on that particular page. {{PB}} If you really want to fight the removal from the userpage, feel free to create a subsection here, but I stand by the removal. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I'm not fighting the removal per se. Just wondering where the boundaries are and if it's wise to have such a boundary. ] (]) 17:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::The boundary is ]. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 19:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Buffs: In the ''realm of hypothetical'' I would presume that if that quote had been on LLW user page for a long time, in a sea of content, pre-existing AN, then it ''might even still be up today.'' However, on the other hand, to post that after the TBAN was imposed is nothing other than what can be seen as ''abject defiance'' to the ban. But beyond that, it simply violates plain language of the ban, as it applies to {{tq|all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic}}, so I proffer that Tamzin is clearly in the right here. To your charged statement about ''if you were to post the same thing'' to your user page, prior to your statement here and presuming you were not under a TBAN, it would ''not be questioned'' one iota. However, as a response to this discussion, it could be construed (but not technically violating) the principles of ] and I would caution against it. Moreover, you reinstating it on LLW talk page would be a far closer in the proximity of violating PROXYING. ] ] 18:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::The fact that the comment only came after the topic ban is key here. I'm fairly sure I've seen several cases where there's something on an editor's user page which is covered by a topic ban but which no one has said or done anything about because it was there from before the topic ban. In fact I'm fairly sure I even remember a case where someone asked specifically if they could modify or remove something on their user page which related to their talk page which was technically under the topic ban (probably gensex). I think this was allowed especially since it related to their personal life rather than some comment on something, although they were told just this once is best. There might have even been a case where an editor wanted to do some more editing or formatting of something under their topic ban and was either denied or told only this once. IIRC, there was also an editor who was happy to be able to finally change someone on their userpage covered by their topic ban once it was lifted. A topic ban is a topic ban. I'd note that if someone makes an extremely constructive edit to an article that is not covered by ] we still treat this as a topic ban violation, although it's something much more beneficial for the project than an editor being able to repost random ramblings about Misplaced Pages they want to share. ] (]) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock, oppose indef''' - The topic ban violation was clear cut. Let's hope Lardlegwarmers will read a bit about how to avoid topic ban violations, or else indef block is not too far for them. ] (]) 16:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock, extend block indefinitely''' - Lardle should try to demonstrate good behavior on another wiki for six months before asking for a SO. Let's hope that this user should handle contentious topics carefully in the future. ] (]) 18:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock''' but no reason to indef, a block has already been imposed. If the user continues to violate the TBAN, than a longer block might be warranted. ''']]''' 02:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Comments from involved editors === | |||
| ] 00:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Going to open a new subsection here since I've made comments to ] two weeks ago. I wish I could say I was surprised that this ended in tears but that would be untrue (though I did have some hopes the comment a month ago indicating they were aware pro-fringe POV-pushing was sactionable was a signal they were intending to modify their behaviour). As bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez points out, making thinly veiled attacks is not exactly the type of thing looked favourably upon in an unblock request. Nor is making polemical statements on one's user page, whether within the scope of the ban or not, likely to convince the community of one's inclination and ability to ]. Lardlegwarmers, if you do really want to return to editing, especially if you want to appeal your topic ban in 6 months or a year, I would strongly advise reading ] and following the advice there, especially ]. Complaining about Hob's conduct won't help you here, because the block (and it's a rather short one) and ban are about you, not Hob. Given your comment that {{tq|apparently two wrongs make a right}}, I had hoped that you were already also considering your own behaviour, but I would like to make it very clear: taking the role of one of the "wrongs" to address someone else's "borderline uncivil" behaviour is ]. Whether Hob crosses the line is on them, but what you do is entirely on you. ] (] • ]) 07:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| * As I was involved in the discussion to topic ban LLW I think I count as an involved editor. With that said I would discourage an early lifting of this block, which seems appropriate considering that LLW's response to the topic ban was to immediately violate the topic ban. ] (]) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Also, perhaps LLW wasn't aware of this, but people who aren't uninvolved administrators aren't generally supposed to put comments into the "results" section of an AE filing. ] (]) 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I was there.. Three thousand ye-- No. More like one, two days ago. I seriously believe Lard Leg Warmers is one of two situations: '''1:''' ] and unable to understand the concepts of medical science as if they were a Facebook mother invested in "essential oils" and "holistic medicine" rather than trusting medical and scientific experts; '''2:''' ] and simply f<s>**</s>king with us for no good reason and leading us around, and around, and around, and around, and around the bend because they get a rise out of it. Either way, my advice: don't get led around the bend, '''advise indef block''' for either ] or ]. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::], those kinds of personal assumptions about their character are unnecessary to this discussion. Instead of speculation on who they are elsewhere, let's just focus on their behavior on Misplaced Pages. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Lardlegwarmers' statement clearly shows that they have learned little from the sanction. They should demonstrate such before there is any lifting. ] (]) 18:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Ban appeal from Rathfelder == | |||
| I'd like to propose a community ban of {{Userlinks|PalestineRemembered}}. He's been through numerous mentors trying to curb his behaviour and yet he still continues to push his pro Palestine POV on numerous articles. I actually blocked him a few days ago because he came back after four days off the project and made three article edits, all of which were reverts. He's well known to edit war to get his point across. He was subject to an ] because of a habit in using extremely poor sources to push his POV - the arbitration case was closed with no action, but there's still a problem with this as shown in his block log. Numerous users have tried, and failed, to lead him on the right path, but he continues to make poorly sourced contributions, and edit wars to keep them in place. Thoughts would be appreciated. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 23:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd support an indefinite and broadly interpreted topic ban on all articles related to the Israeli-Palestine conflict--if only because judging by his edit history, it would have the effect of a siteban. ]] 00:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I will support such a topic ban. I don't think he needs a siteban, and he might decide to contribute constructively to other topics. However, he has demonstrated an inability to adhere to NPOV editing on PIA-related articles. ''']''' <small>]</small> 00:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::A topic ban could work, and I'd certainly support it, but I just have concerns that he'd simply take his problematic editing to other pages. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 00:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :While I think that a topic ban will certainly become a ''de facto'' site ban, it does look like there are no options left to keep the warring down. — ] <sup>]</sup> 00:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Normally we do topic bans when an editor has a problem with one area and a productive track record elsewhere. No opinion on the proposal (due to my mentorship of another party PR has been in dispute with), but suggest PR's productivity in different areas merits review since both options are under discussion. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I got this idea from ], in which a mostly single-purpose editor was topic-banned in a way that had the effect of a siteban. ]] 02:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh boy do I remember that case... <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * {{userlinks|Rathfelder}} | |||
| *'''Oppose community ban''' Not everyone is knows all the details. Therefore, I oppose community ban unless and until the proposal details what are the objectionable edits (recent diffs, please) and what non-objectionable edits have been made. The prosecutor (person wanting the community ban) should present the material in a neutral fashion and not slanted toward community ban. There is mention in the beginning of this thread that the ArbCom case was closed with no action. Thus, banning may be bucking ArbCom. | |||
| * ] for sockpuppetry, vote-stacking and undisclosed COI writing of a BLP attack page | |||
| ''I could change my mind if the proper background is described. Based only on the information above (and not doing extensive original research), I must default to oppose.'' ] (]) 06:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * ] declined by the community | |||
| * ] not submitted for review by the community for not complying with ] | |||
| Rathfelder has submitted the following ban appeal on their talk page and asked me to copy it here: | |||
| :I have to agree with Presumptive. Can we have some actual evidence of disputed conduct, please? I'm a little concerned that we seem to be rushing to a topic ban without any discussion of specific issues. I couldn't in good faith support such an action merely on the say-so of an admin (sorry Ryan, nothing personal!). -- ] (]) 07:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{tqb|I realise that what I did was wrong - more wrong than I thought it was at the time. The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur. I accept that I was wrong to create sockpuppets and I apologise. I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that. I did that really because I was trying to defend the work I had done for the Socialist Health Association for the previous 20 years. I did a lot of edits on that page, but they were, until the last few, about the history of the organisation, mostly adding to its list of distinguished members - largely before I was involved with it, and mostly before I was born. They were not at all controversial. I was unfairly sacked and my opponents started using Misplaced Pages against me. The row got into the media. I accept that I should not have done that. I should have resisted the temptation to use Misplaced Pages in the dispute.<br> | |||
| ::Sorry guys, I thought this was an extremely well known problem with his editing. Numerous admins have been involved with him before. I'm at work today, so I won't be able to provide more details until after work, but I'll certainly get the diffs out when I've finished. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 07:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I have spent 2 years working on Simple English and Wikimedia. I have not set up any sockpuppets or edited anything where I had conflicts. I plan to continue with Wikimedia, as there is plenty there to keep me busy, but I would like to be able, in particular, to add pictures to articles - now I have found my way round the enormous Wikimedia resource. I also sometimes come across articles in English[REDACTED] which need amendment.}} ] (] · ]) 17:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::OK, thanks for that. I've seen mentions of his name before on AN/I but I would imagine that most of us won't have much awareness of what's going on with him at the moment. If you could cite specific problems that would be a great help. -- ] (]) 08:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * PalestineRemembered is, I believe, precisely the kind of editor who the arbitrators had in mind when the idea of broadly constructed topic bans was developed. A textbook case of an agenda-driven account. If he wants to contribute productively to other areas then fine, but his involvement in articles related to Israel and Palestine is, as far as I can tell, a substantial drain on everybody else concerned and serves to perpetuate the state of dispute on those articles. I'd be prepared to rethink this position if anyone can show me evidence of PR proposing a moderate compromise in any dispute, and that compromise achieving consensus. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Of his last 100 edits, most are not in article space. He seems to be involved in many discussions on talk pages and noticeboards, but isn't editing articles much. What's the specific problem? --] (]) 15:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::The specif problem is that his article-space edits are either reverts, or tendentious editing based on bad sources, and that his Talk-space edits are soapboxing, which does not improve articles. In short, he is a net detriment to the project. ] (]) | |||
| * Since joining wikipedia, PR has been blocked 13 times, by 9 different administrators. He has been assigned mentorship as a result of an ArbCom case against him, but has exhausted the patience of 4 different mentors, of whom Ryan p, the nominator of these sanctions, is the latest. I don’t believe I’ve seen any other editor on WP with a block log quite as long as his – almost all of which is related to disruptive editing on I-P articles. I find myself in agreement with Guy on both points he makes – that this is precisely the kind of editor who the arbitrators had in mind when the idea of broadly constructed topic bans was developed, and that this is a textbook case of an agenda-driven account, which PR himself admits. I would support a topic ban from all I-P related articles, and if PR wants to be a positive contributor to the project, there are 2 million other articles for him to work on. ] (]) 18:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Apart from the history, could someone please explain what spurred this move recently? I understand if people think that in the past PR was uncivil. I do think s/he takes a harsh and unconciliatory tone. However, in recent months I have mostly encountered him/her at ], and I guess other than taking a harsh tone, I can't see what the problem has been recently - s/he has not engaged in edit-warring there.] (]) 18:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''support topic ban''' Given that he has gone through 4 different mentors and that the latest is now calling for a general ban on this user, and the length of PR's block log, I really don't see a reasonable answer. PR makes occasionally good edits, but most are just POV pushing. Also I have some hope that a topic ban might teach PR to work better within the community framework so that he can eventually return to these articles. ] (]) 20:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban''' per everyone else. PalestineRemembered's edits are largely disgraceful. He has been guilty of calling Zionists "proud of their murderous racism," spreading Zionist conspiracy theories,, comparing Zionists with Nazis, comparing Israeli historians with Holocaust deniers, and basically committing logical fallacies and spreading disinformation left and right. Enough is enough. --] (]) 20:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::GHcool, I just took a look at the links you inserted re: the nazi comment and "murderous racism", thinking that if indeed PR said these things, s/he should have been blocked at the time. However, forgive me, but I did a search on "nazi" and "murderous" and did not see the comments. Could you please specify where the comments are? Thanks much, ] (]) 23:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::For that first diff, scroll down to the section on Norman Finkelstein, open it, and then take a look at PR's comment (the last one in that section). He does indeed use the statement GHcool ascribes to him. I've not looked at the others, but if they are similar to the first, the search function will not find keywords inside collapsed comments. ''']''' <small>]</small> 02:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I just spent 15 minutes more than I should have to try to find a single one of the alleged comments, and did not.Please link directly to the relevant page when quoting incendiary comments of this sort. In fact, if you could do so here and now that would be appropriate. Thanks, ] (]) 23:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''Comment''': GHcool's links are from December 2006 to January 2008. People may prefer to look at the diffs Jayjg provides below, which are from July 31 to August 1, 2008 (besides the SPA link of 13 May 2008). Some of GHcool's links are not diffs. Here's the "murderous racism" diff: ; PalestineRemembered was blocked the following day. Here's a diff from the 3rd link GHCool provided: . ] (]) 15:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Comment. It would help to give links to the ArbCom case, which I believe required that PR be placed under mentorship, and the main AN/I's etcetera about PR, esp those dealing with mentorship. Note also that the Ryan himself has been PR's mentor for some time. The specific history would help put concerns over editing in context. Thanks. ] | ] 03:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Both ] and ] are adducing evidence from an exchange between a certain Rubin and PR that took place in December 2006. Rubin was wrong, and PR was right in that exchange, since the former was trying to bracket the fact that Finkelstein is a descendent of Holocaust survivors. The remark about 'Zionist racism' in that specific exchange, refers to 'Zionist politicians' not to Zionists, and in this regard PR has been intentionally misrepresented, apart from the fact that evidence from two years ago should not be dredged up to push a complaint regarding contemporary behaviour. It should not have been said, but that the allusion is to Israeli politicians whose pages had been strongly defended from any attempts to annotate both their racist beliefs, and murderous past is evident. PR's point was that Finkelstein, a son of Holocaust survivors, had been subject to relentless attack because he was critical of Israel's record on human rights, whereas Zionist politicians with a past <BLP vio removed> have pages less prone to editorial assault. Ryan must have good reasons, on contemporary evidence, to make his complaint. That evidence will no doubt be forthcoming, and it is that which must form the basis for an eventual judgement. It should not be contaminated by evidence from prior cases (like the misrepresentations used here). The remark that troubles me in Ryan's charge is this:'yet he still continues to push his pro Palestine POV on numerous articles.' Off the top of my head I could think of a dozen bad editors who push, in edits, a singlemindedly pro-israeli POV, and have records expressing disdain or contempt for the other party that is supposed to be represented. They have overall enjoyed far more hospitality than people who are said to mirror their bias on the Palestinian side. They are edit warriors pushing an extremist pro-Israeli POV, cripple pages and making life difficult for serious contributors, and no one moves a finger. Perhaps they stick around because their opponents do not complain as much as they do. ] (]) 16:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi. <s>Just wanted to add a note or two. GHcool and Horlogium are absolutely not edit-warriors in any sense of the word. That term needs to be used with a little more care. you can bet that I will not </s> We cannot allow this proceeding to degenerate into name-calling of any sort.If action is desired on Palestine Remembered, I urge the committee or other ruling body to issue a strong statement on his actions in regards to proper procedures. thanks. --] (]) 18:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Comment to Sm8900: I believe Nishidani was talking about "''a dozen bad editors''" and not GHcool and Horlogium when he was mentioning mirroring PalestineRemebered's alleged bias and getting away with it. I disagree with his "one-sidedness of wikipedia" assessment but do agree that some of the diffs have been a bit old and more of a reminder of why he was assigned forced mentorship than examples of recent misconduct. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 19:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC) clarify. 19:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ok, good point. thanks for the clarification. --] (]) 22:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Just a note to thank ] for the precision with which he read my remarks and the intended meanings. It was very decent of you, thanks. ] (]) 09:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Apologies. I will retract my comments. thanks. --] (]) 13:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Conditional support''' - If there's been no socking ''during'' the ban. ] (]) 17:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It is a good point. I would add, however, that Nishidani appears to have done exactly what PR did years ago, except he named a specific ] as "murderous" and "racist." I'd like to request that he immediately refactor those remarks. <font color="green">]</font> 22:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * |
*:In response to this, I ran some basic checks. There's no evidence of socking that I can see in the currently available data. ] ] 15:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| *::Are you permitted to say what time range the available data covers? The default is only 90 days isn't it? ] (]) 16:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' ban. Due to the very heated nature of this subject, I propose that ALL parties in this discussion and everyone involved be banned for 5 days effective 4 August 2008 until 9 August 2008. No block would be made in the record but if there is ANY editing, a formal 5 day block would be placed. Since I have commented here, I would be included. Let's all stop fighting. ] (]) 21:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Yes, the data available to me was for the past 90 days. ] ] 16:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' ban. The "violations" cited by Jayjg are painfully mild, and mostly occurred on talk pages. Considering that PalestineRemembered has pretty clearly been targeted for intensified scrutiny for wrong-doing in the past, the weak evidence suggests that he/she has truly given very little cause for complaint. Ryan Postlewait clearly should not be mentoring her/him, however. ] (]) 14:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question''' during the January 2024 unblock request Rathfelder said they would be willing to accept a restriction on editing articles related to BLPs or healthcare orgs. Are they still willing to accept those edit restrictions if they are un-banned? Furthermore, in January 2024 there was, at the time, no evidence of any further socking. Can we confirm that good behaviour has continued? ] (]) 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Further discussion=== | |||
| *'''Support''' They have been a very productive contributor at the Simple English Misplaced Pages, and it has definitely been long enough for the ]. ] (]) 21:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. I don't understand the issue to begin with; ] ''was'' an whose every edit is propaganda and every Talk: page comment is a typically irrelevant ], often with ] violations thrown in for spice. In other words, the editor behind the "PalestineRemembered" account is saying that the account is a secondary account used only to edit I-P related areas. I say ''was'' an admitted SPA because the fact that he has started to edit articles outside of the I-P area indicates that ] is now merely a garden-variety sockpuppet account, rather than an a supposedly legitimate ]. As for examples? A quick glance through his past week's edits show a , a , and some sort of weird attacks on Paul Bogdanor in which he claims, ''inter alia'', that "everyone agrees that Kastner collaborated with the Nazis - and almost everyone thinks that, late in the war, he tricked some 450,000 of his fellows to go quietly to the ovens". This is the kind of tendentious nonsense ] liberally spreads on Talk: pages and articles. In reality, historians don't agree on this at all, and the latest book on the subject concludes that he was a war hero who saved 12,000-18,000 lives. The book, by the way, won the 2007 Nereus Writers' Trust Non-Fiction Prize, and was shortlisted for the 2008 Charles Taylor Literary Prize for Non-Fiction. As for 3 months, if one thing characterizes the editor behind ] it's his dogged and dogmatic persistence; he waited out previous lengthy blocks, and returned from them completely unchanged. I see no reason to think a lengthier block will produce a novel result. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *:To opposers: Would a TBAN from BLPs solve the issues you mention? I understand why some may be hesitant to unban, but they have been a very productive contributor on other wikis. I think that they would be a productive contributor if we simply give them a second chance. ] (]) 16:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The "sockpuppet" allegation seems to have been based on a . <span style="color:Orangered; font-size:1.9em;">☺</span> ] (]) 23:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' as disingenuous. {{blue|The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur}}: obviously it's reassuring to hear this, but there is no acceptance of personal responsibility. "The circumstances made me do it" is not a defence, or explanation. Likewise, {{blue|I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that}} does not do the facts justice. Rathfelder literally socked ''in order'' to be able to call a real life opponent a "]", <s>in wikivoice</s> with a misattributed ] quote. Difficult to imagine an editor of >half a million edits not knowing attribution requirements for BLPs. In fact, on investigation, they obviously do, as the ] {{tl|BLP sources}} template indicates. If there's a Holy Trinity of wrong doing of things that damage the project the most, it's socking,vote stacking and deliberate BlP violations. These things are most dangerous to the project: they erode the trust between editors and the integrity of the consensus-driven decision making process and put WP at risk of at least public embarrassment if not a lawsuit. All of which Rathfelder did. All of which this appeal seems to attempt to explain away by "circumstances". I'm the first to offer rope when deserved, but such a glossing ban appeal, combined with it all happening only a couple of years ago, sets off more alarm bells than the Great Fire of London. There's no need for groveling, just an indication of self-knowledge and actual change. ] ] 12:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I urge everyone to read the diffs posted by Jay - that's exactly the behaviour that's problematic. He summed it up when he said PR uses WP to soapbox - to me, it looks like one of his only aims here. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 01:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *:I haven't yet looked into this enough to express an opinion, but I would point out that the "swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist" quote was attributed in text to ''The Times'', so was not in wikivoice. ] (]) 13:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Entirely possible that your interpretation of PR's behaviour is true. However, that does not emerge from Jay's diffs in the least. For example, attempting to trim overuse of the very marginal Paul Bogdanor, who has compared Vietnamese land reform to the Holocaust and Noam Chomsky to Holocaust deniers, is hardly problematic. Quoting what was close to the standard view of Kastner, a man for whose tragic story I personally have tremendous sympathy, is hardly grounds for a ban. Tendentious nonsense is not, of course, limited in this area of WP to PR. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 22:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *::Thanks for drawing my attention; I've clarified my comment. ] ] 16:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oh, fucking please.''' ''“He was subject to an arbitration case because of a habit in using extremely poor sources to push his POV"'' – what a load of hogwash and balderdash. PR was subject to an arbitration case because a ] made bogus claims about his sources – claims which were unanswerably discredited within an hour. His accuser lacked the decency and honesty to retract his fatuous accusations, and Ryan lacked – and continues to lack – the competence to understand what happened in the first place. Take Ryan off PR's mentorship and keep an eye on Jayjg, who has a troubling record of harassing PR and lying about his editing. PR has a bit of a ] problem, but it is nothing next to the deceptions of his accusers.--] (]) 04:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' insufficient contrition and reflection on their frankly very serious misconduct. As Serial has said, they created an a attack page with very serious BLP vios using sockpuppets, you can't just handwave that away. ] (]) 12:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::And with that post, G-Dett violated ] and ] and committed the ] logical fallacy. I ask that he refrain from committing ] and violating Misplaced Pages policy in the future. Thank you in advance. --] (]) 06:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - My opinion is that editing pages to attack one's real life opponents isn't something you can just come back from, especially when you abusively socked and votestacked in addition. Please stick to editing other Wikis. - ] ] 15:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was going to congratulate the community for not attacking anyone daring to defend me. This makes a startling and very welcome difference from everything that has happened before on countless absurd and evidence-free "disciplinaries" raised against me. It's no wonder that not one of those people (ie everyone who has known me here longest and found me a careful and cooperative editor) dared to speak earlier. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I don't often choose to comment on unblock requests but every day I come across past productive work done by Rathfelder when I'm working with categories which is how I'm familiar with their immense contributions to this project. They are responsible for a sizeable percentage of our category creation and have over a half million edits credited to this account. If it has been over a year since their last appeal (check), they haven't been socking (check), they have been productive on other Wikimedia projects (check) and they acknowledge their mistakes (check), then I believe they should be given another chance. It sounds like this was a specific incident in their life that happened several years ago that is unlikely to be repeated. Remember, indefinite is not infinite. And if you reject this appeal, I'm just wondering what exactly are you expecting to see in a future request that would lead you to accept it? Or is this indefinite block actually a forever block? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 18:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Serial Number 54129 points to the quote from the piece by Sarah Baxter as the most damning part of his evidence, but Baxter was deputy editor of ''The Times'' when she wrote the article, so it was reasonable to say that that newspaper said that. It may, of course, not be the best way to word things but we don't ban people for that. ] (]) 18:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:No, I point to far more tahn just that: I point to a refusal to adhere to neutrality in preference for an entire section reading like a hit piece; there were no redeeming features presented, or alternative interpretations suggested. Instead, a Jewish guy was literally called an antisemite, on Misplaced Pages, for Rathfelder's own ends. The quote from Baxter was merely an example, but the whole section was of that ilk. Correct, we don't ban people for poor expression. We ''do'' ban people for deliberately flaunting fundamental policy and attacking living people. It is also insufficient that they have done good work in the past, per {{u|Liz}}; it's not mitigating. Ironically their is a current arbcom case in which some of the most knowledgeable editors in the field are getting topic banned due to behavioral issues. The same principal applies here. ] ] 20:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - The attack page, undisclosed COI, and sockpuppetry were serious offenses. Sometimes it takes a long time to regain trust. ] (]) 20:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''; willing to allow this editor another chance, hoping they'll understand that the community's tolerance is pretty much gone for any future problems. Rathfelder, if this is successful, when you're finding {{xt|articles in English[REDACTED] which need amendment}}, I'd advise making it your default setting to open a talk section ''before'' making edits if there's any possibility the edit could be objectionable to anyone. ] (]) 15:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::GHCool, I’m not sure what you mean here by tu quoque. I do not think PR’s transgressions – which consist chiefly of a querulous, windy, SOAPy style of talk-page engagement – merit a permanent ban. If he were doing this in an area of the encyclopedia where quiet, polite, high-quality collaborative editing were the norm, it might be justified to move thus against him – but he’s not. He’s editing in an area of the encyclopedia where hackery, demagoguery, policy distortions and even large-scale hoaxes are the norm, where ] finds himself article-banned for a month, and where the most prolific and influential editor – an admin and former arbcom member, no less – is a full-time propagandist. It is this latter admin whose thoroughly (and I do mean thoroughly) discredited charges against PR last year resulted in the snarled web of litigious pseudo-drama of which this thread is only the latest example (see Jay’s deliberately deceptive posts about PR on Ryan’s talk page in recent weeks, which Ryan appears to have taken at face value). Had Jay done the decent thing and retracted his spring-2007 accusations once they were thoroughly exploded, the matter would have been cleared up and we wouldn’t have so many editors and admins still stumbling around in a fog. But he didn’t. Instead he repackaged his accusations as insinuations, thus throwing a cloak of deniability over his ongoing crusade against PR. | |||
| *'''Support'''. The arguments to maintain the ban seem to be mostly "He did some really bad stuff". I agree that he did. Personal attacks are bad. Socking is bad. Using[REDACTED] to prosecute real-life battles is bad. But I'm concerned about statements such as {{u|Hemiauchenia}}'s "insufficient contrition and reflection" (although they are certainly entitled to express that opinion). We're not looking for self-flagilation here, nor are we looking for great works of literature as apologies. Our criteria for re-entry into the community isn't "Has never done anything really bad". It's "Understands what they did that was bad and has given credible assurances that it won't happen again", and I think we have those. {{u|Robert McClenon}} says "Sometimes it takes a long time to regain trust". Which is true, but this has been a bit over two years. That's a long time in my book. And it's not like they've gone away for two years and come back out of the blue; they've been contributing productively on other projects, so we have tangible evidence that they're capable of producing good work. ] ] 16:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:People implicitly understand that Jytdog will probably never be unbanned from Misplaced Pages because his act of phoning up a fellow user he was in conflict with was a severe and inexcusable breach of decorum. I think that Rathfelder's breach was on par with that of Jytdogs. People using their position on Misplaced Pages to write attack pages of living people is a huge violation of Misplaced Pages's standards. It's not just some minor misconduct like youthful vandalism or minor socking where someone can just brush it off as "whoopsie, my bad" and be relatively easily unblocked. Stuff like this brings the whole encyclopedia into disrepute. ] (]) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::If I’m not unmistaken ] was banned by ''ArbCom'', not by the community, and was also a self-admitted serial offender. And yes their apology does come across as “whoopsie, my bad”. And they haven’t edited constructively anywhere else as a counterpoint to their destructive editing here. I personally would never support letting them return, but that’s because their situation (at least to me) seemed like it was a case of a charismatic ] actually getting a well-earned block. This current situation seems like someone making a single terrible decision and realizing how terrible it was. Just compare their block logs— Jyt was blocked multiple times indefinitely by arbcom; this user only had a single 48 hour block before getting banned despite being here ''longer''. ] (]) 12:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' I find RoySmith's articulation much more convincing. We don't need to have a concept of unforgivable sins here. And this applies to everyone. ] ] 18:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' ] (]) 20:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per Liz and Roysmith. While Rathfelder's misconduct was quite severe, it was an anomaly in a long, active, and productive editing career here; and his activity at Simple as continued that pattern. Unlike Serial, I do see understanding and regret, which they are *amplifying* rather than *replacing* with the assurance that the circumstances under which the misconduct arose are unlikely to repeat. So - worth another go, I think. No opinion whether a TBAN of some sort should be imposed; if I were Rathfelder, I would stay away from BLPs for some time anyway. ] (]) 23:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Justice on WP is supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Once years, plural, have passed I think it’s reasonable to assume genuine remorse. There’s no such thing as a permanent lifetime ban on Misplaced Pages, even if some bad actors who have well and truly exhausted the community’s patience have received a ''de facto'' one. This is a feature, not a bug. ] (]) 08:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Weak Support''' per RoySmith. It's a short rope, don't abuse it. ] (]) 18:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Appealing April 4 2024, indefinite WP:CUP ban and indefinite 1-nomination GAN limit == | |||
| ::::It is this snarled web, not PR’s talk-page speechifying, which represents the real drain on the community’s resources. Notwithstanding his guilelessness, PR is very well-read in the subjects he edits. His occasionally breaches of citation etiquette (things he finds in secondary sources he seems to want to cite to primary sources, I don’t know why) could ‘’easily’’ be cleared up by good-faith editors; instead, his detractors pounce upon innocent mistakes and rev up the engines of insinuation in an effort to get him banned. The reason they want him banned – make no mistake about it – is that he is pro-Palestinian and they are pro-Israel. Sadly, there are a number of good-faith, neutral editors and admins who have had the wool pulled over their eyes. As with 80% of the editors on I/P articles, including you and me, PR’s edits come from a discernable point of view. But there is an oft-forgotten yet absolutely essential distinction between editors who make POV-edits (bad partisan edits justified by spurious policy arguments) and editors whose good edits reveal, in the aggregate, a partisan point of view. PR is the latter kind of partisan, and he wears his politics on his sleeve. He is the target of an ongoing campaign of harassment by the former kind of partisan, who disguises his politics in a high-concept, even baroque form of ]smanship, with all of the predictable consequences.--] (]) 15:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{atopr | |||
| | result = Consensus to lift this ban will not develop. ] (]/]) 22:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| At ], I was instructed by closer ] that I could appeal these in a year and it has been 9.5 months. I am appealing because the CUP entry deadline is traditionally January 31. See ] through ]. This year the ] verbiage says "The competition will begin on 1 January 2025 and signups will continue throughout the year". I am just noticing the new language as I am putting this appeal in. Nonetheless, I am requesting time off for good behavior on the ban.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 18:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*Exasperation shared. Ryan evidently is exasperated, with mentorship, and is in his rights to complain. Many are exasperated by the nonsense adduced to sustain his suit, particularly by Jayjg. Jayjg, every edit of yours I have observed over two years looks like a defence of a national image interest, and the mastery of wiki rules you display evinces an instrumental use of them to keep out material you think damaging to that interest, and, in my experience, is rarely employed to the advantage of creating a comprehensive and reliable encyclopedia. If I've broken some rule in saying what most editors on my side of the line believe obvious, by all means take the requisite action. | |||
| :*Are those who rush to judgement familiar with the intricate literature on the subjects PR alludes to? Jayjg clearly isn't, his screed and diffs are a travesty, with a certain specious gesture towards evidence, but which, read against the historical literature, are just that, a clever piece of selective culling of highly partial evidence. It is a matter of context, and one's instincts about where editors are pushing things in defiance of broad historical knowledge. All one need do is wonder why he, otherwise so insistant on links, does not link us to ], or to ], or ], etc. Jayjg holds to ransom a large number of potential edits I or anyone else could make on numerous pages ], ], Israeli Settlements, or ], and his refrain is, you need an area specialist on every occasion to qualify as a reliable source. Thus I cannot cite a book that was not shortlisted for a minor literary prize but shortlisted as one of the best books of 2007 on Slate, because its author David Shulman, one of the foremost academic experts on Dravidian languages, a peace activist fluent in Hebrew and Arabic, Israeli academic, with years of work in the Occupied Territories observing settler violence, is not a qualified expert on settlers, according to Jayjg! Now neither Paul Bogdanor nor Mitchell Bard are anywhere near reliable sources (they are people without a proper academic grounding it the subjects they airily descant on), and PR's dismissal of them was a correct call. For Jayjg to hold Pr to ransom on this is to question the quality of civil language employed in order to obstruct an appropriate edit on content, as is usual. It is, in Jayjg's case, a matter of the pot calling the kettle black, to challenge PR's dismissal of sources like those, and yet challenge, as Jayjg invariably does, academic sources critical of Israeli policies whenever they are no compatible with the strictest reading of ]. The same for the Nereus book winner book on Kastner. What PR says is what Eichman said in his memoirs: '(Kastner) agreed to keep the Jews from resisting deportation. if I would close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine. It was a good bargain.' (for Eichmann and co, who got $1,600,000 in exchange for allowing 1600 Jews to survive out of the 750,000 listed for extermination. Anyone who was not Orthodox, Zionist, prominent, an orphan, a refugee, a paying person, a member of Kastner's family or a revisionist had no chance).PR, like the large majority of historians on this figure, and like Judge Halevi at his trial, is appalled by someone who, privy to the doom awaiting hundreds of thousands of fellow Jews, 'sold his soul to the devil' by not giving them at least the chance to know what awaited them, to allow them to flee, resist, fight, and kept them in ignorance of their fate while getting out a few, including his relatives, 'useful' for Zionism. | |||
| :*Neither Bogdanor (whose viciously bitchy and mendacious nonsense on Shahak's page Jayjg apparently supports) nor the Hungarian lady in question meet Jayjg's criteria for reliable sources. Neither is a qualified historian or area specialist, in the sense he invariably adduces before allowing an edit on a sensitive subject where Israel's image is concerned. I happen to disagree with PR on many things (while wholegheartedly sharing PR's view that a very large number of I/P articles are disgracefully unbalanced), but there is absolutely no doubt that for some years Pr has become a standard target for many editors who desire a permanent ban. It is irresponsible to run to administration every time PR returns, over a small number of edits (and the material cited is extremely thin), and scream 'raus'!!! '''Form''' is increasingly what trumpts '''substance''' in these altercations (ChrisO's recent problems egregiously underline the absurdity. Vassyana's criticism of ], on unbelievably narrow grounds another. Look at his recent florligeium of remarks made by many respected editors from the Jerusalem Talk page, and judge the material PR is accused of in the light of the harshness of their remarks and insinuations). Once more appeal to proper 'form' is snuffing out content. PR indeed has a problem with the exacting wikiquette forms (who doesn't?). It is true however that on more than one occasion in the past, good (adversary) material PR has come up with is not wanted by many on those articles, and PR's deficits in 'attitude' are the excuse employed to block the material PR might post. I say this as someone who has reverted PR, supported people like Tewfik against some of PR's edits, and as one who thinks PR's failure in the past to learn not to lead with one's chin is disappointing. ] (]) 12:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''PalestineRemembered speaks:''' ] has urged everyone read the diffs posted by Jayjg, a most excellent idea. | |||
| *Examine the light-weight source with which Jayjg seeks to defend Kastner - a man who undoubtedly deceived to their deaths some 450,000 (400,000?) Hungarian Jews on behalf of the Nazis. (For profit according to most people, and at a point in the war when many of the Jews could almost certainly have saved themselves). | |||
| *Examine the way Jayjg defends the blogger Paul Bogdanor, and the (apparent) propagandist Mitchell Bard. So much for writing an encyclopedia to WP:ReliableSources. (Where shall we discuss many more examples?) | |||
| *I have no problem with ] (as I said at the time). But people could be very interested in the . Again, I'd seem to be on the side of WP:POLICY, scholarship and good writing. | |||
| *I attempted to deal with the broad sweep of these allegations (eg the claim that my 3 or 4 real mentors had any problems with my conduct) on my , have people missed it? I have more offers of a mentor - even the shocking experience of those who went before doesn't stop brave people and lovers of this project coming forwards. | |||
| *Lastly, please ponder the logic of these accusations of sock-puppetry. If we didn't know better, we'd think people were desperately casting round for any excuse to get rid of a really useful and scrupulously honest editor, with a strong preference for good sources. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Its a shame that PalestineRemembered chose to defend himself largely by using ] logical fallacies. I hope he doesn't expect the Misplaced Pages community to be swayed by this ill conceived tactic. --] (]) 07:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::My fellow editors might like to know that "tu quoque" is Lation for "a hypocritical accusation". They will have doubtless realized by now that I don't lie, I don't cheat, I don't sock-puppet and I have a passion for good sources. Nor do I edit-war, make false accusations of vandalism or tell people that a highly regarded and very well-cited son of Holocaust survivors - what price RELIABLE SOURCES when this goes on? GHcool's objections were dealt with above - his attitude to WP:RS and BLP appear to be the diametric opposite of mine. | |||
| :::I'm sorry that ]'s UserPage has been by administrative action without warning, it's long survival over all protests might have been a useful precedent to name and shame cheats. All assistance to put integrity back into editting will be very welcome. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose ban''' per Nishidani in section "A Review of the evidence. What evidence?" below. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:1.9em;">☺</span> ] (]) 01:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' The utter cluelessness of this appeal is more than enough reason not to do this. I was going to write more but decided that coaching you on how to be less clueless is not in the project's best interest. You've been here long enough that you should be able to see for yourself how terrible this appeal is. ] ] 19:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Further discussions, sect 2=== | |||
| :'''Oppose''' and recommend we disallow any further appeals for another year. I'm concerned otherwise we'll just be back here in April. --] (]) 19:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''Support topic ban for user to review and understand what is required of[REDACTED] editors''' For the record, I am the editor who last time. Since that time, I am aware of enough times where PR has deliberately skirted, or outright ignored, policies, guidelines, and the advice of his various mentors in order to continue a pattern of POV posting and subtle user harrassment. I have been in contact with his mentors, most recently Ryan, regarding these issues, and, to my chagrin, have never seen anything remotely like remorse, a desire to do better, a desire to work ''with'' other users, especially those with whom he has fundamental disagreements. As one who deals with the Israeli/Palestinian conflicts as a mentor and one who tries to defuse inter-editor issues behind the scenes, I have had little other than frustration from the direction of PR, and I have lost the ability to believe that his edits are in good faith and meant to better the project. Rather, I believe he has acted as a self-employed '']'' and POV warrior, and his continued presence in Palestinian/Israeli articles will serve no other purpose than disruption until such time as the community and project can be assured that PR will edit in a manner befitting and becoming of the encyclopedia. -- ] (]) 13:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose for now''' It's pretty clear that most people in that discussion were supporting an indef ban from the Cup, not an 8-month ban. This appeal doesn't address people's concerns with Tony's editing relating to the Cup, so should be denied. --] 19:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : '''Oppose''' The original discussion wasn't linked, it can be found ]. At that place it is very clear that {{tq|here is almost unanimous support for an indefinite ban on participation in the WikiCup}}, so, no, this appeal should not be passed. It is, honestly, astonishing that TonyTheTiger has been here very nearly two decades but hasn't taken on board the way the community works ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' for no rational that they understand why they were banned or what even led to their ban, and rather simply a sentiment of "I really want to participate". Please understand that '''your ban was indefinite''', so the one year appeal opportunity is your potential opportunity "time off for good behavior". ] ] 19:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose'''. Appealing early on the basis that you won't be able to sign up to do the thing you were banned from doing is certainly a unique take. ♠]♠ ] 21:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ==Requesting info== | |||
| :Well, where is the new evidence, Avi? Without substantial new evidence, this is beginning to look like a very odd scalp-hunt for an old target, using pretexts to rid a good researcher, albeit with a loose tongue, whose outlook others dislike, simply in order to thin the ‘opposition’. | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = {{u|Steve Quinn}} is {{itrout|trouted}} for bringing this to AN. ] (]/]) 21:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| Hello. I have come across several image files and the U.S. Gov. PD licensing seems to be incorrect. Four of these images and possibly another one could be copyright violations - if I can figure out how to find this type of information on their websites. However, since I am unable to find that information at this moment, I am wondering which group of Misplaced Pages editors work on this sort of thing so that maybe I can get some help with this. I will post the files here for information purposes. Also, there may be more copyright violations by this particular editor who seems to have a propensity for downloading image files. Below are the files: | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| Further comment: The above TN file - File:AppalachianTN.jpg - is covered by the TN.GOV "linking policy" and can be found . So this Misplaced Pages image file is still not licensed appropriately, although I have no idea what the correct Misplaced Pages licensing would be. | |||
| I will notify the editor who downloaded these files that I have opened a discussion here. Well, now that I have taken it this far, the editor in question is: {{userlinks|Brian.S.W}}. However, the above image files might be too stale to be considered for any action. I leave that up to the Admins. If you look on their talk page, they have previously been blocked for copyright violations. ---] (]) 20:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I have reread all of GHcool’s diffs, and fail to understand how his description of them corresponds to their real content. I was totally unaware of what G-Dett now remarks on, the evidence-gathering campaign by Jayjg waged on Ryan’s page recently. but if so, then I suggest Ryan ignore it, drop the mentorship and leave it at that. | |||
| :As you can see they've already been tagged for a deletion discussion yesterday, so there is no need to have a difference notice board also working on it. ] ] 21:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The only evidence raised so far is a shabby hodgepodge of trivia, in part trawled from ancient archives (2006). The rest is Jayjg's handiwork, patently instrumental and question-begging, since he demonstrably employs the same techniques he gives out as deploring in PR recently. If PR is a 'pov-warrior', what is Jayjg, now his/her main accuser? Had Ryan pressed the case on his own, instead of delegating the 'proof' to such a completely unreliable source as Jayjg, this complaint might have warranted respect. Not one of you lift a fingers in editorial activity to emend the disgraceful state of a page which Jayjg has done much to reduce to a medley of vicious innuendo, a page smearing a Jew of great learning, humane passion and critical witness (according to all those who knew him personally), something which PR has consistently drawn attention to, a wiki page not one of those who wish for PR to be banned cares to improve beyond its present state of being a savage indictment by innuendo and vicious whispering of an honourable and distinguished Jew, a page which should not be tolerated on an encyclopedia. How easy it is to pick off fellow-editors by formalstic cavilling, while preening oneself in insouciant disregard of the substance at stake. As long as many persist in jumping at editors for 'tone' and 'civility' while airily waiving aside the substance of that editor's complaint, or refusing to improve the pages whose disgracefully unbalanced quality that editor protests, all of these calls for a ban will sound hollow. You are all supposed to be wedded to an idea of encyclopedicity, which means, precisely, forsaking national gamesmanship in order to secure comprehensive neutral articles. Where is the new evidence? So far we have nothing other than Ryan's fatigue with mentorship and a patchy screed by a 'POV warrior' on the opposite side, who watches his p's and q's meticulously while objectively stacking texts with a partisan slant, in contempt of the ideals of encyclopedicity. Where is the appropriate wiki link for the practice of schadenfreudlicher scalp-taking?] (]) 16:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ::Nishidani, Did you see the links that Jayjg gave out? I don't think July 31, 2008 is old news. I have not taken the time, nor do I have the time to go through it all and look at the whole situation, but please don't say there is no new evidence without mentioning the stuff that folks have put forth. You can claim that those links are not valid evidence, or that they are not the whole story, but lets not ignore them. Doing so only makes the waters muddy. —— ''']]'''</font> 16:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you don't have the time to check through all the links, and can't remember a thousand unsaid things from past conflicts which relate to how all participants here read what's going on, there's little point in making the remark you made.] (]) 17:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There is very much a point. You seem to be telling me and everyone else watching that there is no new violations, but above I see people saying there are new violations, they even provide diffs. What I was telling you above was to make sure you saw those diffs, as it appeared to me you had not seen them. Doing so only muddies the water. —— ''']]'''</font> 18:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I enjoyed the stylistic variation between your two posts. 'makes the waters muddy' and then 'muddies the water', but the aesthetic ''frisson'' was somewhat spoiled by reading 'there '''is''' no new violations'.] (]) 18:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You are free to assert that, however you are not explaining why what some people are asserting are violations, are not violations. Anyone can say there are or are not violations, but just saying that does not make it so. You have me confused, you said there were no recent violations, yet I'm seeing posts from July 31 being offered as evidence. I don't think that is "old". If it is not evidence, please explain why it is not, concisely. —— ''']]'''</font> 19:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: A general point. Most of the problems in the world arise from communities consolidating their identity by trusting in the in-group hearsay. Democracies survive when there are a sufficient number individuals dedicated to questioning the commodified clichés of groupist thinking/ideology/ whatever, who actually check things out with their own eyes, reason by their own lights, and measure the world by their real as opposed to hallucinated experiences of it in circulation. This tempers the irrationality of hearsay, and collectivist imaginings. So, like others involved, read through the diffs, when you get the time, preferably look at the page's whole context also, then make notes on each diff within its context, check the inferences made about what PR is said to be violating in those diffs, and then form your own judgement. Do not rely on what I, or Jayjg, or GHcool, or anyone else says. Form your own judgement and then report back.] (]) 19:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::That is a valid point, however I was hoping for some kind of backup to your assertion that there is no new evidence. A starting point so to say for others to see what you mean. I see plenty of cited recent evidence from those saying there are violations, but I'm seeing nothing but wordplay from those that say there are not any violations. All I'm asking is someone point out why the diffs as presented are wrong. If I have missed the counter evidence amongst the sea of text, I'd appreciate someone pointing me at it. Thanks :) —— ''']]'''</font> 19:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ], I have been in contact multiple times with Ryan via e-mail, as some of the issues relate to other editors. You may check Ryan's talk page history for some of the more obvious and open issues. Regardless, this is my opinion based on the time since August 2007, when I prevented PR being banned then. I do not believe he has taken the proper advantage of the mentorship'''s''' he was afforded, and the chances he was given; I believe he continues to edit in an openly POV style; and I believe that his edits detract from[REDACTED] significantly more than they add. While I was cognizant of the positive edits that he has made back in August 2007, my reasoned opinion based on the intervening time, the number of times I had to be approached by person(s) I mentored, and the contradistinction between edits of people that I know are trying to act in accordance with our policies and PR's edits, have convinced me that the mentorship experiment was a failure at this time, and that PR needs to take a long-term break from anything like Palestinian/Israeli articles, if not the project as a whole. -- ] (]) 16:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Please Help Me! == | |||
| :::::Perhaps then most should take a long holiday, because in human terms, these I/P articles have little to show after several years of intensive work. Who's to blame, a few people like PR? Come now. PR's behaviour is merely an infinitesimal part of what is problematic in this area. You can drive him or her off, and the structural impasse, which is one of diffidence, suspicion, and refined edit-warring while keeping mum on motivations, will remain, and wiki articles in this area will retain the reputation for slipshod tendentious amateurishness they have in academic circles. | |||
| :::::I'm familiar with the record you allude to. I am also familiar with something missed here. I've tangled with PR on several occasions, and thrown the weight (in nanograms of course) of my judgement against PE and in favour of her opponent, who was a strong pro-Israeli editor while active. Now PR was no doubt perplexed by this, but did accept that my judgements were not grounded in some 'bias', and took note. I have my biases, as do we all. PR flags his/hers: many of PR's opponents go out of their way to finesse their obstructive editing by meticulous care for the rulebook. The result is, PR, leading with the chin, has copped a large number of administrative raps on the knuckles (mixed metaphor), whilst many of those editors whom both PR, I and many others regard as destructive editors in terms of the criterion of 'encyclopedicity' have a clean police sheet. If there were a minimal regard by many of these editors to revert bad edits made by peers from their own side, much of the frustration that PR displays, and the rest of us more or less hide, would wither away. There isn't much of that around. There is a very strong tendency to stay silent, and leave the management of conflict (a conflict on POVs) to respective members of opposing sides. That loud silence lends substance to a sense that a collegiate atmosphere is operating here on one side, solidly determined to ignore the old Jewish dictum, expropriated by Christianity,''quid autem vides festucam in oculo fratris tui et trabem in oculo tuo non vides''. I regard that as a recipé for disaster, and, in the I/P area, one reason why so many articles languish in a deplorable state. I have had severe problems with Jaakobou in the past, and it was with relief that I had occasion to note, before my withdrawal, one or two occasions where, unprompted, he reverted a bad edit by a poor contributor on his own side. This is the spirit that should be cultivated by experienced and reliable editors on both sides (and I addressed my remarks to you because you qualify, as far as I have interacted with you, as a rational editor of considerable experience). It is the edits not dutifully made by so many editors that disappoint, as much as the pettifogging obstructionism. The problem is not PR, who increasingly looks like an example with which to illustrate ]'s theories: the problem is a lack of will to monitor I/P articles for encyclopedic quality by reining in anyone, from whatever side, editing out of a nationalist perspective, rather than an NPOV perspective. An embattlement mentality will persist in the political area for decadess to come. It should not be reflected here: Israel has no more to lose by a clear-eyed impartial approach to history than its communities had by moving out of the ] under the auspices of the ]. Indeed the gains to be gathered in are enormous. The genius and generosity of spirit of Judaism's multitude of scholars, thinkers, poets and writers is absent from these articles: there is almost no trace here of the wit, intelligence, acuity of refined judgement one instinctively associates with that tradition, and that is alive whenever Jewish people argue with each other. This is soap-boxing, irrelevant, a violation of WP:this and that, no doubt, the useless drivel of at least on editor who has given up on wiki articles (as opposed to an occasional critical kibitz). If only one had more interlocutors that mirror this heritage, so much of the frustration that blocks the expeditious drafting of I/P articles would fade away, and these incessant recourses to arbitrative sanctions over trivia would die on their feet. Regards ] (]) 17:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Hi there, I'm Arav200 and I'm not a new at english Misplaced Pages, Previously I'm editing from ] but due to my old account (Bhairava7) and it's attached gmail are protected from ], so, I'm unable to access my account,Please help me and If administrator transfer userright from my old account to Arav200 then It 'll be helpful for me otherwise after my old account permission will be removed due to after Inactive and I create this account through ] due to Skipcptcha restrictions.Happy editing ] (]) 12:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nishdani, I apologize for my lack of time, and thus inability to continue this discussion at length. I do not argue with you that there are systematic issues with P/I articles in toto, but I do not see how allowing editors whose methods seem to be more uncivil than is the norm serves to ''help'' the situation. I think that most everyone who is heavily involved should sit back for a while and take a break, and then approach the articles with the idea to make them truly NPOV, which is to have the major points of view described in proportion to those points of views proliferations; to remove ]-class statements from the articles where they are sued solely to further one side or the other, to use respectable, reliable, and verifiable sources, with indications of what those sources are, to try and remove any overly-colorful adjectives, and to allow the reader to follow proper source links to the original information to allow the reader to make up their own opinion. There are shades of color within the Palestinian and Israeli sides, and, mirroring the real world, the articles may be contentious for a number of years to come. However, there is no possibility of a working consensus (<u>Avi's definition #22</u>: A working consensus is the version of an article that is the least offensive to the greatest number of editors) unless the back-and-forth and discussions are performed with ''exaggerated'' civility and cordiality. We have to do our best to minimize (as prevention is impossible) the ideological struggle using[REDACTED] as its battleground, on both sides. Which is why, I return to saying, that from my recollections, PR has not acted in this manner and I have had more than one editor complain about what they perceive is a double-standard when it comes to PR's ability to seemingly be less careful about ] than other editors. PR is a very intelligent editor, that is obvious. I only wish that he used some of that prodigious talent to work '''with''' people as opposed to against them. -- ] (]) 19:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :{{confirmed}} to {{np|Bhairava7}}. --] (]) 12:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Hmmm. I was a bit surprised about the English, but it is similar to previous edits from the old account ( ). I have noted the connection on the two accounts' user pages, but I'd like to try requesting 2FA removal before giving up and transferring the permissions. ] (]) 16:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|Bhairava7}} / {{u|Aarav200}}, please contact ca{{@}}wikimedia.org from the e-mail address you have used for the Bhairava7 account. Please describe the problem and request the removal of two-factor authentication from your account. See ] for details. ] (]) 16:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I didn't able to access my also gmail (who attached from old account) due to 2:FA protection,then I was created new account with new gmail for re-contribution on Misplaced Pages. :(Happy editing ] (]) 17:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please try the following steps to regain access to your Gmail account: https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7299973 ] (]) 18:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't know if it is much useful but I can verify that he is indeed Bhairava7 as I contacted him over at discord personally. ] (]) 18:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I was emailed about this. Given Yamla's CheckUser result, I don't think that there is any reasonable doubt that it is the same person operating both accounts. While they may be able to recover the account from T&S, I feel like it is a bit unnecessary to force them to go through that route as it is ultimately their choice whether they want to recover the account or create another one (even if I personally have a bias for recovering). I was going to transfer the permissions over, but saw this thread, so didn't follow through with it. ] (]) 19:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{re|ToBeFree|Sdrqaz}},I also tried as per the link given by ToBeFree but I am not able to recover or access my Gmail... It would be better if I give up the desire to contribute to Misplaced Pages... I am also trying my best... If both are recovered then it will be good... Please forgive me but I will take full care that such mistake does not happen again in future... If possible, please transfer the rights of my old mentioned account to my new account because I've feel more stress at this time.Happy editing ] (]) 20:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I will transfer them over, given that it has been unsuccessful. I also think that this route is kinder. If T&S disables 2FA on your old account and you would like to go back to using it, please let me know. ] (]) 02:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for the reply, Avi and I apologize for having unfairly drawn on your time, since I am no longer involved in editing. One point however, which perhaps you can explain to G-Dett by email. I have disposed of most of Jayjg's charges, which is what Ryan advises us to consult. The Ali Hirsi remark is on a Talk page, as is the remark, which I fully endorse and find innocuous, that 'Bard comes across as a serious propagandist with a particular interest in denial'. That is true, by any objective standards. In any case, wiki articles should be seriously sourced, and he should never be cited on those grounds alone. | |||
| :::PR here is not editing into the page on these people the judgement expressed. She (sorry PR but it is not obvious to me that you are male). The Ali Hirsi remark should have, out of pure curiosity, drawn requests for sources that justify PR's suggestion that Hirsi admitted to lying (if this is improper on a talk page, please review the Saeb Erekat archives for repeated suggestions he is lying, not sanctioned, and in my view rightly so because what is said on talk pages must be distinguished from what is edited in on articles. On Talk pages all kinds of material and suggestions should be broached, and not be subject to sanctions). Secondly, the Ali Hirsi contrast is made against what occurs, I insist on this, with the shockingly violent treatment meted out to Israel Shahak's memory '''in the meat of his article'''. That page is full of irresponsible trash, by half-baked polemicists who conspicuously and mischievously misrepresent the truth. Jayjg is holding PR's fortune's hostage to a judgement about Hirsi which he considers a 'violation of BLP' (on a talk page), while, at the same time, defending vicious crap about a dead person widely regarded by many eminent Jews and goys who knew him personally, some of whom I have corresponded with, who find that page infamous, and wiki beneath contempt because of this kind of editing. So, pal, this particular suit does look ugly. There is so far, not a skerrick of evidence to warrant the extreme measures requested. Much here is racking over a few bits and pieces and reading them in the light of past ANI records. Best wishes for your work. I do hope, sometime in the future, wiser minds prevail to secure working conditions that allow present and future editors to stop frigging about with personal battles, and enjoy working here, instead of feeling as though they were colleagues of Tantalus and Sisyphus. You, and many others, have more stoicism than I can afford to muster. If I stayed on in I/P, I'd only be lynched for being tempted into exclaiming 'fuck!' with a more colloquial colour than the exquisite G-Dett allows. Regards ] (]) 20:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == BAG nomination == | |||
| (outdent)Avi, I have a great deal of respect for your editing and am a little taken aback by this, but would genuinely reconsider my position if you were to provide some concrete evidence of bannable offenses in PR’s work for me to look over. I would be especially impressed by evidence supporting the claim that (a) what he does is out of the ordinary on I/P pages, and (b) that his contributions cannot be productively modified and absorbed by editors keener on collaboration than score-settling. | |||
| Hi! I have nominated myself for ] membership. Your comments would be appreciated on the ]. Thanks! – ] <small>(])</small> 14:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I wonder if meanwhile you might also consider the possibility that mentorship has had negative consequences for PR. There are a lot of passionate and, shall we say, colorful characters on I/P pages; he doesn’t strike me as out of the ordinary on that score. He was treated with malice and bad faith in many of his early encounters with relatively powerful editors on Misplaced Pages, and these encounters left a taint on him for editors only glancingly familiar with the background. His editing and etiquette could certainly stand some improvement, so the case for mentorship seemed to make sense, but insofar as it has tended to codify an undeserved taint, he understandably chafes at it, perhaps resulting in worse behavior.--] (]) 17:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::G-Dett, I will try and respond with instances for you, but via e-mail to spare all involved, within the next couple of days, and if I do not, please remind me. Thank you. -- ] (]) 19:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :G-Dett, I've been gone for a while, but if the ordinary for IP pages is what I'm seeing here, then the ordinary needs putting to rights. There is no excuse for bad behavior, from anybody. If the behavior in this area has deteriorated so badly, I suggest that you guys consider moveing up the dispute resolution chain and go to arbcom. —— ''']]'''</font> 18:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == I need help from an admin - Urgent == | |||
| '''Oppose ban'''. PR's attitude toward editing may not be ideal, but we need to put his behavior into context. Let me give my experience with editing some of the Israel/Palestine articles. I need to give some details, so I can't be brief. | |||
| {{atop|1=I'm not sure about oranges from Jaffa, but there's a pack of blocks from Misplaced Pages here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 17:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Dear Misplaced Pages Team, | |||
| I need an urgent help concerning a page and information about my project, I'd appreciate if a[REDACTED] admin can contact me to help. | |||
| I was involved in editing the Hamas and Hezbollah articles until last year but I left because of the attitude of the editors, which is very confrontational. Almost everyone sees editing these article as a game to get as much of their POV included in the articles, the rules of the games are the wiki rules such as the one on reliable sources which can be bent almost as far as you like. I did briefly edit the Hezbollah article this year in March when I saw a very strange statement, saying that Hezbollah has admitted being responsible for the terrorist attacks in Argentina, in that article that every regular editor should know was wrong (if true that would be breaking news, so you wouldn't expect it to read about it somewhere burried in an article on court proceedings). | |||
| Many thanks, | |||
| To my horror it was GHCool who had edited in the sentence. Although GHCool and I had disagreed on many things, I did have the feeling that GhCool was more reasonable than most other editors. I argued a bit with GHCool about that edit, but GHCool told me that the edit was allowed (quoted from a reliable source). I was disappointed about this attitude and I decided never to return to these articles as that is clearly a waste of time if even the best editors are behaving in this way. | |||
| Mohammed ] (]) 17:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :There's not enough information here for anyone to do anything. Please tell us what the problem is and what help you need. You probably want to read ] prior to doing anything further, though, just in case you've been violating our guidelines around conflicts of interest. --] (]) 17:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :What's the issue? ] (]/]) 17:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::] probably needs blocking. ] (]) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Done}} ] (]/]) 17:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Relevant article: | |||
| :*{{al|An Orange from Jaffa}} | |||
| :OP possibly using multiple accounts: | |||
| :*{{checkUser|Mohamugha1}} | |||
| :*{{checkUser|MohammedAlmughanni}} | |||
| :] (]) 17:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{noping|MohammedAlmughanni}} blocked as a sock. ] (]/]) 17:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Khabib Nurmagomedov French page modified by 92.184.106.82 to edit origin as Algerian == | |||
| Now, I actually decided to stop editing these aticles a bit earlier after two frustrating incidents last year. On the Hamas page I tried to find a compromize on a sentence saying that "Hamas is best known for suicide attacks". This sentence is problematic because the source isn't clear about how this was determined to be the case, it is just the opinion of the author and after some time passes and the suicide attacks become more of a thing of the past. Who knows, perhaps Hamas is now "best known for being in power in Gaza"? | |||
| {{atop|1= is thataway. → - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Modifications history shows the following IP 92.184.106.82 made numerous edits to Khabib Nurmagomedov's French[REDACTED] page to include false information around his nationality, background and place of birth among other edits.This IP needs to be blocked and banned from editing. ] (]) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :You need to contact the French Misplaced Pages. This is en.wikipedia.org and we only have say over what happens here on the English WIkipedia. --] (]) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == EncycloDeterminate unblocked == | |||
| The Arbitration Committee has resolved that: | |||
| So, I tried to argue that it would be better to write a sentence that conveys a hard fact, like "Hamas is responsible for suicide bombings against Israel". There are plenty of sources that back this up and it will remain a fact forever, no matter what happens in the future. So, you don't have the problem that the fact changes while the sources are lagging behind. | |||
| {{ivmbox|1=Following an appeal, the Arbitration Committee repeals the Oversight block of {{Userlinks|EncycloDeterminate}}, as it is no longer necessary.}} | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, ] (] • she/her) 22:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|EncycloDeterminate unblocked}}'''<!-- ] (]) 22:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | |||
| == Permission request == | |||
| To my horror, most of the pro-Israeli editors opposed my move. Only Avi supported me. Humus Sapiens accused me of vandalism when I reverted back to my version, because I was removing "sourced information" (of course my version was sourced as well). Anyway, at first it wasn't clear why my stronger statement was not welcome in the article. Later it became clear to me what was really going on. Both sides are playing a game in which they want to have as much freedom to use sources to edit in dubious statements. So, if such statements get removed in favor of hard facts it constrains the freedoms of the editors, and they don't like that. | |||
| {{hat|1=]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{atop|1=No. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| I am User:CFA's legitimate alt account for ] editing at high volume. Please add extended confirmed to my account. Thank you ] (]) 04:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks like we’ve got another @] impersonator here. ''If by some unlikely chance you are actually CFA, then you can make a request while logged in as CFA. Otherwise you will be blocked as before… nice try…'' ] ] 04:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The final straw for me was when finding a compromize on the Hezbollah article by me was considered to be edit warring and I was refereed to this ANI board. I as not banned, but I was asked to stop behaving in that way by SlimVirgin. What was I guilty of? Well, some editor (forgot his name, he was not a regular on the Hezbollah page) included some facts on the Hezbollah page. Nothing wrong with that, but it was all under a new section called "Terrorism". Although terrorism is a "word to avoid", we can certainly call an acts of terror "terrorism". But the section contained more than terror acts alone. So, I made some changes, but I did keep all the facts that were edited in (I made a new section in which I mentioned the things that are not, by definition, terrorism). | |||
| ::@] here is another CFA imposter for you. Cheers! ] ] 05:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I indeffed {{User|CFA (AWB)}}. ] (]) 05:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I can't believe they are so dumb they tried doing the same scam two nights in a row. The previous attempt was removed from this noticeboard but it had a link listing about 20 CFA-related imposter accounts. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| == Proposed community ban of Marginataen == | |||
| But this is considered to be "edit warring", "violation of 3RR because of multiple complex partial reverts" etc. etc. Well, I guess that if one sees editing through the narrow window of defending/attacking Hezbollah, then that may well be the case, but then I'm not going to be involved anymore. So, I left, only to briefly return on March this year. | |||
| {{atop|status=Community ban imposed|1=This clearly fall sunder the {{tqq|except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours}} condition of ]. Accordingly, Marginataen is, by the consensus of the Misplaced Pages community, banned from en.wiki. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{userlinks|Marginataen}} | |||
| This user has been indefblocked twice for various issues over the years (and is subject to a ]), and two days after their last unblock, they were ], as ]. Well they've gone back to ]; their are a good sampler. Despite being ] that English variety/date formats are set per article, not per topic, they have ] for their mass-editing; I was going to send them my own warning about this but the discovery of this message tipped me over into submitting a ban request. | |||
| They clearly have extreme ] problems with their editing pattern; also the idea of a non-native speaker of English trying to police/standardise the use of English variety templates on Misplaced Pages does not sit well with me. I have undone many of their most recent edits, some of which ] Manual of Style violations of ]. Furthermore, in the light of ] (that wasn't actionable) about their interest in right-wing topics, perhaps their ] of the spin-off article ] might need to be looked into. In short, I'm not sure what benefit is being gained by this user's continued presence on this project. ] (]) 06:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| So, it should be clear that my opinion about the way the Israel/Palestine articles are edited is very negative. The fact that PR is being attacked by other involved editors who, with the exception of a few, are not any better themselves speaks volumes. The problem with these articles is huge. There are many Admins with problematic behavior as well, so the entire Palestine/Israel sector of[REDACTED] is a big corrupt mess that has to be sorted out. But banning PR will do noting to improve the situation, as that would be similar to Al Capone tipping off the FBI about rival mafiosi to improve his strategic position. ] (]) 23:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :{{midsize|(Will abstain as I hope no one will require sanctions and I am pretty clearly involved again despite hoping I wouldn't have to be, but just wanted to make clear on my own edits that if I made any errors on the sweep-up, please let me know and I'll fix them. Thanks.)}} <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 06:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''Absolutely no effing way''', we all know how this discussion goes: Those on the other side of the fence to PR cry bloody murder, and bring up his block log (take a look at it: The first few are completely over the top, and were placed by involved admins; after that, there are a number associated with the ArbCom case). They'll bring up the ArbCom case, which I urge everyone to read: It was not a case of PR ''coming oh-so-close to being banned''; he was accused of something he clearly didn't do. Jayjg's and Ryan's actions in and around that case can be described as nothing short of disgraceful. | |||
| :'''Support'''. Doing the exact thing that get that them blocked after being unblocked. I’ll also add that they unilaterally changed articles into British spellings with no explanation or discussion given either. ] 06:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::20 more edits after the AN notice. ] 18:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' pretty clear repeat violations of previous block reasons. Doing enough of this to be disruptive and unproductive, not listening to feedback or starting appropriate discussions. ] (]) 09:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support'''. Might considering a RFC on Meta to globally ban Marginataen in the future. ] (]) 10:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support'''. Repeatedly making disruptive edits even after having been blocked several times and promising to mend their ways. ] (]) 12:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support'''. Per proposal. --] (]) 15:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support'''. Don't waste the community's time. ♠]♠ ] 16:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment:''' It might be a good idea to block the known sockpuppets of Marginataen that are not already blocked: {{u|Tamborg}}, {{u|Bubfernr}}, and {{u|LatteDK}}. There may be others that I have missed. ] (]) 16:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support.''' <s>I'm not sure how to deal with this. I guess Marginataen is honestly trying to contribute and collaborate, but...</s> Case in point regarding "I didn't hear that": Remsense recently ] Marginataen to stop mass-tagging articles. Three hours later, Marginataen ]: ''"Yes, I'll stop mass adding templates"''. And yet another hour later, Marginataen added these templates to ] ] articles. It seems that Marginataen didn't understand what Remsense said. P.S.: ...and Marginataen keeps ]. Hopeless. Block. — ] (]) 18:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::As a purely stopgap measure, I've blocked Marginataen from mainspace for a week to encourage them to respond here. Any admin should feel free to unblock without asking me, if the block becomes no longer necessary. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 20:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' - Gotta play by the rules. ] (]) 20:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support'''. The continuous disruption far outweighs the minimal content contribution. ] (]) 21:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' a ban - I don't think that the user is being consciously disruptive. I think that this is largely a ] problem and that the user doesn't understand what they are being told. We only have so much patience for users who can't understand what they are told to do. ] (]) 04:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' a ban. No reason to suspect the behavior will stop as a result of a lesser measure. ] (]) 22:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User:TWC DC1 == | |||
| A number of PR's supporters will claim that PR has never done a single thing wrong, and will defend his actions to the hilt. | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = Warned, then sockblocked. <small>(])</small> ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 21:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| I recommend issuing a warning to ], as their actions appear to be ]. Despite previous warnings, they have continued this behavior. --] (]) 21:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| A few moderates will point out that PR is far from perfect, but that anything he does wrong can be sorted out with blocks. | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == G7 request by a blocked account == | |||
| This is never going to be anything but a partisan debate, and is yet another attempt to get rid of a thorn in the side of some editors that happen to have a different (just as extreme) POV. -- ] ] 01:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=G7'd. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Can an admin take a look at ]? It appears to be a "]" request for ]. -- ] (]) 01:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Qualifies for G7. Deleted by me. — ] ] 02:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Sapo.pt == | |||
| As I have said above, and I will say again here, I propose that those involved consider making an ARBCOM case on this article if the editing is really as negative as you guys imply it is. However I must point out that PR is a role account (this is admitted back 6 months ago at the initial community ban thingie. I've been gone so long I don't recall exactly when that was :S ), and not the main account of the editor. If that means anything at this point I'm not sure. However I'm dismayed to see that this much dispute and namecalling is the norm for this area of the encyclopedia :( —— ''']]'''</font> 01:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *{{articlelinks|Sapo.pt}} | |||
| :PR commented on the SPA thing ''']'''. -- ] ] 01:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Could an admin undelete that redirect? Thanks ] (]) 08:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}} ] <sub>]</sub> 08:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Proxy question == | |||
| For those opposing further admin action, would you suggest that PR be placed with a different mentor than Ryan, or that the mentorship requirement be dropped? Perhaps you could clarify or, better yet, make a cogent counter-proposal, since the current arrangement with Ryan seems to have run its course. Thanks. ] | ] 04:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I think ]'s suggestion is right from the dispute resolution side of things (take it to RfArb). As for mentorship, I think this thread kind of puts a bit of a hole in the current arrangement. IMO, PR seems to work much better with a mentor, so I think it'd be worth finding another. That said, I think he should be able to keep editing in the meantime, perhaps with a 1RR restriction until a mentor can be found? -- ] ] 06:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I recently enabled the and have seen a number of IPs that are flagged as proxies (e.g., {{redacted}}). Would IPs being flagged with this tool warrant them being blocked? ] ] 20:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === RFC? === | |||
| :You can report IPs that you suspect of being proxies at ]. ] (]/]) 21:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I'm making a new section here as this is a new idea. My suggestion to you all is to open a ] on PalestineRemembered. I think its better to attempt to come to a resolution there, rather then here on WP:AN. Should the request for comment fail, there is always ]. Unless an administrator acts on the above conversation (the above 3 sections), I think it will do the community better to continue this discussion and put alternatives forth at an RFC. —— ''']]'''</font> 13:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] my question is more that if i see that info in the widget when blocking an IP, is it safe to block it as a proxy? ] ] 21:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't think so because I don't think it's 100% accurate. ] (]/]) 21:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::OK thank you! ] ] 21:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{re|EvergreenFir}} Yes, the tool is saying there "In the last ''x'' days, at least one person connecting on this IP has been using proxy software ''y''", which is definitely evidence toward an NOP block, but not enough on its own. Also, my understanding of {{slink|foundation:Legal:Wikimedia_IP_Information_Tool_Policy#Use_and_disclosure_of_IP_information}} is that you can't publicly say that the tool says a specific IP is a proxy except "as reasonably required in use of the tool", which I would read as allowing you to say that a block was partly based on IP Info without going into further detail, but probably not allowing you to post an example IP and say "the tool says this is a proxy". Out of an abundance of caution I've redacted+revdelled the example you gave above; if I'm misunderstanding the policy, no objection to being reverted. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 21:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It's a reason to treat the IP with more suspicion and investigate further but it's not good enough on its own for a block. {{small|I think revdel is a bit of an overreaction personally.}} ] | ] 22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think revdel is an over-reaction too, except ... that seems to be exactly what the "rules" for use of the tool say. This should probably be ironed out somewhere. ] (]) 22:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I don't even see the reason for redacting, let alone revdel. People can talk about IP addresses, especially in the context of proxies and especially when they aren't connected to an individual user / account. ] (]) 00:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Over on ] we openly talk about IPs and proxies, so it doesn't make sense that we couldn't here IMO | |||
| :::::::::Thank you all for the input. Much appreciated ] ] 05:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::It's nothing about talking about IPs in general. Obviously saying that an IP is a proxy is fine. It's specifically about saying that ''IP Info says'' an IP is a proxy. That's proprietary information from Spur that the WMF licenses on the condition of not disseminating. I also would like more clarity on the scope of that rule, but at least the plain-text reading says we can't attribute information to the tool. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 05:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Ah, thank you for clarifying. Much appreciated ] ] 06:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Undeletion + XML export request == | |||
| :I suggest the whole case be dismissed as a piece of roguish abuse of wiki policies, prompted by one user whose evidence Ryan, who is busy, evidently hasn't checked. I will open a section below with a complete review of the evidence, or rather the mockup of pseudo-evidence to settle old vendettas and get a scalp. What, in short, ]] requested me to do. There is simply nothing here (Avi may have evidence which is far stronger than what we have here, so my remarks are limited to the material on which everyone who has participated here has made their respective calls). Gentlemen, this has been a disgraceful operation. ] (]) 15:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The point of an RFC is to make it clear if there is an issue or if there is not an issue. —— ''']]'''</font> 16:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Please undelete pre-December 2007 revisions of ], use ], and email me the contents of the XML file you get, per ]. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 04:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ryan ends his complaint by a request for comment (what has occurred here is an informal RfC). There have been many comments, and 2 sources documenting the reasons why a ban should be made. GHcool's evidence is ancient history, a few diffs from two years to eight months ago, and so wholly irrelevant to a complaint about PR's '''recent behaviour'''. His whole effort to get at PR is an abuse of appropriate evidence and proper process. Jayjg's evidence consists of innuendos about SPA accounts and sockpuppetry, blather (] per ]) over Bogdanor and Kastner which is neither here nor there, since Jayjg, as shown, misread PR's remark; plus two elements of evidence of violation of BLP recently. All we have then, is two putative instances of violating BLP to secure checkmate, a permanent community ban. What do they consist in? Ayaan Hirsi Ali's public record is compared, on a talk page, to Shahak's, to illustrate by analogy bias in that I/P article. Mitchell Bard is contested as a proper source, correctly, since the remark quoted from him is obvious nonsense not fit for a serious encyclopedia article: and it is on a talk page. So what's the problem? So far we have these two bits, and the points made by PR would never form the basis for an ANI complaint had anyone else made them. ] (]) 17:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I've undeleted the history. You can do the export process yourself then. Since it was just a dated PROD and it looks like there were prior copyvio concerns but the copyright holder eventually provided permission, there's no reason the history can't also be available here. ] ] 04:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{Done}}; ]. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages talk:Help desk/Archive 19 == | |||
| === A Review of the evidence. What evidence? === | |||
| {{atop | result = Stray page deleted <small>(])</small> ] (]) 14:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC) }} | |||
| 1.Ryan calls for a community ban. His complaint is that mentoring Palestine Remembered has failed to stop PR from ''push(ing) his pro Palestine POV on numerous articles''. | |||
| Perhaps someone could take a look at ]? It looks like the page was created back in 2008, perhaps by mistake, and has just been "existing" ever since then. The Help Desk archive is currently at 14 pages but eventually it will reach 19; so, at some point, this is going to need to be dealt with. I'm not sure whether the page needs only to be blanked or should be deleted, but the latter will obviously need to be done by an administrator. -- ] (]) 07:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}} I've deleted it (G2, "test page" seemed close enough). - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you {{u|The Bushranger}}. -- ] (]) 08:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == ] closures == | |||
| This is startling. The majority of editors who underwrite a permanent ban will not be offended, I think, if I remark that they ‘push their pro-Israeli POVs’. No one on the other side regards User:Jayjg as anyone other than an edit-warrior with a powerful pro-Israeli POV. That is attested in every edit I have seen from him over the past two years. In the rules, as far as I understand them, there is nothing wrong with pushing a POV, most I/P articles are compromises (messy) made by parties with opposed POVs, which each side pushes. To deny this is to deny the obvious. Therefore, Ryan’s complaint, expressed thus, suggests a misapprehension about how I/P articles are written. | |||
| {{Userlinks|2601AC47}} {{Pagelinks|Deb Matthews}} {{Pagelinks|Ministry of Education (Ontario)}} | |||
| (b) ''He's well known to edit war to get his point across.'' This is vague. Does it refer to past reputation or to present behaviour? If the latter, then this must be documented. '''Anything to do with PR's past behaviour''' is wholly immaterial to the ban requested, which must logically relate to recent behaviour. | |||
| 2 sections ] and ](MoE) were closed by User:2601AC47. The closing user participated in the MoE discussion. I find the MoE closing discussion summary inaccurate and disrespectful. The Deb Matthews closing summary cites the MoE one. I would like a more respectful summary of the discussions. | |||
| (c) ''He was subject to an arbitration case because of a habit in using extremely poor sources to push his POV - the arbitration case was closed with no action.'' G-Dett replied to this in the following terms, and no one has challenged their veracity:- | |||
| I have discussed with the user on ]. The user refused to change the summaries. ] (]) 19:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::<blockquote>'what a load of hogwash and balderdash. PR was subject to an arbitration case because a rogue admin made bogus claims about his sources – claims which were unanswerably discredited within an hour. His accuser lacked the decency and honesty to retract his fatuous accusations, and Ryan lacked – and continues to lack – the competence to understand what happened in the first place.’</blockquote> | |||
| :I would say something similar in a more polite but firm way: go look for sources and add then instead of insisting on deleting the table. You are fighting a losing battle. ] (]/]) 19:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Since no one has challenged G-dett's recall of the instance, Ryan's remark self-cancels, and can be thrown out of court. In fact if anything it testifies more to the behaviour of the 'rogue administrator' who happens here to be the chief prosecutor for the case now under consideration against PR.</BR> | |||
| ::Just so it's clear, are you supporting a change to the closure summaries or opposing it or neutral? ] (]) 19:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm saying that you should withdraw this request and get back to editing. I agree 2601 was rude but that doesn't change the fact that they are correct that you were wrong to try to remove material from both articles. ] (]/]) 19:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I decline your request to withdraw. ] makes it clear that I can ask for disrespectful comments to be removed. ] (]) 19:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sure, you can ask, but nobody is going to override this inconsequential close of a discussion where many editors told you that you were wrong. ] (]/]) 20:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm not asking for the closes to be overturned, I just asked for the summaries to be changed. ] (]) 20:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :So much for cooperation... <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Snarky remarks really aren't helpful. ] (]/]) 20:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::May be I should have more specifically mentioned ] (metaphorically, if there's ever confusion). But moreover, Legend's concerns pertain to the articles that was being edited on (mostly pertaining to Ontario-based agencies), which Legend appeared to ingratiatingly remove some "uncited" information from. I reverted some of them, and as a BLPN watcher, took note of this in trying to explain to them that there are guidelines, especially on citing sources and the MoS. So far, I've not really seen that (prove me wrong). Ultimately, I could suggest to Legend that this is their own responsibility, but alas, thinks that I and some others are at fault here. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 20:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think you should probably recalibrate how you communicate with other editors. You come across as sometimes rude and dismissive in that discussion. ] (]/]) 20:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm thinking 2601AC47 is coming off a little rude and dismissive in THIS discussion as well. ] (]) 20:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, they are. But Legend of 14 is coming across as a Wikilawyer rather than a collaborative editor in all of the noticeboard discussions that they have started in the last week or two. ] (]) 20:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::They also seem to have a very skewed viewpoint of ] . - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I don't know what Legend's background is, but if someone said ] to me in a professional setting, I'd think they were being rude and unprofessional. It's unfortunate that we've normalized people being jerks on wiki and whenever someone comes to complain about it, the response is usually "well, that's not really that uncivil" or "well, they were being a pain in the ass, so it's justified". ] (]/]) 21:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Wasn't your response for me to withdraw this discussion? Seeking clarity. ] (]) 21:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{outdent|1}} Yes, I did, because your report was about changing a summary of a discussion in which the outcome would remain the same. Several editors have told you to stop removing uncited, non-controversial material from articles, so you should stop doing that instead of starting an AN discussion about the impolite close of the discussion. ] (]/]) 22:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I have stopped doing that. I respect consensus. I can both ask for the summaries to be respectful and not remove uncited material for which consensus has found to be non-controversial. ] (]) 22:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Now, to hopefully not add on to the pile that this may become, I would try finding consensus in a similar way for what you're editing with regards to the pages of the government agencies. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 22:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::True, Phil, for a relatively new editor, Legend of 14 has brought more cases to noticeboards than some editors do over years spent editing on the project. If this becomes habitual, this approach to getting things done ones way can backfire on an editor. Noticeboards are a place to go to after basic discussion has failed to come to a resolution, not for the kind of disagreements we all face on a regular basis. You don't want to spend more time talking about editing than actually editing. And, for goodness' sake, don't file a complaint over how this complaint is being handled. No need to come to my User talk page to claim I'm being disrespectful, too. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 21:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If you have concerns about me resorting to notice boards, perhaps talk to Adam Bishop who removed 2 discussions from article talk pages, which is why I resorted to WP:BLPN for those articles. For my 5 additions to WP:BLPN on Jan. 17, I truly believed I had no where else to go. Also, so we're clear, can you please clarify if you believe user talk pages are an appropriate place to raise concerns about uncivil conduct like name calling? ] (]) 21:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I've made clear at BLPN my issue with your approach here, but I do see your point that you followed the normal instructions only to have two talkpage threads removed. I don't really see why they were removed. @] can you explain? <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 06:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Seemed like an obvious troll to me, being disruptive and making ridiculous claims just to annoy everyone. ] (]) 13:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Liz this just seems to be par for the course. While Legend make some really good minor positive contributions, they seem to only be here to edit per ]. As soon as there is some sort of conflict, they have demonstrated that they cannot manage consensus building . ''Many editors'' have tried to engage with Legend in good-faith to guide and correct them, but they are very easily offended, resort to novel wiki-lawyering arguments, and thing escalate from there. ''In good faith I believe they are trying to navigate the system,'' but keep hitting a wall for various reasons, and thing escalate quickly because of how they choose to handle the confrontation. I believe a mentor for them would be a great route for them, otherwise I am very concerned we're going to continue to see far more heat than light from this contributor. ] ] 15:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yes, that has been my experience. I thought that I was trying to guide and correct this editor, but the response was to accuse me of calling them names. If someone with more patience than I have wants to mentor Legend of 14 then that could be the approach to take, but it would depend on them being willing to listen to advice. ] (]) 15:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Let's talk about your approach to handling disputes and consensus building. | |||
| ::::::::*Leaving condescending and other disrespectful comments on my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270062605 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270076126 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270086734 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270370468. | |||
| ::::::::*Ignoring my requests to not post on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270362323 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270370468 | |||
| ::::::::*Linking an essay section about routinely banning other editors from my talk page, when I haven't done that https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Tiggerjay&diff=prev&oldid=1270500629 | |||
| ::::::::*Shaming me for challenging your AfD https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Deb_Hutton_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=1270475022 | |||
| ::::::::] (]) 15:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::To me, characterizing as "shaming me for challenging your AfD" supports Tiggerjay's above. The other diffs show civil attempts to help you understand the culture on Misplaced Pages. ] ] 16:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::It is disappointing that the culture is talking down to editors for not being on Misplaced Pages for over a decade and daring to share an opinion, posting repetitive talk page notices for literally no reason, and replying to a request to stop posting on a talk page with a snarky comment. Thank you for clarifying that editors do not deserve equal treatment, and that merit of arguments can be dismissed based on the age of the editor making them. ] (]) 16:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::At this point I'm just going to leave, because has been made clear by this discussion and other thread, I am not going to be treated with respect. I'm not wanted here, so I'm leaving. ] (]) 16:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::So you're aware, per {{section link|Misplaced Pages:Retiring#Pending_sanctions}}, just because you claim to retire does not mean this discussion will necessarily close. Also since you have ''claimed to have retired previously'', please be aware that if you return you will still need to edit in accordance with ], especially as it related to ]. ] ] 18:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::You have been treated with respect, but you have shown very little in return. ] (]) 19:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Consensus disagrees: ] ] (]) 17:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Consensus? The closing statement sums up consensus, and it certainly doesn't disagree. ] (]) 18:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::As a relatively new editor for 1 year with only 5400+ edits compared to the other fellows here, I have not once been blocked or had a significant conflict with a more experienced editor than me. At some point, if the community comes to scrutinize the editing and mistakes that you've made, you'll have to recognize that the problem is with ''you'', not the culture. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 04:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::You have a conflict with me and I've been editing since 2021. Your statement is inaccurate. ] (]) 16:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Note that I said "experienced", not "older". ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 16:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::What purposes does this have other than to be inflammatory? I'm not going to ] to you and other editors just because you've decided they're more experienced. ] (]) 17:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::Given this response, I'd say the consensus is correct that the problem here is you, Legend. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::As has been offered to you multiple times Legend, please consider reviewing ]. You might find it helpful. ] ] 20:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Too much to read. Is this about the wording of the closing statement? ] (]) 16:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::And about Legend and I over that. Looks like Legend's had enough, anyway (I wish them well elsewhere). <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 16:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::They tried that stunt ]. If they're going to engage in a pattern of making disruptive edits and then retiring when anyone (read: everyone) criticizes them, someone should probably just indef. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Agreed. This user has an established habit of walking away from a conversation, only to come back a day or two later and continue the same sort of disruption. Shall we extend another inch of rope? I wouldn't be against giving a <s>second</s> <s>third </s> n-th time chance, but perhaps the next controversy should be a swift block? Or has the community already had enough? ] ] 18:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@] -- I know this will astonish you, but... surprise, surprise, they could only retire for almost exactly 24 hours. ] ] 21:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes. ] (]) 16:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I disagree with blocking this editor when they actually haven't violated any policy that I'm aware of. I actually don't want them to leave and think they could be a constructive editor if they would spend less time policing other editors and spend more time improving articles, and avoid the drama boards. | |||
| :We can enforce guidelines about civility, ], but I don't think the "respect" you expect to receive can be found anywhere on the Internet. People are blunt and sometimes grumpy. And those of us who have been here a long time have been called all sorts of names, disputes can bring out some nasty behavior, this is not personal to you. I just think that expecting to be respected here, on Misplaced Pages, just comes over time with proving that you are a consistently productive contributor. It can take years to earn other editors' trust and respect and, if you make a colossal mistake, it can also disappear. I just think that you have an overly sensitive gauge of other people's respect for you and if you want to contribute to this project, it has to be because you like to edit, whether or not other people respect you in the way you seem to understand "respect". Remember, this is not utopia, it's just a website on the internet. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I check back and I'm facing sanctions. I wasn't planning on making any more edits, but I guess I should. The allegations are too vague for me to defend myself. There's no policy being cited or diffs, so I have no idea what's being alleged. | |||
| ::My decision to stop editing is rooted in the fact that I cannot avoid challenges to my edits, and I cannot avoid being dismissed based on either unrelated grievances when I stand up for myself and my edits. | |||
| ::Timeline of how this ended up here: | |||
| ::*Jan 15 I make edits to 5 articles related to content about living people | |||
| ::*Jan 16 I get reverted 5 times by Adam Bishop. I go to 2 article talk pages to discuss the reverts and Bishop's talk page. | |||
| ::*Jan 17 I get reverted on the 2 article talk pages by Bishop. I go to BLPN as Bishop is stopping me from using talk pages. 2 of my discussions get closed by 2601AC47. | |||
| ::*Jan 21 I ask 2601AC47 to change the summaries. My request is denied. | |||
| ::I've been reverted 9 times by 2601AC47. They did not explain why for 3 reverts https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:2601AC47&diff=prev&oldid=1270067565 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:2601AC47&diff=next&oldid=1270067565. My thread got closed because of "Not helpful of the editor in question". ] | |||
| ::An article I made got nominated for deletion. My reasons for why the article should stay gets dismissed because the user has a list of grievances against me https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Deb_Hutton_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=1270475022. | |||
| ::I got criticized on my talk page for daring to challenge a more "experienced editor". https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270062605 | |||
| ::I face repeated complaints for trying uphold a civil environment on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270076126 ] ] | |||
| ::I get challenged, and then when I defend myself I get dismissed for uncivil reasons or ignored, over and over again. This is not an environment where I can edit, where I face endless criticism for valid decisions (like those on my talk pages), can get randomly reverted for no given reason at any time, and get threatened with sanctions if I keep standing up in the face of the uncivil comments. But, there's always a reason why nothing should be done about the uncivil behaviour. My work can just be undone, I can't defend myself or my edits, and the message of shut up or get sanctioned has been very prevalent. That's why I said I'm not wanted here and why I'm done editing. It has become clear to me that no outcome here leads to this being an environment which isn't having a negative impact on me. ] (]) 16:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::You may have overlooked what I wrote yesterday to you. Either way, I'm sure that we've tried hard <u>not</u> to be {{tq|uncivil}}. | |||
| :::<small>But really: With all due respect to you (what little you've left me with), I hope one day you can let this go and begin the path to becoming a better person.</small> <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 17:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Who's we? I wasn't aware that you were authorized to speak on behalf of other editors. Please share who you are representing. ] (]) 17:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::2601AC47 simply read the discussion and said what he thinks about it. It's clear that "we" simply means all of the editors with whom you are arguing, rather than anyone they are representing. Anyway, it seems you were not telling the truth when you said "I'm done editing". ] (]) 18:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I only came back because sanctions were proposed against me. As soon as the threat of sanctions is gone, I'll leave again. ] (]) 19:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::At this rate, unless you have something to prove yourself here ''or'' you actually take into consideration what we've told you for the last 8 days and get working in peace, those {{tq|sanctions}} may include a block from Misplaced Pages, which is possible given the circumstances and, as ] as of now, can be enforced to {{tq|encourage a more productive, congenial editing style}}. If you believe that block that may come will be unjustified (and I doubt that), you can usually ] and explain your perspective as you should. Otherwise, again, I wish you well and hope you'll understand that you're not being targeted (although you should be aware ]); <small>(struggles to think of a closing sentence)</small> farewell, Legend. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 19:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::But nobody on Misplaced Pages can take away your life, liberty or money; the most severe sanction they can impose is to stop you editing one web site, which you want to do anyway. What is the point of continuing to post to this discussion? ] (]) 20:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Regarding {{tq|there's always a reason why nothing should be done about the uncivil behavior}} is almost always because ''nobody else'' sees how you're being treated as uncivil, even after you've presented your best evidence of such claims. TYour perceptions of other people is causing you undue stress that is of your own doing. However, if this is truly causing a {{tq|negative impact}} on you, I have to ask WHY are you still coming back here? If anyone feels stressed by contributing to a volunteer project, they should simply take a Wikibreak, and not just say it, but literally turn off all notifications, logout, and set some sort of calendar reminder for some point in the future before you even look at a Misplaced Pages page. This should be your happy place, not a stress inducer. ] ] 01:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I mean I agree people were being rude at BLPN and people on wiki are often needlessly antagonistic. The issue is that because that's the case, what would get someone fired in a professional environment is treated as not a big deal here. ] (]/]) 01:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Legend of 14}} recommend you walk away from the topic area-in-question, if you're not retiring. From what I'm seeing, rightly or wrongly the other editors are growing frustrated with you. ] (]) 17:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposal: ] block for Legend of 14=== | |||
| (d) ''he continues to make poorly sourced contributions, and edit wars to keep them in place''. This repeats (b) and is unsubstantiated by recent evidence. Ryan’s point is also that numerous editors have failed to get PR to toe the ‘right path’. Perhaps true, but numerous editors who appear to enjoy hauling PR under administrative sanctions, have no idea of what the ‘right path’ is, since they are happy POV pushers themselves.</BR> | |||
| Competence in working on a collaborative project includes being able to listen and take in what other people are telling you. Legend of 14 does not seem to be able to do that. Since they have already expressed an intention to retire, it should not be a hardship to them if they are unable to edit due to a community ban. ] (]) 19:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' As proposer. ] (]) 19:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' The statement is false and unsubstantiated. I have listened. People didn't want me removing uncited election results, I stopped removing election results. People didn't want me removing uncited ] content from ] I listened. ] (]) 19:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| 2.Ryan calls for comments. One comment was that Ryan’s own complaint comes after ] had worked Ryan’s page to raise, for the umpteenth time, apparent problems with PR’s return to editing. I haven't checked it, but then again, no one has protested the veracity of the assertion. Ryan himself did not produce evidence for his claims, but, subsequently, when Jayjg made his own case, Ryan underwrote Jayjg’s suit, as containing more or less the gravamen of his own charges. Thus functionally, Ryan’s complaint is a proxy complaint authored by Jayjg. | |||
| *'''Support''' a short-term block to prevent further disruption and to further assist them with their claimed retirement. They continue to be disruptive to the project, and their tenacious argumentative approach here demonstrates this extremely clearly. While I previously supported giving a second chance (see above), their complete inability to drop the stick and cannot even make up their mind about retirement, other than a veiled threat about leaving. They have shown a failure of CIR when it comes to consensus building, largely because they presume bad faith and assume people are being uncivil. Without the ability to demonstrate the ability to build consensus and presume good faith, they should not be permitted to continue to disrupt the project. And of course, I am tired of their aspirations being cast against me, and others, without merit. They assert that those who disagree with their accusations are also in collusion against them. The number of experienced editors who are speaking against this editor seems to be a clear ] situation. ] ] 20:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''If this is still going on support''' I remember the Ministry of Education (Ontario) discussion - which I was pretty involved in - and the whole thing was quite silly. Lo14 was insistent on uncited start and end dates for education ministers in Ontario being an urgent BLP issue but, rather than finding sources for those start and end dates for four ministers under the current government, kept deleting the content and getting into long arguments about the urgency. I think, at one point, I mentioned that they'd spent longer arguing about the problem than it would have taken to properly fix it. I'll be honest that I kind of tuned out after that. But it's been long enough that if Lo14 is still insisting on their course of action then, yeah, it's time for a short block. Not an indef. Just something to give them perspective that not everything is a life or death emergency - even for BLPs. ] (]) 20:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:It's not. ] (]) 20:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' I have read this entire discussion and the two BLPN noticeboard ones referenced and previously at least one other AN or ANI discussion; i believe Legend is teetering close to a block, but i do not support it nor, most definitely, a ban. But, {{U|Legend of 14}}, i do urge you to take a few hours away, overnight or a day, and then reread what has been written by way of advice and try to see it that way. I'm not sure if you have had (or have) a mentor, but finding an experienced editor who is willing to answer a few questions and give a little advice on your plans and potential actions would probably be a very good thing to consider and do ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 20:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:You might want to also have a look at their un-redacted talk page and also their constant bad faith and casting aspirations of other editors, as recently as today. ] ] 20:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Yup, thanks; i'd already read the talk page and taken a good look at some of the contributions. I may well tend toward the naïve, but i am not seeing someone who is not competent so much as a new (under 1k edits) and possibly younger editor who is enthusiastic and yet has not worked out some of the the way we work here; that's why i suggest a mentor above ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 21:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I was simply pointing out the ''pre-redacted state'' if you happened to only read the current talk page, they removed over 8k bytes from their talk page, which further adds context and shows conflict skills. I agree that they sound "younger" especially by their approach and rejection to experience, but their actual age has little to do with their ability to contribute, however, emotional maturity is something that does weigh into the ability to manage conflict. ] ] 21:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' This is a huge overreaction. Can an involved admin please close this thread so everyone can get on with editing instead of fanning the flames of this inconsequential dispute? ] (]/]) 22:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == How do we handle Israel Palestine new articles created by non ECP editors nowadays? == | |||
| Administrator ], ], Administrator ], ] (Guy), ] ] all immediately supported a site or topic ban, though no evidence has been forthcoming. They trusted Ryan’s description, or recalled PR’s archival record. ] is commendably neutral. | |||
| For example, ]. In theory I think this could be deleted via ] for violating ]. But is that what we do? Or do we look the other way if the article is OK? Should we just protect it ECP and call it a day? | |||
| ], asks for evidence, as does ]. ] checks 100 recent edits and can’t see the problem. ] asks why at this particular point is PR’s past beinfg raked over? Where is the new evidence for this old complaint? | |||
| Hmm, actually this is an article about a ] member, not a ] member. So does this even fall under the umbrella of Israel Palestine? Thanks in advance for the advice. –] <small>(])</small> 21:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Only with ] is an attempt at supplying evidence made. The evidence is: | |||
| * No, it doesn't. If it ''was'' (for example) a Hamas member, different admins appear to take different routes. Such articles ''should'' be deleted per ARBECR, but if it was a completely neutral well written article whose very existence wasn't a contentious one, I'd be tempted to let it slide. YMMV. ] 21:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:It might fall under ]. ] (]/]) 22:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Hezbollah is a belligerent in the Arab–Israeli conflict, so, probably. However, per ] ¶ A2, {{tqq|Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.}} <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 23:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::As long as the article is acceptable, this is what ] is for. Notify the creator about the ECR restrictions, template the article talk page, and call it good. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Given that they were specifically when they created another Hezzbollah-related article in November, and were advised of ] at the same time, this seems like a deliberate breach. ] ] 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::In ''that'' case, it should probably be nuked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Administrators are never required to use their tools; no ignoring of rules is needed to simply not take action. ] (]) 00:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't agree that that article is OK, it doesn't seem notable and uses several peacock terms. I would support deletion. ] (]) 18:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| (a)Ghcool’s opinion that PalestineRemembered's edits are largely disgraceful. </BR> | |||
| This emerges as the only reason GHcool has to press for PR's ban, personal dislike.</BR> | |||
| *'''Delete''' ASAP and don't look back. Re: "''does this even fall under the umbrella of Israel Palestine''" An article about a leader of Hezzbolah? Seriously? Yes. ] (]) 18:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| (b) He has been guilty of calling Zionists '''proud of their murderous racism''' </BR> | |||
| *'''Delete''' and block {{np|BasselHarfouch}} site-wide for continued violations. --] (]) 19:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The link takes us to December 2006 where in reply to Robert E.Rubin’s attempt to discredit the fact that Norman Finkelstein is the son of Holocaust survivors, PR replied: | |||
| == Archive bots == | |||
| ::<blockquote>'There's a serious problem protecting the BLP of anyone who has criticised Israel, even if they have credentials as good as Norman Finkelstein. It's very, very wearing to take out, over and over again, these unsubstantiated and utterly pointless edits.Meanwhile, of course, it's impossible ''to insert any evidence against Zionist politicians, no matter how well referenced and indeed proud they may be of their murderous racism''. PalestineRemembered 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)</blockquote> | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = This is not an issue that requires administrative attention. ] (]/]) 23:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Ghcool thus distorts the record. PR had it in for '''Zionist politicians''' (one presumes ], ], ] <BLP vio removed>, not '''Zionists'''(potentially all patriotic Israelis). The remark was in any case duly punished with a 24-hour ban, which was fair enough, though it should have been longer for the solecism in PR's remark. This is again evidence from 1 and a half years ago. | |||
| }} | |||
| Is there a way to have a bot archive articles on a page for you? I vaguely recall such a feature.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 22:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| (c) '''spreading Zionist conspiracy theories'''</BR> | |||
| :{{u|TonyTheTiger}}. Maybe you are thinking of ]? –] <small>(])</small> 09:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The link refers to a comment made 8 months ago, to Jaakobou:</BR> | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Note of caution on attacks on Misplaced Pages's neutrality. == | |||
| ::<blockquote> 'I trust you'll not present yourself as having any understanding of the developing situation. The Saudi inititative is a two-state proposal that leaves Israel intact within the Green Line borders, but it does have to abide by International law (as mostly written or re-written by the US in the aftermath of 1945). And the Saudi proposal has more support amongst Palestinians than does the undefined 'two-state solution' they were offered in that poll. It might be time to start writing this article to WP:policy and reliable sources. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)</blockquote> | |||
| {{atop|1=We know to keep an eye out for "neturality police" IPs/new editors. Speculation on anything more should be left to the WMF per ] (and, indeed, ]). - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| As observed , Musk and others now in positions with Trump's admin are calling out Misplaced Pages's "lack of neutrality". At best they are current only calling for trying to defund it, but given a the craziness of the last 48hrs alone, I would not be surprised to see new or IP editors with strong conservative ideals trying to "fix" the neutrality problem. Nothing we haven't seen before but now that these people have a megaphone to state this, the quantity could become elevated.<span id="Masem:1737504211892:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)</span> | |||
| :Do they mean anything by "defund" other than calling for people to stop donating (and haha, good luck with that one, these attacks seem to have resulted in the opposite)? Can Elon and Trump actually try and freeze the Foundation's assets or anything like that? ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Likely not within a legal framework that exists right now... but they could, for example, pressure Congress to pass a new law, or they could attempt to eliminate the safe harbor protections that the WMF (among other organizations) are given from copyright violations, which would allow people to sue for copyvios being displayed at all, no matter how quickly they're removed. And even if they don't try to make it sound legal, they could always just throw another executive order at the wall and see if it sticks - possibly as part of a "burst" like he did within the first 24 hours of his term. This strategy isn't anything new - trying to overload organizations'/lawyers' capabilities to sue to block those orders, and the courts' ability to handle those suits, during which time they can do what they want. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 00:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is a proposed bill going around that would allow non profits to be stripped of that status should they be considered a terrorist org or support terrorism. While what we do is clearly not that, in this new administration, anything goes. However all that is a WMF problem and I assume they are ready to fight.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>My caution here is that we might see new and IP see these calls as dogwhistles to attack WP in other ways, which we as admin and involved editors can take a ton against.<span id="Masem:1737506377400:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 00:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)</span> | |||
| ::::If the US decides to strip WMF's status then, a total and global outrage might happen. ] (]) 00:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq|they could attempt to eliminate the safe harbor protections that the WMF (among other organizations) are given from copyright violations}} Elon Musk definitely doesn't want to be liable every time someone posts a copyright violating image on Twitter, so I doubt that will happen. ] (]/]) 00:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'd say that we probably shouldn't give them ] for how to attack us. Contrary to what some believe, these are very public noticeboards that are readable to anyone on the Internet. ] ] 01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Legal threat == | |||
| What on earth this completely acceptable statement has to do with the crime of spreading ‘Zionist conspiracy theories’ is unclear. This is a howler, and no one picks it up. | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = Blocked. ] (]/]) 23:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| Apparently my legal team can expect a letter, as announced on ]. I'm obviously involved, haha, so perhaps someone else can assess and do what they think is right. Thanks. ] (]) 23:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| (d) comparing Zionists with Nazis,</BR> | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Disruptive editor == | |||
| Again, the link goes through a time-capsule back to December 2006, and in reply to an editor who asks ‘why no mention of terrorist attacks on Jews’, Palestine remembered wrote:</BR> | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = ]. Level 2 warning issued. ] (]/]) 00:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::<blockquote>'''You could probably write a number of very good articles on oppression aimed at Jews'''. Unfortunately, most of your allies will either be Zionists (who are provably a lot nastier and more dangerous than anything we've seen since 1945) or anti-Zionists (who are appalled that the Holocaust is used as justification for the crimes of Israel). I'm not sure how you'll get round that one - you could start by expressing your outrage at Zionists who, whatever crimes are alleged against Israel, immediately blame the Jews. '''They fail to recognise that the Jews have suffered quite enough from false allegations in the last 2000 years'''. PalestineRemembered 23:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)</blockquote> | |||
| }} | |||
| This again is malicious misrepresentation, since there is no equation of Zionists with Nazis. However you wish to construe what PR is saying, note that PR writes 'Zionists who..' not 'Zionists, who...' | |||
| This now becomes a pattern with Ghcool’s evidence. None of these diffs support the dramatic tabloid titles he supplies them with in glossing their ostensible content. | |||
| (e) comparing Israeli historians with Holocaust deniers, | |||
| (e.i)Note 11.Takes us to an innocuous exchange of views that are far more nuanced that what Ghcool would have us believe. It dates to September 2007 | |||
| Ghcool is satisfied with the state of the ‘causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus’. PR replies.</BR> | |||
| ::<blockquote>'I think it's terrible, gravely distorting what historians say about this business. We seem to have quotations in there from "historians" even less credible than ]. We have historians who believe one thing quoted as if they believed the opposite - and editors claiming that that is a perfectly proper thing to do. PalestineRemembered 18:29, 9 September 2007</blockquote> | |||
| I.e. David Irving is not a credible historian, since he is a denier. Neither is Schechtman, since he, in a different vein, denies obvious facts (and creates malicious untruths passed off as historiography)</BR> | |||
| There are two David Irvings. One was the highly regarded historian of the German military praised by all academic specialists in the 1960s, the other is the Holocaust-denier. PR is referring to a number of Israeli historians of the early postwar period who were responsible for creating a completely false mythical account of the reasons for the exodus, a myth exposed as early as 1961 but which was repeated right down to the 1980s, and which found honourable mention in the aforesaid article.</BR> | |||
| (e.ii) This refers to an exchange on Jan 14 eight months ago. PR writes:- | |||
| ::<blockquote>Yet again, we agree. But I worry the ArbCom don't know what appalling souces get rammed into I-P conflict articles. We in that article saying ''"Until ... May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands."'' I'm confident (and ] has never denied) that '''that clip, alone, is worse than anything ever seen from David Irving'''. While illiterates stalk our articles, the I-P conflict articles, and the conduct surrounding them, will disgrace us. This is a problem we can fix - but only when the ArbCom protects scholars like ]. And also ], recently hounded from the project when his patience and good-nature was trashed. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)</blockquote> | |||
| Apart from the lather, PalestineRemembered again considers Schechtman worse than David Irving. Both deny or affirm absurd things. Pr quotes a notorious piece of propagandistic nonsense by Schechtman, with no basis in the historical record. No one there confuted this. What Schechtman wrote was crap, and Ghcool is only offended at the comparison with David Irving. So? </BR> | |||
| (e.iii) Again Ghcool takes us down the time tunnel, January 2008. He complains of this remark on the talk page of ‘Jewish Lobby’:-</BR> | |||
| ::<blockquote>'''I'm somewhat handicapped discussing hate-sources because I avoid them like the plague'''. But I'd be surprised if ] is as bad (either on grounds of hate or grounds of "gross historical fabrication") than two sources we seem to use a lot, ] and ]. The former is even quoted in a WP article with this astonishing nastiness: ''Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, '''no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands'''. Wounded and dead alike were mutilated. Every member of the Jewish community was regarded as an enemy to be mercilessly destroyed.'' (From his book ''The Arab Refugee Problem'') Prove to me that David Duke have ever come out with anything so outlandish. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)</blockquote> | |||
| Again, PR, though guilty of hyperbole (actually Katz and Schechtman can, with extreme care, be harvested for information, as I once noted, though one must keep in mind their partisanship for terrorism) is expressing contempt for Irving and Duke, but saying to pro-Israeli editors, if you can’t stand lies against your community by holocaust-deniers, why push rubbish by Schechtman and Katz (both associated historically with an organization, the Irgun, that used terroristic methods to achieve statehood) that fabricates vicious untruths about Arabs comparable to the vicious untruths fabricated by Holocaust deniers against Jews. This is the rhetorical strategy. It may be fervid, ineptly put, but the technique is normal in persuasion by analogy.</BR> | |||
| (f) committing logical fallacies and spreading disinformation left and right. -GHcool (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I don’t think this needs comment. Most of the newspaper sources from mainstream press that, for some, form a staple of I/P information, don’t stand a moment’s scrutiny for logical coherence. If logical fallacies were the basis for including or excluding editors, wiki would lose 95% of its regular contributers, from the most brilliant to the average editor. The information on PR provided by Ghcool therefore is void of substance, full of thin historical reminiscence of past behaviour that, in context (don’t read the bolded green patch in the link: read the whole flow and all comments for each diff) has not been exceptional on I/P articles in the past. Strongly worded, opinionated, but to the point, and often rationally argued or sourced reliably. | |||
| Then, LamaLoLeshla notes that his tabloid headings are not backed up by the diffs. Horologium tries to be helpful, but his indications in no way clarify Ghcool’s bad diffs. Since Ghcool’s charges are ancient history, ] twigs us to a copper in the wings, as Ryan did, by telling us to at Jayjg’s forthcoming evidence based on PR’s recent editing. </BR> | |||
| I in turn make a point about the vagueness of these charges, all old history, no evidence. ], also notes that the diffs are insufficient. Both PR and I have had a past record of conflict with him, and his remark at this point is to be thoroughly commended. He is judging this case on the merits of evidence, reading what is said closely, and making his own call. Our differences are enormous, but here is an editor who, though he has a very convinced pro-Israeli point-of-view, is measuring the evidence, against the claims, by his own lights. ] agrees with Jaakobou's call, but suggests a 3 month ban, nothing as drastic as that originally proposed.</BR> | |||
| (3)As the case for a community ban wobbles towards a crash, Jayjg finally shows his hand.</BR> | |||
| (3.a)Palestine remembered is a self-confessed SPA, a propagandist and soapboxer. Like Ghcool Jayjg has a perfect memory and can testify that PR has never made, even once, an edit that is not propaganda.</BR> | |||
| (3.b)A technicality allows Jayjg to raise a specious impression that PR is guilty of sockpuppetry. It is nothing more than that, a play on words, used for the subliminal effect 'sockpuppetry' has on administrators. Wink,wink, nudge,nudge</BR> | |||
| (3.c)Here we finally have contemporary evidence from the last week. ] violation against "the likes of ]". Jay jigs up the following tremendously damning smoking gun from PR's recent edit. | |||
| ::<blockquote>'Shahak did less to Judaism (in far more measured terms) than the likes of ] do to Islam. Compare the two for reliability - Hirsi Ali is known to have lied (she's admitted it publicly) about what Islam did to her life, re-inventing great portions of it even including her name and date of birth. (That was in order to leave the perfectly safe Germany and settle in Holland). She's either chucked up or mysteriously distanced herself from the plum think-tank job she landed in Washington .... safer back in Eurabia than Washington? Whereas Shahak is more respectable in every way, surviving Belsen (1943 aged 10), going to Palestine, serving in an elite regiment of the IDF. He went on to become a professor of chemistry at Hebrew University. I think it's only in 1967 he came to question his faith. Nishidani proves again (above) that Shahak's criticisms of his religion (while hard hitting) bear no resemblance to those of Hirsi Ali, they're veritable models of reason in comparison. Now compare the two for the tone of our treatment - we quote Ayaan Hirsi Ali enthusiastically (as do all sorts of blatant Islamophobes and racists) seemingly delighted to have her say of Islam "Violence is inherent in Islam, it's a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder". In Shahak's case, we ignore the points he has to make, pour scorn on his testimony, and quote his critics saying "world's most conspicuous Jewish antisemite... Like the Nazis before him". Then we further defame Shahak because his words were picked up by racists - even though we know it's completely irrelevant. Moshe Sharrat, 2nd Prime Minister of Israel is also extensively quoted by the antisemitic - so? It's almost as if we're writing the Great Soviet Encyclopedia on ]. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)</blockquote> | |||
| So, what is the enormous crime by wiki criteria in this first piece of evidence for PR’s horribly recalcitrant propagandistic editing? | |||
| Jayjg, read the whole Shahak page and archives, has it in for Shahak. Shahak was a ] ], a Holocaust survivor and secular critic of the ultra-orthodox threat to the development of Israel as a modern democracy. You cannot even begin to understand his critique unless you are familiar with Popper's 2 volume masterpiece, 'The Open Society and its Enemies' and Hadas's theories about Platonic influence via Hellenism on certain currents of rabbinical thinking. He wrote several books on the oddities of rabbinical halakhic and doctrinal traditions. Because he translated and divulgated extensive swathes of opinion from rabbinical sources that will strike most secular minds as bizarre, in a state where Judaic religious identity is still not disentangled from Israeli Jewish identity, Shahak came in for a huge amount of flak. Jayjg has supported cramming the page with poor sources that smear, insinuate and slander the man. Many, myself included, have given up and allowed the mess to stand as a monument to the kind of editing Jayjg rides shotguhn over, while he jumps at people like PR for not respecting Wiki ideals, and retailing 'propaganda'.</BR> | |||
| PR simply said that proIsraeli I/P editors are enamoured of what Ayaan Hirsi Ali says of Islam, yet hate what Shahak says of Orthodox rabbinical thought. Both often say the same thing, that these respective religions shackle human liberty with the queerest of mystical theories. Hirsi Ayaan Ali is hailed as a heroic figure because her enemy is Islam. Shahak is despised as a Jewish antisemite because his enemy was a mode of rabbinical doctrine and thinking he thought tyrannical and totalitarian. Hirsi Ayaan Ali is known to have lied (PR says) and this does not alter the esteem in which she is held. Shahak is said by his bitter enemies to have lied, and this is showcased on his page. The point PR makes is the point made with Irving. I.e., pro-Israeli editors get on their high horses when Israel or Judaism is attacked, in this case by a Jewish critic, and allow the page to carry a large amount of preposterous insinuations from unreliable sources, whereas figures like Hirsi Ayaan Ali critical of Islam (Israel’s putative enemy) are left untouched, when not hailed for their critical boldness in taking on religious obscurantists. To entertain both positions is hypocritical, the duplicity of double standards is disturbing among editors of I/P articles, because one set of criteria is used with regard to Israel, another set used with regard to Israel’s putative enemies or antagonists, even when the situations in both cases are strikingly analogous. PR is thus vigorously deploring nationalist bias in I/P articles. Jayjg thinks this, apparently, deplorable, as deplorable as a man like Shahak, whom the Council of Foreign relations in Washington thought highly enough to consult with regularly over the 1990s. This is, finally, an analogy, of considerable merit, made on a talk page to illustrate what is wrong with Jayjg's editing, and not a violation of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's biography.</BR> | |||
| (3.d)'a BLP violation against Mitchell Bard' | |||
| Again as before the following comment occurs on a Talk Page (] Israel). The contested remark is:-</BR> | |||
| ::<blockquote> Bard comes across as a serious propagandist with a particular interest in denial. His contains such gems as ''MYTH: "Settlements are an obstacle to peace."'' He should try and persuade Condoleeza Rice of that. CAMERA's single-mindedness and attitude to integrity doesn't need further discussion, there's been an RfC on it and other action. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)</BR> | |||
| Well? Bard is not a reliable source. The remark he is cited as making is a nonsense, since every Israeli government (bar Netanyahu’s perhaps) has, in its negotiations, allowed that there is a problem with settlements, and every world body consulted thinks so too, since they are not on land legally belonging to the state of Israel. With comments like that, one can only reply: ‘Non c’è trippa per gatti’. PR’s remark is innocuous, and a correct call to boot. It is not a BLP violation of Mitchell Bard to say, on a talk page where his irrelevant views are pushed, that he is a ‘serious propagandist’ who denies what Israeli negotiators admit to be the truth, i.e. that settlements are the central issue of contention, and an obstacle to be overcome, in peacetalks. Talk pages are full of such comment, whenever bad sources from second raters in the commentariat are being pushed in.</BR> | |||
| (3.e)'some sort of weird attacks on Paul Bogdanor'</BR> | |||
| (3.e.i) refers to a long discussion agreeing with another poster, on technical questions of branding people ‘deniers’ of genocide. It concludes:-</BR> | |||
| ::<blockquote>Lastly, there are other examples which must look perilously close to denial - it's difficult to imagine that in this republished 1962 leaflet (?) are taken very seriously by anyone who know anything of this case. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| (3.e.ii)Interacting with ] on his talk page, PR mentions ]:-</BR> | |||
| ::<blockquote> Hi Relata - I came across from ]'s web-site - he's re-publishing a 1962 pamphlet (?) that looks pretty much like gross historical distortion to me (everyone agrees that Kastner collaborated with the Nazis - and almost everyone thinks that, late in the war, he tricked some 450,000 of his fellows to go quietly to the ovens). I then discovered that his reliability was recently discussed . From the WP article on Bogdanor I found and checked , much of which also appears to me to be gravely distorted. I wondered if this discussion should be taken to the board again. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)</BR> | |||
| So, what’s the ruckus about this, where's the huge violation of wiki policies involved here. A note on Paul Bopgdanor asking for a second opinion. Bogdanor is a hack writer, without any competence on Kastner, or anything else to do with I/P articles (in Jayjg’s own severe standards on WP:RS) and PR asked for advice to confirm her own reasonable impressions. Those who track and sort out who’s saying what to whom on I/P articles have clipped this out as damning evidence, of what? That PR, like a large part of the serious commentariat, thinks anything Bogdanor has to say can be safely ignored without drastic loss of wisdom?</BR> | |||
| Jayjg protests at PR saying 'Everyone agrees that Kastner collaborated. He thinks, evidently that some people do not agree that Kastner collaborated with the Nazis. But '''Everybody does agree''', however, '''that Kastner collaborated with Nazis, since he did'''. And to say he didn’t would be to controvert a huge mass of contemporary documentation. It is not a claim, it is a matter of fact. In the second part of PR's remark to which Jayjg takes exception, we read:</BR> | |||
| ::<blockquote> '''almost everyone''' thinks that, late in the war, he tricked some 450,000 of his fellows to go quietly to the ovens'''.</blockquote> | |||
| What Jayjg ignores, crucially, is that ''almost''. Ignoring that ''almost'' wilfully then allows him to make a Mountain out of a non-existent molehill, a fuss about the ostensible exception to PR's generalization. i.e. Anna Porter’s 'Kazstner's Train: The True Story of Rezsö Kasztner, Unknown Hero of the Holocaust', which argues that Kastner was a hero. So? PR said '''almost''', not '''everyone'''. '''Almost''', Jayjg, in English usage here, means, contextually, almost everyone (except Anna Porter, for example). I won’t go into the Kastner case, and the large literature on that episode, as, I think, Relata refero redmarks, that it is a very complex case (the tradition behind sacrificing a large community to save a few however has been studied, not least by Israel Shahak, a taboo he and ] worried over all their lives, and for which many have never forgiven them for having voiced their malaise publicly) but I would suggest that Jayjg instead of whipping up froth and foam out of PR’s truism, meditate on the interview his link directs us to where Anna Porter is quoted as saying:</BR> | |||
| ::<blockquote>'He's the only Jewish Holocaust survivor who saved lives. There isn't anybody else really.'</blockquote> | |||
| I.e. Porter who shouts her ignorance in this remark, is also saying that of the 2 to 4 million Jews who survived the Holocaust, no one, except Kastner, lifted a finger to save a fellow Jew. And you have the brashness to assert, after reading this extraordinary generalization, that PR makes remarks characterized by tendentious nonsense?</BR> | |||
| (3.f)Jayjg concludes his shabby brief with the following ] judgement:'Tendentious nonsense . . characterizes the editor behind ] it's his dogged and dogmatic persistence; he waited out previous lengthy blocks, and returned from them completely unchanged. I see no reason to think a lengthier block will produce a novel result. Jayjg (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| To use that language on the strength/weakness of the ostensible evidence, rigged up out of a few lame diffs, against another wikipedian is probably a violation of ]. All I can see here is an attempt to finish unsettled old scores, a vendetta, personal dislike, and factitious material jerryrigged to waste another editor, whose faults, acknowledged by many, are venial, and certainly not conspicuous, in the record placed before us here. Nothing adduced here warrants such comments on PR's recent behaviour as both GHcool and Jayjg have attempted to document it. This is, therefore, a farce. | |||
| But, in fine, ], examining this travesty of evidence, one can only sigh with a slight infraction of metrical proprieties, with ] (Serm. Lib,I, 1, 69-70), in parsing the intemperate language and characterisations of congenitially poor editing you have brandished here against PR: ''Quid derides? Mutato nomine, de te fabula narratur''.] (]) 15:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Palestine Remembered's edits are frequently out of proportion to the sources which he cites. he often writes with clear political predilections and agendas. --] (]) 19:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::But these topics are politically very sensitive and there are equally valid but completely different opinions in the reliable sources. Compare PR's behavior to your own behavior some time ago on the Global Warming page. In that case the reliable sources (i.e. the peer reviewed sources and not the unreliable blogs) are very clear, yet we have to put up with editors who refuse to recognize the basic facts. ]. ] (]) 20:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: gee, thanks. not only do i get a whole new editor casting aspersions on me, it's on a whole new topic to boot. thanks so much. --] (]) 21:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] :) ] (]) 22:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Count Iblis, your insertion of irrelevancies and non sequitirs here, in order to throw aspersions at me, seems a bit uncivil and not completely appropriate here. We are trying to discuss specific topics here. (By the way, if your armada reference was meant to be humorous, I can take some wry humor here as well as anyone here, but it did not appear that way, and seemed like an unfriendly act. I don't mind some off-topic conversation, but it seemed like some sudden negative material unrelated to the topic at hand. if you are trying to strike a light note, I feel you should try to do so differently.) --] (]) 13:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Ok, let me exlain this a bit better then. You wrote "Palestine Remembered's edits are frequently out of proportion to the sources which he cites. he often writes with clear political predilections and agendas". My reply to you, based on your conduct on the GW page ] ] (]) 21:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Your remarks ARE AD HOMINEM AND TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE. I would appreciate it if you would please try to stck to the point. Your remarks have no relation to the topic under discussion. thanks. --] (]) 02:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: Ok, let me stick to the point then. If you think it is ok. to invite editors from the "Conservatism in the US" page to come over to the Global Warming page, which is primarily about the science of Global Warming, not politics, and then defend that by saying "I guess our main difference is that I don't view this only as a science article, but as a societal/political topic as well.", then what is PR doing wrong when he brings the Palestinian POV in articles about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? ] (]) 14:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Gosh, it sure is great to see how well-expressed you are...(sarcasm). your entire approach to this is completely counter-productive. you are beuing extremely contentious. ok, I have no desire to reply to anything which you have stated. are you trying to send the message that you disagree with my action? ok, you win, since I have no desire to reply to your questions which are phrased in a completely non-productive and contentious way. | |||
| ::::::::::you have completely ignored the issue here, and brought up concerns about my past actions in a way which is completely counter to any norms of productive discussions. I find your approach completely unhelpfu, and decline to reply. Ok, you win. Yay! --] (]) 15:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::By the way, to answer your question, the two situations are NOT ANALOGOUS. So your points do not in any way refute the valid concerns which I raised. your method of discussing this is totally one-dimensional and contentious. thanks. --] (]) 16:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Further discussion=== | |||
| ::::::I'd like to bring us back to the criteria for a community-wide or topic-ban. What are indeed the criteria? Cheating, and edit-warring, PR says. I'd have to agree with him/her that I don't see evidence to that effect. So, please, as someone who's only been here for a few months, could someone explain to me, with an emphasis on recent concerns, first, what the specific charges are here which merit permanent banning, and second, offer support. ] (]) 23:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Holy mother of pearl, that was long Nishidani. I'll try to be much briefer: | |||
| # I actually do know a fair bit about Kastner and the allegations raised regarding him, having written most of the ] article and contributed significantly to the ] article. No, not "everyone agrees that Kastner collaborated". Kastner negotiated with the Nazis, trying to make a deal to trade Allied goods for Jewish lives. Whether or not this negotiation ever had a chance of succeeding is a matter for debate amongst historians, and there are some writers who think that Kastner knew they had no chance, and was only in it for himself - Vrba and Gruenwald primary among them. However, that is certainly not the consensus among ''historians'', far from it. ] certainly does not agree, nor does ]. But if Nishidani thinks that "almost everyone" thinks that Kastner was a collaborator who betrayed hundreds of thousands of Jews, and that Porter's award-winning book is bunk, let him produce the many reliable historians who say so. And no, despite your citing ] as a reliable source on Kastner, I nevertheless do not consider him to be one. | |||
| # Aayan Hirsi Ali, Mitchell Bard, and Paul Bogdanor are all ], and Misplaced Pages discussion regarding them is covered by the ] policy, regardless of your personal opinions regarding them. | |||
| # PalestineRemembered claimed that his account was a "legitimate" SPA, used to edit I-P articles. Since he is now using the account to edit other articles, it is no longer a legitimate SPA, but instead, merely a second account, which in Misplaced Pages terminology, is called a "sockpuppet". It no longer possess the alleged "legitimacy" it once claimed. | |||
| Finally, regarding your claim that "Jayjg, every edit of yours I have observed over two years looks like a defence of a national image interest", in the past month I have written these two articles: ], ], brought the following article I created to GA status: ], created three Did You Know articles, including ] and ], completely re-written and tripled the size of ] to save it from deletion, written ], ], ], ], and 34 stubs. Your powers of observation do not appear to be very good. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Jayjg, In regards to point 3, could you possibly point out where the evidence is that: | |||
| :# PR uses multiple accounts; and | |||
| :# simply having multiple accounts is considered sock-puppetry? My reading of ]'s lead suggests otherwise. | |||
| :It seems a pretty big leap to go from "What used to be an SPA is now editing other areas of Misplaced Pages" to "The user is deceptively abusing sock-puppet accounts". Even if PR ''did'' have another account, I would see no problem, as long as never the twain shall meet. | |||
| :-- ] ] 02:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are correct, I had always believed from his statement that he was an SPA editing only I-P related articles that he was declaring PalestineRemembered to be a secondary account, as per ], reason #1. I see now that it was an assumption on my part. Perhaps he can clarify. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Uh... he is (or was) a "single-purpose account", which is what we call people who show up only to promote their band, categorize railroads by state, or block bad usernames. It says nothing about having another account. --] 04:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, I just stated that I now see it was merely an assumption on my part, based on my quite possibly erroneous inference that he was using the account for ], reason #1. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 05:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''Short-version'''. Judging by the evidence so far, to file for a community ban on ANI without evidence that stands up to scrutiny looks like ] to me. | |||
| :::'''Long-version'''. Reply to ] I'll answer in Hysteron-proteron sequence, for convenience. | |||
| :::<blockquote>'(My) powers of observation do not appear to be very good' </blockquote> | |||
| :::Perhaps. What I do have is a fair competence in construing sentences in a few languages to determine what they mean, and how, in a sequence of discursive exchanges, the logical content of the respective sentences flows. You make the same mistake above as you did with PR's comment on Kastner. I said, addressing you, 'every edit of yours '''I have observed''' over two years' . You now list many edits you have made which '''I haven't observed''', in order to disprove a generalisation made strictly in terms of my own experience. Since I don't track you, but merely note what you do on pages I edit, I restrict myself to that. So, as is, unfortunately, normal in low-key banter, there is little trace of logical coherence between what I stated, which remains true, and what you argue in a specious reply, which addresses something I never said. The hypothetical statement, which by your misprision, you attribute to me and then rebut, takes the form, 'Every edit you have made on Misplaced Pages, Jayjg, looks like a defence of a national/ethnic interest'. Since I never said this, your reply, while interesting, does not answer to what I said. | |||
| :::I know a lot of people here hunt each other, check each other's logs, email around, etc. I don't. I make my calls strictly (if naturally subjectively) on the evidence of what I see. Permit me to add. That you enrich wiki with many contributions on Jewish topics is something you can justifiably be proud of. That your edits on anything regarding Palestinians overwhelmingly strike many others as bordering on a pretextual (i.e.wikilawyering) censoriousness that seriously damages the highest aim of this collaborative endeavour, (encyclopedicity) may equally yield a sense of self-satisfaction. It would be ungenerous to deny the justifiable pride with which you document your contributions to the Jewish side of wikipedia. It would be dishonest to hide one's feeling that the satisfactions of impoverishing otherwise good work on Palestinians are to be deplored. To illustrate (hmm.tracking me?), since ] makes films for Italian TV, and endlessly dominates talkshows here on Palestinian terrorism (is it a violation of BLP to say here that she never allows anyone to get a word in edgewise?), that edit I made months ago on her page, indicating that she lives in Gilo, on the West Bank, is pertinent. It simply allows the reader who may check, to know that Nirenstein happens to be, herself, a 'settler' on Palestinian territory. I see last night you have eliminated it, I can imagine with, let me be ironical, a mow of triumphant schadenfreude?. Nirenstein will thank you. People who know nothing of her background will now check wiki and not know that when she speaks of settlers, she has a conflict of interest. Good job. | |||
| :::'''Kastner'''. Collaborate? Cooperate? In the first edition of his masterpiece, Raul Hilberg uses the words interchangeably. Later, he preferred 'cooperate', because, I presume 'cooperate' lacks certain wartime nuances associated with 'collaborate'. Substantively, however, ''c'est la même différence''. | |||
| :::Your remarks on PR's sparse comments re Kastner make up (since they gather in Paul Bogdanor etc.) almost half of your comments, which were supposed to supply serious evidence. They are (a)immaterial to any brief on PR's putative violations of WP rules, except if one wishes to raise a comber's lather over ]. (b) You are contesting the '''veracity''' of a generalization made by PR on a talk page. That's within your rights, but on the relevant talk page. At least half of those editing pages I am familiar with do not seem to have any background knowledge of the subject, but simply take off from reading preexisting links on the page. That's why one needs extensive comments on Talk pages, such as, in this case, PR provided, esp. with Ayaan Hirsi Ali. | |||
| :::You will differ with PR on Kastner, as, in major key, ] differed with ] on these issues. To make a challengeable, historically questionable, generalization (were this the case, which is arguable) on a talk page does not constitute a violation of wiki rules. (Sir Martin, an extraordinary historian, is a generalist on this, and not pertinent, by the way). You ''did'' make a major error in construing ''almost everyone'' as ''everyone'', and in generalizing from a statement that syntactically allowed for the very exception you then adduced to rebut PR, you committed a serious oversight of construal and logic, which sunk your subsequent argument about Paul Bogdanor and Anna Porter. You now say, standing corrected, that even ''almost everyone'' is not true. Even were that so, nothing is altered. PR was entitled to make that judgement on a talk page. | |||
| :::Therefore, though it is absolutely immaterial to the question under review, and should never have been raised in the first place, I'll respond to your remarks on Kastner. The point is indeterminable, since it depends on a subjective value judgement, how third parties view the decision of one Jew to save himself, his family and 1600 other Jews, in exchange for collaborating/cooperating with Nazis (because deemed inevitable) 450,000 other Jews to die unwittingly. A variation on ]. Jews who descended from those he and the ] saved, will thank him. Non-descendents of the 450,000 Jews (Jewish Communists and the poor were often the first to be sacrificed) are not around to express their aborted feelings. More than 1 in 40 or 50 would probably have survived had the Judenräte dropped their age-old 'Am Yisrael chai' outlook, and told everyone, rich and poor, affines and strangers in the Jewish communities alike, to scram, shoot back, refuse to make, let alone wear the yellow star, since they were to be murdered, instead of conning them about new prospects for emigration in the East. Kastner's choice bartered several thousand for half a million. Some think one should refuse to play god, if asked to do so by the scum under Satan's hegemony in a topsy-turvy world where hell rules paradise. Kastner's choice is understandable, to some, perhaps. But there is nothing heroic in it, as it appears Porter's book argues. Faced with this dilemma, ] blew out his brains. I wish he had not wasted the shot, and asked for a final interview with, and killed, ] instead. The result would have been the same, but had the likes of Kastner shot at the Eichmanns of this world, they would have set an heroic example for their communities, instead of deceiving the overwhelming majority to march in lockstep towards that 'elsewhere' the Kastners they trusted knew to be Auschwitz. It has been often argued by eruditely reasonable men that, as a consequence, in Israel, extreme overcompensation for that fatal error of compliance under conditions of Holocaust is what has shattered every prospect for a wholly uninvolved people, the Palestinians, in their struggle for statehood (yes, ]). | |||
| :::As for Bard and Bogdanor, this is an encyclopedia that aspires to quality. Neither of them even nudges the midget's calypso bar for intelligent analysis of I/P issues. If PR saw efforts to use them on general articles, (s)he did well to protest, on Talk, at the use of factitious, blindly partisan sources. You are, rather exquisitely, hoist by your own petard here: since elsewhere you refuse to allow any citation from any academic, even of world-wide repute, on a topic he hasn't appropriate doctoral qualifications for, you cannot hold PR hostage over BLP for applying exactly the same criterion (which you yourself insist on) when PR notes someone pushing Bogdanor or Bard. You roast PR for dismissing quarter-baked minds in a tiresome commentariat on some pages, and, with what looks like a theatrical ''volte-fa(r)ce'' for bemused onlookers like myself, exclude first-rate minds (David Shulman, ] to cite just two examples) on others. You are culpable here of pushing ] to defend bad sources (on a talk page discussion), that favour Israel, while availing yourself of ], in the strictest imaginable definition, to keep eminently good sources from being harvested for other (Palestinian) articles. One should not, as here, use the wiki rulebook as a convenience tool, to be cherry-picked for strategic advantages, according to what you yourself want to see, or not see, on a page. PR's analogy of Shahak's disgraceful treatment, which you support, with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, was a very intelligent piece of talk commentary, ìlluminating for the way it brought out the scandalous partisan nature of ethnic-interest editing on I/P pages. People should not have the rulebook thrown at them when they make intelligent remarks. Wiki is not a democracy, but it ain't ]'s morocratic dystopia, with the intelligent comfortably enisled off the soma-doped mainland, either (so far). ] (]) 15:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::<small>Re your comments to Avi further above and to Jayjg here: I suggest sticking to verifiable facts only and avoiding colourful language speculating on editors' motives or emotions. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:1.4em;">☺</span> ] (]) 23:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::Nishidani, I guess I should thank you for following up your previous 4,200 word post with a comparatively terse one of only 1,500 words. I'll also try to be even more brief that before. | |||
| ::::#"Co-operate" and "collaborate" are indeed different, and Kastner bargained to save 1 million Jews in return for Allied goods, not 1,600 Jews in return for 450,000. The claim that Kastner's true goal was the latter rather than the former was advanced by Vrba, an incredible and heroic figure, but one nonetheless wedded to views that most historians reject, including both Bauer ''and'' Hilberg; when confronted with the fact that his estimate of the number of Jews killed in Auschwitz was twice that of respected Holocaust historians, Vrba replied "Hilberg and Bauer don't know enough about the history of Auschwitz or the Einsatzgruppen." More to the point, PalestineRemembered's claim was demonstrably and obviously false, exaggerated soapboxing and hyperbole made solely for the purpose of demonizing Zionists, particularly those who had a hand in creating Israel. You have not "corrected" me in any way, but rather have been corrected yourself. There is no getting around these simple and irrefutable points, even if you post another 4,200 or even 42,000 more words. | |||
| ::::#] is serious policy, and it applies to all living people, including Ali, Bogdanor, and Bard. One can certainly challenge their validity as sources for Misplaced Pages articles, but that does not mean PalestineRemembered or you can simply insult them. Stop defending PalestineRemembered's abuse of the policy, and stop abusing it yourself in defense of him. | |||
| ::::PalestineRemembered has now burned out how many of his mentors; three? four? This is not the fault of his mentors. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::In general you’re right, the problem is not with the mentors per se. Rather there are a host of other problems, mostly arising from the fact that mentorship has put PR under a level of scrutiny other I/P editors are not subjected to – indeed, a level of scrutiny under which, frankly, they would not fare any better than he has. This peculiar situation has been abused in several ways, but most egregiously by other editors funneling disinformation to PR’s mentors.--] (]) 17:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::On the contrary, the egregious abuse here is on the part of PR's enablers, who, rather than firmly insisting he use reliable sources and make neutral edits, instead defend his every soapbox comment and indefensible action as part of some "disinformation" plot against him. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I may not be able to complete my participation here, if this drags on, because I have a computer with a cracked hard disk, and technicians are all on vacation. Every time I request a page, having jiggered my way into windows past numerous warning signs and software rejections, I must wait anything from minutes to an hour. This in case I fail to reply to further comments. | |||
| ::::::]. PR has been, in this case, 'burned', irrespective of whether mentors have been burned out or not (There is more than anecdotal evidence that some of her editors have been pestered by complaints aimed at unsettling the relationship). It appears she has been ''burnt'' rather maliciously. Ryan's frustration is the only evidence I respect, but I note that, apparently, prior to his making his complaint on ANI, you had plastered some protests about PR on his page. The only evidence for malefaction, infringement of wiki rules we have came from GHcool's exercise in fossicking in the archives for dead and buried (and sanctioned) behaviour, and what you then came in to supply. What you supplied has been systematically shown to be factitious. | |||
| ::::::(a) You now admit the sockpuppetry gambit reflects a misunderstanding on your part. Thus it must be discarded. | |||
| ::::::(b) You complained about infringements of ] re ], ], Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and PR's remark on Kastner's posthumous reputation. | |||
| ::::::(b.1) I showed that your complaint about Pr's dismissal of Paul Bogdanor and Mitchell Bard is improper. Neither is qualified to comment on I/P articles according to the restrictive reading you use, on occasion, of ]. PR's dismissal of them as RS is perfectly consonant with your dismissal, elsewhere of Ian Lustick and David Shulman as reliable sources. Your approach to wiki rules is incoherent, not PR's. We are asked, optimally, to edit articles using sources of the highest quality, and avail ourselves of screeds written by partisan panjandrums (William Safire's words) from the lower ''gironi'' of the commentariat. | |||
| ::::::(b.2)], you argue, was described by PR in a way that violates ]. You take exception to the fact that PR noted AHA admits to having lied about her past. In saying this on a talk page, she is violating, in your view ], and thus must be sanctioned with a permanent community ban. This 'piece of evidence' is absurd to the point of outrageousness. This is what the wiki page on Ayaan Hirsi Ali notes:- | |||
| :::::::<blockquote>'Once in the Netherlands, she requested political asylum and received a residence permit. It is not known on what grounds she received political asylum, though '''she has admitted that she had lied by devising a false story''' about having to flee Mogadishu . .'</blockquote> | |||
| ::::::In other words, you, ], are requesting that PR receive a lifetime ban on wiki (I/P) articles for, among other things, having quoted in paraphrase on the ] talk page, what the wiki page on Ayaan Hirsi Ali says. Your imputation to PR of a gross violation of ] consists, unbelievably, of evidence which shows PR simply paraphrased what a wiki page dedicated to that woman records. ''Bref''. PR is to be eternally exiled because she cited a documented fact registered on a consensually edited wiki biographical page. What's your game here? What's all this about violations of ] from someone whose editing on the Israel Shahak page, a distinguished Jew, consistently supports the retention of frivolous gossip by many kibitzers without his talmudic learning and philosophical acumen, that trashes and slanders his memory. Oh yes, Shahak's dead, so anything can be said, and he was a secular critic of a certain politically-potent vein in messianic Judaism. | |||
| ::::::As to Kastner, it is, I repeat immaterial. The only difference here, is that you dislike PR (and my) views of Kastner. Twice you misread our remarks, and made a huge to-do out of this misprision. So be it. You seem to be endeavouring to get a person you dislike banned because of a reasonable judgement that person made on a talk page, one shared by many respectable scholars, about a controversial figure. | |||
| ::::::All I have seen in this long complaint against PR is ]. Over the past two years, PR has had registered against him/her numerous complaints, some serious, several frivolous, and, on my side of the border is considered to be a 'scalp' the 'opposition' seems to regard as worth taking, not because PR's actual editing is deplored (what pages has PR's editing despoiled?). But because of his/her attitude. PR has suffered several suspensions (I four, for that matter, many arising, coolly viewed, from exasperation at poor (tagteam)editing and harassment). Outside editors and admins, reviewing the log at speed get a poor impression, and, now that we have a fresh complaint, scour the names of the plaintiffs (old hands) rapidly check the diffs, and miss virtually all of the subtextual and contextual play. If I had to sum up what has occurred in one word, it is barratry. | |||
| ::::::With Avi, and PR, I have discussed the larger problem in depth quietly on our respective pages, with none of the veiled politeness or wikilawyering that runs through this page. Though Avi will not agree with me that what we have here is barratry, since his eye is focused on what is, admittedly, PR's exasperation, and the influence of that exasperation on his/her functional productivity on I/P articles, and I agree with him that PR is exasperated (only I tend to sympathize with the reasons for that exasperation), we have asked PR to consider a rest period, to withdraw voluntarily for a few months. PR, (though Avi and I disagree on this) appears to be innocent of anything charged against him/her here, has agreed to this. I.e. though innocent of the charges made against him/her, PR has taken advice from two editors, one with high standing on both sides (Avi) and my own disreputable self. I think that acceptance of advice she has received from both sides, a painful thing to do under the circumstances, proof of PR's integrity and respect for the community, and that we should, at this point, simply lay off arguing with each other, and let PR, Avi, G-Dett, and administrators etc., mull either this, or as Avi has with exemplary generosity offered, vet the possibility of a fifth mentorship, where he has offered to assist. I personally think PR should lay off for 2 months, and then come back to ask, preferably Avi, and some other admin, to assist his/her editing, and to restrict the focus of editing to one or two pages at a time. | |||
| ::::::This is no longer a matter of 'evidence': it is a matter of finding a way to improve the conditions under which PR might return to editing I/P articles, with a more refined awareness of what Pr should learn to avoid in order that excuses for barratry or, alternatively, reasons for serious complaint as in the past, arise in the future.] (]) 13:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I must commend you, Nishidani, managing to produce yet another 1200 word tome, and with a cracked hard disk! In response: | |||
| :::::::#Regarding the sockpuppeting, in my experience the ''only'' time people self-declare an account to be a SPA is when they have another account for editing in other areas. PR stated his account was an SPA, and I assumed that it was also an admission that PR was a second account, but he did not state his account was an second account. That is all we know. And there was no "gambit", nor any "barratry"; if you must write at such length, at least have the courtesy to avoid this kind of hyperbole. | |||
| :::::::#You keep missing, or ignoring, the point about Ali, Bogdanor, and Bard. I'll repeat it; they are ], and one therefore cannot insert unsourced or poorly sourced material about them ''anywhere'' on Misplaced Pages, including Talk: pages. ''That'' is the only relevant point here. And that applies to calling them "quarter-wits" too. | |||
| :::::::#Since you keep bringing up Shahak, rather than comparing his article to Ali's, a more apt comparison would be of Shahak's writings on Judaism to ]'s on Islam. | |||
| :::::::#You claim that "prior to making his complaint on ANI, had plastered some protests about PR on his page." I did indeed make '''one''' comment about PR on Ryan's Talk: page, in '''May''', after PR was blocked for ''again'' adding material sourced to jewsagainstzionism.com, which PR still (after many, many months, and many explanations) insists is a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards - a personal website run by an anonymous religious extremist, whose only contact is a Post Office box. You do go on about reliable sources, but this absurdity somehow escapes your comment. Also notable is your rather obviously inaccurate description of my actions. If someone had so inaccurately described PR's actions as you described mine, you would no doubt be instantly writing 5,000 word essays in his defense; the contrast is startling. | |||
| :::::::#I did not develop a lengthy case against PR, but merely made a brief comment pointing out some recent and troubling Talk page comments of his - comments which are still quite troubling, regardless of your lengthy, but unsuccessful, attempts to defend the indefensible. However, there are plenty more edits to choose from, if one were to want to; for example, his fairly recent edit-warring on behalf of an IP editor to insert this into the ] article. A google search finds it mentioned only on these two websites: - if it were an actual quote, it would have been prominently displayed on hundreds, perhaps even some reliable ones. Not only did PR re-insert the "quote", but he then petitioned his mentor, Ryan, declaring its removal to be "vandalism" even though he stated the quote "may or may not be true", and asked to be released from his I-P editing restrictions so he could revert it in again. '''That''' is the kind of action that rapidly burns out a mentor. | |||
| ::::::: ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Review of evidence too long, but did read=== | |||
| ]. The argument that PR has done nothing - at least nothing mentioned by his "opponents" - worthy of a ban is pretty persuasive. The problem is that everyone involved has a strong opinion, and it may be hard to avoid having one after reading enough to contribute to the topic area. | |||
| As he was mentioned above, I read about ]. It's an interesting story, and I can honestly say that I cannot judge him, at least based on what's presented in the article. Whether it's wrong to sacrifice many to save some is a very complicated moral question. But I also found that the article concentrates too much on that moral question and other unanswerable questions and not enough on what he actually did (or what people say he did), and that hurts its quality. For instance, the "assassination" section contains this ] sentence: "But the idea that the killing was a government cover-up has been described as "absolute nonsense" because the head of the intelligence service was a close personal friend of Kastner." | |||
| What's really needed is a '''committee''' of people with no strong views but the desire and ability to learn more about the situation to get involved, and possibly '''arbitrarily''' make decisions to improve the quality of the articles. Unfortunately, we don't have something like that, and I really have no suggestions. --] 02:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::NE2's notion of a "committee of people with no strong views but the desire and ability to learn more about the situation" is a good idea on its face, but it won't work in this situation. There are literally two mutually exclusive bodies of "truth" regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, each with its own library of "reliable sources," etc. Any effort at getting to the bottom of things will inevitably convince the subscribers to one or the other perspective that the party making an objective assessment of the facts has become compromised, whether it has or hasn't. ] (]) 14:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :'''PalestineRemembered comments''' Thankyou for the careful attention you've paid to the evidence and details of this case, the project would benefit hugely if others were doing the same. | |||
| :Regarding "a Committee", unfortunately, WP is currently structured on no interference with "content disputes". However, all is not lost, because each of the discussions above demonstrates that editors care passionately about "cheating" (even if there is wild disagreement over what it covers and the word itself is very much frowned upon). The project has proved that it can (sometimes) deal with at least one form of cheating, abusive sock-puppetry (unfortunately, its record is less than perfect even there). | |||
| :My opinion is that the project needs to take cheating much more seriously - the problem is so serious that even declaring one's own integrity () is the very must unpopular thing one can do. It leads straight to calls for total muzzling () even from those who are not personally implicated in this lying and cheating and covering-up. Well, I say there is no element of cheating in that example - a call for the most severe sanctions possible on an editor clearly being witch-hunted would turn the stomach of at least some people. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::PR. We are not here to argue for our respective integrity, however embattled in talk skirmishes. We are here (I was here) specifically to improve articles. I/P articles are, notoriously, among the hardest to edit. Precisely for this reason, to edit fruitfully, one must simply decide, whatever the nonsense one may observe on the opposed side (from whichever perspective) to plug away stoically, master one's natural sensitivities, and look to the articles' wellbeing. I have done my best to show that, in this instance, there is no substance to the evidence supporting calls for a community ban. But I have not mentioned that I have considerable regard for Ryan, and for several other editors and admins in here who, though they straddle the frontier, do appear to feel that when someone has his or her fourth mentor throw in the towel with exasperation, that person should pause to reflect instead of sitting down to watch the outcome of a spectacle and feeling vindicated, and then rushing to evoke words like 'lying' 'cheating', 'cover-up' 'muzzling' etc. I think at this point that, while I, for one, regard you as wholly cleared (others will disagree) of the charge made, I think you have not reflected sufficiently on the aims of wikipedia, an encyclopedia which requires editors to sacrifice their time in order to write articles, and avoid like the plague abetting the inevitable poisoning of the well caused by insinuation.] (]) 16:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''Avraham's comments to PR''' As regards your characterizations of my initial comments as "total muzzling," please remain intellectually honest and take into account both my of what i believe would be appropriate, as well as with Nishdani. What is both slightly humorous, as well as sad, is that for the past year, I may have been one of your most vocal defenders from the non-Palestinian camp. You are obviously intelligent and well-read; it makes it all the more so disappointing when you seem to "skirt" the line of civility, or in this case, almost, but not quite, misrepresent my current opinions on the matter through selective quotation. Perhaps you did not notice my changing my stance; understood. But when making "charged" statments, be it about users or about issues, the onus is on the statement maker to ensure that the statements remain accurate. The old saw of "extreme statements need extreme sources" applies everywhere, not just places like the JewsagainstZionism sourcing issues. | |||
| :::PR, you are usually not guilty of gross trolling or open name-calling. However, for better or for worse, you have exhibited an editing style and behavior that has rubbed many people the wrong way; has exhausted the patience or ability of a number of mentors, and has you in the community spotlight on a regular basis. As I in the past, were you to channel your energy, efforts, and ability away from ideologically-charged editing and into more neutral editing, you would be a very valuable editor. But now, your efforts are wasted in the constant frictional battles that arise, and your editing style does not beget you many supporters outside of your ideological camp. I continue to maintain that a break from P/I articles for, let's say six months, wherein you focus your abilities elsewhere, and then a return to these articles, under guidance, where you can show how you work '''with''' ''all'' other editors to reach acceptable compromises and consensus, will stand ALL of us in good stead for the long term. Trying to apply your ability to craft intelligent phraseology to ''minimize'' ideologically charged issues as opposed to trying to find the most extreme cases to magnify the issues would be my suggestion. -- ] (]) 17:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am not going to opine on the specific situation, which people who have read all the evidence have done above. (Though as an uppity woman who sympathizes with uppity palestinians who also get spanked for being uppity, I may have my little prejudices.) Anyway, it just occurs to me from a comment about the intractable differences between the two sides that perhaps each disputed article (or section) should just have separate sections of approximately equal lengths/# of footnotes with whatever WP:RS info people wanted to enter and some third neutral parties would decide what is or isn't WP:RS. Just a crazy thought!! ''PS: If only administrators are supposed to post here, the top of page should make that clearer. Not sure now.'' Carol Moore 18:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)] ] | |||
| :::::Carol, anyone may post here. The purpose is to have a centralized area to bring items to administrators, but anyone may do so, as well as comment on the proceedings. Personally, I disagree with your suggestion, as that starts us down the slippery slope of having ideologically-based articles and not ] articles. We ares supposed to be en encyclopedia, not a debating forum. However necessary the latter may be, there is a place for it in life and on the internet; however,[REDACTED] is not supposed to be that place. Thank you. -- ] (]) 18:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Avi (and others): Nixeagle suggests above an RfC about PR. Or, should another mentor step forward to replace Ryan? Or, if mentorship is dropped, how should the divisive situation be handled? Thanks. ] | ] 22:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::An RFC would be asking for trouble/drama. And well you are not going to get another mentor. PR's opponents will simply see any mentor as a weapon to use against PR or if the mentor does not allow themselves to be used as such as an obsticle that has to be removed. Your best bet for keeping the situation quiet for a bit would be to topic ban all sides but you would need an arbcom ruleing for that.] 03:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::My time is spread extremely thinly as it is, so I do not know how much it would help, but I will extend the same offer to you, PR, as I have with others, in that I would be willing to act as a co-mentor. What this entailed in the past was that communication was copied to both mentors simultaneously, with both mentors having the ability to act independantly, if necessary. Perhaps this would assuage some of your concerns, Geni, as I am naturally ideologically disposed in a manner different than PR, I am less likely to be "used as a weapon" by any opposition. A situation similar to the method Isarig's mentorship was handled may be appropriate. Two mentors (Fayssal and I), whose backgrounds were sufficiently different as to neutralize perceptions of impropriety, who had demonstrated the ability to work together in an atmosphere of respect, and who (hopefully) were viewed by the community as being able to act impartially notwithstanding background and upbringing, may allow all participants to come away as best as possible from the situation. The editor receiving the guidance could feel that s/he was not forcibly placed with someone with whom they did not feel understood them, and the other project members could not claim that the mentor would be too likely to overlook any issues due to too much similarity. Unfortunately, in Isarig's case, the mentorship was unsuccessful, and he has left the project. If there is someone else willing to take the primary role in attempting a fifth go-round with you, PR, who would be willing to work with me and work out some primary guidelines, perhaps that may be an all-round acceptable solution. If I personally am unacceptable to you, PR, perhaps another willing volunteer may be found. And if the joint mentorship is unsatisfactory to you, you are no worse off than you are now. -- ] (]) 04:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::How about a pair comprising a relatively "centrist/moderate" involved admin and a completely uninvolved admin? An uninvolved mentor is likely to give more objective advice, but an involved admin will understand the context better. -- ] ] 06:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That is also a fine idea, and I am actually involved in another mentorship now of that form as well (I'm the centrist in the pair, I guess). The idea is not to penalize, but to prevent further disruption to the project. -- ] (]) 13:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| This AN/I case, the latest of a long series of cases against PR, is seemingly headed in the direction of no action, or possibly worse - relaxing PR’s editing restrictions from mandated mentorship, to a voluntary one, in which PR gets to pick his own comfy-cozy “mentor”. | |||
| I have already commented on the case, but I’d like to offer an additional insight, which may act as a red flag for those commentators who have recently been swayed to oppose any sort of sanction. Seemingly under the impression that Nishandi is already his mentor, PR indicates the direction of his future editing, in a request for comment on which parts of a source he has come across are appropriate for inclusion in the biography of ]. The source in question is ‘Culture Wars”, a private, partisan magazine dedicated to the dissemination of a rather extreme brand of Catholic fundamentalism. It has been described by one of its ex-editors as a magazine that is ‘increasingly becoming a journal of psycho-sexual conspiracy theory.” It’s editor, one E. Michael Jones , has been described as someone who “runs through all the usual anti-Semitic canards -- the ideas that "Jewish media elites" run the country, that Jews are "major players" in pornography, and that Jews are behind Masonry and the French Revolution -- but that's only the start”. He is also a man who believes that “every Christian, insofar as he is a Christian, must be anti-Jewish.” The article in question, written by a rather obscure Professor of French Literature from Georgia State University, describes Weisel as ‘a con man’. The author makes an ideology of his refusal to use the word “Holocaust”, preferring, instead the euphemistic “Jewish Ordeal of World War II” (while at the same time having no compunction describing actions of the Jewish Irgun as “extermination of innocent Arabs”). Echoing the aforementioned anti-Semitic canard espoused by Jones, the author also complains that ‘Hardly a day goes by without the Judeo-corporate media producing an article, report, TV show or movie of some kind on the subject of the Holocaust and the dubious “lessons” we are supposed to draw from it”. | |||
| PR’s verdict on this source? Why, it’s “relatively calm and fact-orientated (and is apparently stacked with references).” | |||
| Don’t say you weren’t warned when this pops up at the next AN/I. I give it about 2 weeks. ] (]) 22:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Yep, both author and editor of Culture Wars sound like charlatans. | |||
| :Let’s briefly note what Canadian Monkey omitted from his summary: | |||
| :# PR’s “verdict” on the source in question begins with misgivings about how “these ethno-identifying tracts always make me uncomfortable,” and ends with his stated concern that the author might even be a Holocaust denier. | |||
| :# <s>PR did not insert the source into the article in question or even on its talk page; rather, he tentatively asked his defender Nishidani what he thought about it on his own user talk page.</s> | |||
| :This was just hours ago. Sit tight for Nishidani to say – in his inimitably labyrinthine way – “No, PR, this nutjob doesn’t look like a good source. Whatever legitimate material may be in this article will surely be found in the work of serious and reputable critics of Weisel, such as Norman Finkelstein.” That, at any rate, will be the lightbulb at the center of whatever verbal chandelier Nishidani is currently building. | |||
| :::Dearest G-Dett, Wiesel-PR-Nishidani exactly, except I simply did not think it worth commenting on. For once I thought, silence would speak volumes. I think, generally, you've seized the bolt (as in stuffing) by the nuts(as per myself), and we get to the real gist of this AN/1, something I think all parties on all sides would underwrite. Were I ever to return to editing (improbable) could I be assigned you as my mentor? You may not have hands-on experience in decongesting wind-bags, but your paring abilities on the conceptual lathe surpass those of ], and would stand me in good stead were I to resume carpentering on the ramshackle ] ] out of which I jerryrig my contributions. Affectionately ] (]) 10:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::For the record, I like your verbal chandeleirs (all the more so after the nod to Frances Yates and Mervyn Peake) and wouldn't dream of dismantling them. Also, I do think if the PR-mentorship malarkey is to continue you'd be the man for the job.--] (]) 16:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :If my prediction holds, this will be evidence in support of “cozy-comfy” mentorship of the kind Nishidani could provide. | |||
| :Would it be too much to ask of editors calling for PR’s banning that they be thorough, circumspect, and forthcoming about their evidence? | |||
| :For my part, if I were to find Jayjg asking if some scurrilous nonsense he found on FrontPageMagazine would be appropriate for the article on ], and a fellow pro-Israel editor responded “No, Jay, it really wouldn’t” – I would do cartwheels of joy and award barnstars to both boys. | |||
| :CM is right about one thing: this will almost certainly be dragged up in whatever stupid banning discussion is in store for us two weeks from now.--] (]) 02:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Unsurprisingly, G-Dett has missed my point completely, and topped it off with some misrepresentations. PR did not end his post “with his stated concern that the author might even be a Holocaust denier.” – but rather with the claim that since he was concerned that the author is “one of the Holocaust Deniers we'll have rammed down our throats” (note the eloquent phrasing of the concern – not that the man might turn out to be a Holocaust denier, but that he might (“horror!”) be rammed down the throats of those who choose to quote him) - '''he’s checked''', and concluded that he’s the "professor of French at Georgia State University in Atlanta" that the article says he is”. So much for PR’s famed research skills, which are constantly bandied about by his supporters. And so much for G-Dett’s shabby attempts at discrediting my evidence – which, of course, included a link to PR’s entire missive, so that people can judge for themselves about it’s nature. | |||
| :::But as I wrote above, this is missing the point. The point is not that this was posted at PR’s Talkpage rather than in Weisel's bio or that article’s Talk page. And indeed, I wouldn’t be surprised if Nishandi did counsel PR that is not the “calm and fact-orientated” source he imagines it to be. The point is that after editing Misplaced Pages for nearly two years, after being mentored by no less than 4 different individuals, and after being repeatedly cautioned about BLP violations and the need for high quality sources, this highly intelligent editor who possesses great research skills apparently still can’t tell a virulent hate site from a scholarly source, can't differentiate between a BLP-violating screed and a “calm and fact-orientated” neutral presentation, or identify a “charlatan” as G-Dett mildly put it (other sources have described the same as a “hard-line anti-Semite”) from a respectable academic. ] (]) 05:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::CM, the point as I see it is that PR clearly expressed his misgivings about the source, while wondering if there might be something factually salvageable from the article. You cropped out the misgivings, extracting his one positive phrase and presenting it as his "verdict," <s>and neglected to mention that PR was asking for advice on a user page, not inserting or justifying on an actual article page.</s> Yes, you provided a blue link. These frequently go unclicked, and in the case of charges against PR it appears to be a virtually universal wiki-custom to ignore the evidence and go with the allegation. See the ''very first post'' in this entire banning thread, by PR's ''current mentor'', for a striking example of this. | |||
| ::::I did not choose "charlatan" as a euphemism, but on the contrary precisely because of its resonance in a dispute about sources. The source in question indeed appears to be a "hard-line anti-Semite," but the trouble with that phrase is that for literate people it has lost much of its meaning after widespread application to ], ], ], ], ], and others, by hacks, propagandists, and charlatans. | |||
| ::::Once again, there are a great many regular editors of I-P pages, many of them in good standing and with admin privileges, who do not have a good sense of what makes a source reliable and encyclopedic. PR does not stand out in this regard. He does stand out in that he has a healthy sense of self-doubt, tends to ask for advice and to follow it, and does not resort to endless wikilawyering and dispute-resolution stall tactics when his bad ideas are cogently rejected.--] (]) 16:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::G-Dett, I do not intent do get into a blow-by-blow argument over this with you, as I believe the evidence speaks for itself. Anyone can read what PR actually wrote, using the link I gave, and see if he had “misgivings about the source” or if he pronounced it a “calm and fact-orientated” one, as I claim. I will correct one misrepresentation, though, because you have now repeated it twice: I made it clear that PR was asking a presumed mentor for advice on the suitability of this source. Reread what I wrote:” Seemingly under the impression that Nishandi is already his mentor, PR indicates the direction of his future editing, in a request for comment on which parts of a source he has come across are appropriate for inclusion in the biography of Elie Weisel”. I will assume that your repeated false claims that I “neglected to mention that PR was asking for advice on a user page” are based on careless reading - rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead, but ask that you not repeat it again, and consider striking out these claims. The main point still stands: what you and I correctly identify as something coming from a "hard-line anti-Semite’ source, PR, master of research that he is, can’t see, despite having been repeatedly cautioned about his sources. | |||
| :::::As an addendum, I think it is instructive to look at some further PR contributions related to this AN case. Recall that PR had been offered an olive branch of sorts by Avi, one of the most patient and accommodating admins who have commented here, including a suggestion that no further sanctions be imposed, and that PR get to choose his next mentor . PR responded very negatively to the suggestion, and treated Avi with incivility, as several editors noted and as even he concedes. | |||
| :::::All of this is perfectly in-line with PR’s known editing style and is not surprising in the least. What is quite interesting is the rationale he has given for this behavior – which is, that he was under the (mistaken) impression that he had once been engaged in a content dispute with Avi - and that Avi had persuaded him to compromise. One really has to read this a couple of times to believe it: In a cooperative project such as Misplaced Pages, built on notions of consensus and compromise, the fact that he had been persuaded to compromise was in his mind legitimate grounds for bearing grudge against the editor with whom he had compromised, to the point of uncivil treatment a year later. Is this the kind of editor we want on the project? ] (]) 17:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::As far as I can tell, FrontPageMagazine is not used as a source for the ] article. By the way, could you please point out the last time I used FrontPageMagazine as a source? It's entirely possible I used it as a source in my early editing days, when sourcing standards were considerably more liberal than they are now (and I was far less experienced), but I can't recall using it in the past couple of years. Speaking of "scurrilous nonsense", what do you think of ? And by the way, if you want to describe me as a "pro-policy" editor, feel free to do so, but don't use any other description, and don't describe me again as inserting "scurrilous nonsense" into articles, thanks. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ;Off-topic | |||
| ''Just noticed this (via Nishidani's comment). Please remove or strike out these comments, or allow me to. Thanks. ] | ] 23:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi HG. I’d prefer you didn’t strike this out, since (per my comments below and above) I definitely see this as a conflict involving not only PR’s behavior but Jay’s. If you insist, however, I’d ask you to begin your deleting or striking from Jay’s question above – ''“By the way, could you please point out the last time I used FrontPageMagazine as a source?... I can't recall using it in the past couple of years"'' – forward. It would not be appropriate to leave in place that challenge, along with the implied challenge that I provide evidence that he's added "scurrilous nonsense" to articles, while deleting the post in which I satisfy both challenges.--] (]) 15:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::To refresh you memory, Jay: you have used FrontPageMagazine as a source also in the last two years: . Regards, ] (]) 04:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::For further refreshment, where you add scurrilous nonsense from an interview in FrontPageMagazine about how ] "was a disturbed mind who made a career out of recycling Nazi propaganda about Jews and Judaism." In the same edit, you add some other guilt-by-associations slurs ("David Duke mourned Shahak," etc.), sourced to the inestimable Paul Bogdanor. And where you describe all this scurrilous nonsense as "well and reliably enough sourced." Oh, and where you source material about Shahak's "fabricating incidents, "]", distorting the normative meaning of Jewish texts, and misrepresenting Jewish belief and law" to an unpublished writer, who in between time spent on Usenet threads and writing entries for Urban Dictionary (look up "k0nsl") typed an online essay in the hopes of winning a $1000 reward offered for material discrediting Shahak. Don't know if he won the bounty, but he's still in the Shahak article, even though the link to his self-published essay is dead.--] (]) 17:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''PR notes:''' I have another example of ] repeatedly using FPM within the last 2 years. I have a big list of questions for him over his version of policy generally and wholesale reverts he's made of mine in particular. However, I also know that any word from me will be used as a platform to attack me in ludicrous and often completely false ways. | |||
| ::So I'll restrict myself to asking - how long before the project deals properly with articles concerning the I-P conflict? How long before internal critics of Israel such as Shahak are treated properly? Is there anyone who thinks I'm even a small part of this problem? How long can we ignore the real elephants in the room? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ;Back to topic | |||
| For what it may be worth, the following may be relevant to this discussion: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| -- ] (]) 02:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Alternative proposal=== | |||
| Two observations. (1) There is no consensus for the proposed topic ban on PR. (2) The current mentor has expressed a strong lack of confidence in PR, as have some other folks who are moderately uninvolved in I-P issues. Unlike the last AN/I, it looks like a new mentoring team has not jumped in to volunteer. Even if you disagree with these obsevations, '''we need to figure out a course of action.''' It's been suggested that we do an RFC/U or go to another ArbCom case. However, those would both be a drama and a drain. (As a fairly neutral player, I was thinking about proposing the RFC/U for the sake of moving the deliberations forward. But the recent Elonka RFC makes me wonder whether the RFC is such a helpful mechanism.) | |||
| Perhaps we can figure out a compromise proposal -- something acceptable to PR and his supporters, yet also meaningful to PR's critics. For instance, what if PR's editing was restricted, not banned? Here's a proposal but we could certainly entertain other versions until we find the right formulation. | |||
| '''Proposed''': PR would be allowed to continue editing in I-P topic area, but PR would be restricted to 6 articles over the next 30 days. Each article would be subject to the discretionary sanctions for I-P articles, so PR would be subject to potentially rigorous admin oversight. Hopefully, 2 fairly uninvolved people (e.g., Avi) would volunteer as mentors. At the end 30 days, the mentors (at their sole discretion) could reduce or increase the number of articles by, say, 3. Repeat every 30 days for 180 days. By then, PR would be editing between zero and 21 articles. | |||
| '''Details''': If need be, the mentors need not be the ones who decide about the number of articles. It could be done by a committee of 2-3 fairly uninvolved people. (Personally, I could volunteer for such a role.) Also, PR should get to choose the articles within his orbit, or nominate them pending approval by the mentors/committee. Also, if this arrangement needs to be justified under WP policy, it can be considered a discretionary sanction under the I-P ruling. | |||
| Thanks for hearing me out and assuming my good faith. Friendly amendments are welcome. ] | ] 04:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Note of concern:''' Wouldn't this give justification both for "]" to harass PalestineRemembered on the limited articles he will choose to partake in and also for his supporters to ] in response? It's an interesting suggestion though and one that PalestineRemembered should seriously consider. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 05:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hmmm. Your are right, Jaakobou, there may be some unwanted side-effects of this arrangement. I'd be glad to hear input from you, or anybody, about how to help make such an arrangment work. Folks can tell me here, my Talk, or my email. Thanks. ] | ] 23:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Question''': Please excuse my ignorance, but can you explain in simple terms why you feel this is a suitable compromise, HG? Thanks. By the way, I do not have enough experience with PR to be a supporter or detractor, however, I am very concerned about any precedents this might set. We should all, not just PR, consider the possible ramifications of such a precedent, for all of us. What are the potentially productive and damaging future implications of such a move beyond the scope of this particular conflict? ] (]) 06:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'd explain the 6 article limit as trying to find an elegant solution between a topic ban and yet another ''ad hoc'' mentorship effort. I think it's good for Misplaced Pages to try out such intermediate sanctions and, in any case, ArbCom seems to be authorizing us to use our discretion in dealing with I-P disputes. Also, PR's case is rather unusual so I don't see a precedent problem. Finally, for reasons I don't entirely understand, people on both "sides" seem to give me the ] and listen with an open mind to my ideas. I don't think either side prefers this arrangement but they may well be willing to settle for it. Thanks for your interest. ] | ] 23:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Comment''': I've thought it over a bit and should add that it is highly concerning to see that the charges against PR have been largely ruled inadequate, and in the meantime other editors with worse track-records are somehow escaping this kind of censure. This editor, regardkess ofhis/her abrasive politics, should probably just be given the opportunity to let us know that s/he will voluntarily take a few months' break, as a show of good faith. ] (]) 06:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, per my observation above, I think there are unresolved concerns with PR's conduct (e.g., Nishidani 22:50, 8 Aug below) but it would be draining to try for consensus on the evidence, via RFC or ArbCom. PR is under a mentorship sanction, even absent new concerns. I don't see my role as assessing the evidence, I just need to get a feel for how various parties assess it. Perhaps I can leave it at that (or msg my Talk) and ask again for input on the proposed arrangement. Thanks LamaLoLeshLa. Cheers, ] | ] 23:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::''<s>I'll try to respond to Jaakobou and LamaLoLeshLa's q's/comments later today.</s> Meanwhile, thanks to you both. I look forward to hearing additional comments. Take care, ] | ] 15:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Maybe what you need is a heavily pro-Palestinian mentor who might have more credibility with PR when s/he spanks PR for any naughtiness? (Apologies if I missed this suggestion previously, in which case I support it.) Carol Moore 17:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)] ] | |||
| That is part of the basis behind the dual mentorship proposal given above, and discussed here: ], ], ], and ]. -- ] (]) 17:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I specifically recommend reading Nishidani's comments in ] and how it may explain the failures of the past mentorships. -- ] (]) 17:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''Offer starts:''' | |||
| :''I've noticed that Nishidani has and the thread could use a little bit of guidance due to it's sheer volume. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 12:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC) '' | |||
| :::G-Dett has got me by the nuts. As I said, I definitely do not want to work on wiki articles under present conditions, since it appears impossible, except with extraordinary amounts of patience, to get consistent NPOV quality on board. There is simply a lack of trust. I would remonstrate with my Jewish colleagues that the quality of intelligence, insight, critical awareness and empathy that is the hallmark of the great generations who came out from the shtetl into the haskalah, and made, by their dual vision as completely naturalized others within the Western world, a germinal and massive contribution to Western identity we can all be proud of, is rarely evinced here. The expected quality, which you'll find alive in any number of casual conversations in bars, cafés, and soirées in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, is not quite here. | |||
| :::I'm a couple of generations older, I intuit, than many here. I further told PR that a strain of masochism fuels most heroism and virtue, and by that meant to nudge PR into self-reflection on the wellsprings of grievance (I grieve, when not sober, over history: I don't make an avocation of choosing one particular group out of several hundred that has suffered persecution, extermination, massacres, gulags, gas-chambers, and the like, and then getting worked up while working over that specific ethnic tragedy on wiki pages). To take on that task is masochistic. If PR wants something like this, then (s)he will have to pay me a high price (and since, as said, I lack all qualifications and the appropriate gifts for mentoring in wiki, it would require official assent), and thus I impose three conditions. | |||
| :::(1) PR volunteer to take an I/P Wikibreak until at least October. (I won't have a decent computer till then, in any case, and have American guests over through September).</BR> | |||
| :::(2) In that period, whatever else PR does, that the following books be (re?)read, slowly, and their contents be mastered:</BR> | |||
| ::::(i)], ''Peter Schlemiel''.</BR> | |||
| ::::(ii)] ''The Pursuit of the Millenium'' (2) ''Europe’s Inner Demons''.</BR> | |||
| ::::(iii)],''The Assassins of Memory and Other Essays''</BR> | |||
| :::: (iv)],''The Destruction of the European Jews'' (Yale UP ed.2003) </BR> | |||
| ::::(v)Raul Hilberg, ''The politics of Memory: The journey of a Holocaust historian''</BR> | |||
| ::::(vi)Raul Hilberg, ''Perpetrators, Victims, Bystanders: The Jewish Catastrophe, 1933-1945''</BR> | |||
| ::::(vii)], ''Israel and the Arabs''</BR> | |||
| ::::(viii) Maxime Rodinson, ''Cult, Ghetto, and State: The Persistence of the Jewish Question''</BR> | |||
| ::::(ix) ],''If this is a man'' </BR> | |||
| ::::(x) Primo Levi, ''The Truce''</BR> | |||
| ::::(xi)Primo Levi, ''The Drowned and the Saved''.</BR> | |||
| ::::(xii)Henryk Broder ,'Tagar and the Teepee Family', in his ''A Jew in the New Germany 2003'' pp.124-129.</BR> | |||
| :::: ], ''The Civilizing Process. Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations,'' (1994 revised ed.)</BR> | |||
| :::: ], ''Reflections on the Jewish Question'', | |||
| :::I would have ]'s ''The Courtier'' on the list, but perhaps that is overegging the pud. What is there is in Elias, and the point is about the history of good manners.</BR> | |||
| :::(3) That provisorally, PR make an act of faith and trust, and accept Avi's offer as co-mentor.</BR> | |||
| ::::I would not be ready until October (and will not return to editing wiki). So if PR wishes to experiment in the meantime with Avi, and Avi has not revoked his offer, then obviously they might work out interim arrangements. Mentoring is a thankless task, PR, and I would advise that you take into consideration HG's suggestion to work restrictively on just one or two pages at a time, on a subject you have some detailed knowledge of. And, that you learn to pinpoint tersely the problem, or edit you are minded to discuss, to your mentor(s). Of course a short question on each book, to check that it is understood why I asked you to read it, would be necessary. | |||
| :::This is a steep price, but I'm not willing to come down on these preconditions. Take it or leave it. ] (]) 18:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)</BR> | |||
| ::::Ok, I see that you're willing to mentor PR under particular conditions and, in any case, you say: "I would advise that you take into consideration HG's suggestion to work restrictively on just one or two pages at a time, on a subject you have some detailed knowledge of." Thanks for your comment. Take care, ] | ] 20:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''Offer suspended, pending clarification.''' | |||
| :::::PR. Don't answer, since I <s>withdraw</s> suspend my offer. Jayjg has posted higher up a diff you made on the Menachem Begin page. You have apparently made an edit as shockingly poor as the numerous edits he has made on the Israel Shahak page. You'd better explain that edit, it is the only thing so far cited that bears study as evidence for erratic judgement. Don't blame, for this, Jayjg or anyone else. My computer is wobbly, twice on the blink within the last hour. If you explain it, please shut up about everyone else, I/P articles, the nature of the world, etc., and stick strictly and succinctly to the circumstances behind your plunking that outrageous piece of rubbish, which is as bad as anything Bogdanor and co., trawled up from the swamp against Shahak. I haven't checked, since this is a race against time with my hard disk. All I noted was JohnZ's remark below, on the talk page. JohnZ almost never gets things wrong, if ever.] (]) 22:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Nishidani is quite right that this is one of PR’s most troubling edits, involving a hoax quote from Menachem Begin. I would however remind everyone that this is an unusual situation, in that the hoax quote was published as fact by a reliable source (''New Statesman''), and still appears in other reliable sources from time to time (see for example) while its debunking has appeared only (as far as I know) in a third-rate source (CAMERA). It is clearly a hoax quote regardless. I would compare this to the hoax Hezbollah quote ("if Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide"), which likewise appeared first in an RS newspaper (the Beirut ''Daily Star'', whose editor subsequently expressed doubts both about the quote and the integrity of the reporter) and is repeated from time to time – and is debunked, however definitively, only in the letters section of the ''London Review of Books''. I think these represent difficult test cases for the principle of “verifiability, not truth,” rather than compelling pretexts to ban an editor who wanders into them unawares. | |||
| ::::::I would also remind editors that PR’s edit was reverted with no edit-warring from him, minimal talk-page back and forth, and no peep or protest from his "supporters" – lending credence to my position that focusing on content, not the editor would be a painless way of dealing with PR’s sporadic bad edits.--] (]) 15:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''Oh Please''' Oppose community ban, the ArbCom case was closed with no action for god sake! '''Oppose block''' This seems to me like a cool down type of block. '''Support''' Topic ban, seems appropriate. ] ] ] ] 12:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| My counterproposal is this: that PR not be mentored at all, that he be free to edit like anyone else. The main reason for this is simple: there is no evidence that his work has caused any real disruption, except when his detractors initiate these banning/mentorship threads. This is not to say that he hasn’t soap-boxed, made some low-quality edits, and voiced some peculiar assessments of sources on talk pages. No, it is only to say that these things have not resulted in any significant disruption to the pages themselves. Mark Chovain, in his otherwise superb comments here, errs when he says “a number of PR's supporters will claim that PR has never done a single thing wrong." In fact, PR has no unqualified supporters; he has no one who will blindly jump in behind him and pull the lever in a revert war, or bring the page to an impasse through wikilawyering. He has a few editors who object to continued harassment of him, but this is not the same thing, not by a long shot. In every case I've seen where he's made a poor edit, the matter has been quickly resolved, often with an admonition to PR from a "friendly," like Nishidani. Disruption, drama, and draining of community resources ensue only when editors ideologically opposed to PR seize upon a mistake or alleged mistake and try to get him banned – instead of simply fixing it. | |||
| Furthermore, mentorship in this case legitimizes a level of scrutiny directed at PR that would never be tolerated if directed at other I/P editors, and that vanishingly few of them would fare well under. Ending PR's formal mentorship would reverse this state of affairs, in which he is scrutinized in a vacuum, as it were, in which the actions of his accusers cannot be commented upon, in which '''discuss content, not other editors''' protects everybody except him. Editors would simply go back to dealing with his content – accepting it, modifying it, reverting it, in the usual wiki way – an approach to his contributions which the record will show has been fairly painless when practiced. | |||
| To those arguing for continued formal mentorship of PR, I ask you to explain to me how focusing on this editor will produce more efficient, satisfactory and disruption-free results than simply focusing on content per Wiki custom. | |||
| The second best course of action – if, that is, the emphasis is to be on editor behavior – would be an RfC or Arbcom case with a wide scope to cover both PR’s actions and Jayjg’s, and resume the Arbcom case where it was abandoned. This controversy is largely the fruit of a partisan dispute between the two of them, writ large across countless AN/I etc. boards. It appears to be about PR only for the simple reason that while anything, anything at all said about PR is permissible, any discussion of Jay’s role is by definition “off-topic” or a “personal attack.” | |||
| When PR and Jay’s Arbcom case was dropped, ] protested in the following terms: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| ''If this case doesn't go forward, then I'm sure soon enough there'll be more "PR at it yet again" threads on the noticeboard, or else this'll end up here at arbcom again in some other form. It is strange to me that he's been blocked so many times before, and when I looked at the supposed justifying diffs, they didn't really justify his harsh treatment. All the hazy allegations in the air should be either conclusively proven or summarily withdrawn. Otherwise, they will continue to color people's perceptions of him, will affect his ability to freely edit, and will probably be used as vague justification for yet another block. ] <small>(])</small> 21:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)'' | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| That was one hell of a prescient remark. Which brings me to the third best option: simply to ban PR and have done with it. This would be an unjust conclusion to an extraordinary saga of harassment, but frankly I think any mentorship arrangement, no matter how judiciously arranged and talented the mentors, will be a standing invitation to further harassment and a total waste of community resources. The community would survive his banning, and if it set the precedent for directly confronting and cutting off demonstrably abusive editors of all ideological persuasions, including those with long records here and apparent fluency regarding policy, that could be a silver lining. | |||
| At any rate I think the worst option here, by far, is further mentorship.--] (]) 16:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Back to the topic at hand=== | |||
| '''Support topic ban''' - I'm not perfect and certainly there's more than a few editors who could work a little better in the sensitive topic of I-P articles. However, I'm not sure its possible to interact with PR without having unpleasantries. Even such neutral people as Avi have met with his wrath. Not only them, but notable pro-Palestinian editors such as Eleland and Nishidani were taken back with several of his fringe interpretation of sources and issues as well (my good friend G-Dett made note of this as well). I'm only going in line with what all the admins who left their voices here noted and support a topic ban. Another thing which concerns me, is an editor who was just blocked for bad judgement regarding sources who does the following edits -- , , -- during a discussion about him getting topic banned. PalestineRemembered may have enthusiastic advocates, but PalestineRemembered needs to answer both these concerns and the one made note of by Avi/Nishidani. ] (]) 21:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Response by PalestineRemembered to Jayjg and Kyaa the catlord raised points==== | |||
| :''PalestineRemembered, Please add your response to the raised issues here. Thank you.'' <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 16:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''Inserting PalestineRemembered's reply from his talk page ():''' | |||
| :I just answered one of your questions - as I said, I'm here to write good-quality articles in regular English, citing high-class RS references in the English Language. If I were extremely bold, I'd ask what you were doing here. | |||
| :But since I cooperated then, perhaps it's time you answered the question I posed you there, or one of a whole slew of other questions eg another editor needs your answer to this: '''' | |||
| :How about confirming that you wrote and are not being meat-puppeted? Your fan club was delighted (and astonished) to see these golden words appear from your fingers: <font color="green">''"Wouldn't this give justification both for "]" to harass PalestineRemembered on the limited articles he will choose to partake in and also for his supporters to exponentially enhance the drama in response? It's an interesting suggestion though and one that PalestineRemembered should seriously consider."''.</font> | |||
| :And I suppose it's too late to request you deny being the sock-master of ] and ], two users who appeared on the very same day and immediately started edit-warring on the same articles as you yourself were engaged in. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Response by other editors==== | |||
| :::'''Comment''' ]. You’re scraping the barrel. I’ll clean up after you. | |||
| ::(1) | |||
| :::Avi rightly reverted PR on Kaplan. Much in the past has been made of PR’s use of Kaplan. No historian of the period would find Kaplan’s remark exceptional. He represented an opinion in ultra-orthodox Jewish thought, highly hostile to Zionism’s secularism, that was commonplace, not fringe, in Europe and Palestine, before the 1930s. It’s simply that what historians might cite with equanimity often cannot be cited by wiki editors, unless the source is itself grounded in a reliable historian’s book or article. PR should have understood this distinction. It's often ignored by many editors who are never denounced, but simply reverted, or challenged through the normal talk pages. | |||
| ::(2) | |||
| :::That Eleland, myself, on PR's side of the wall, have reverted and argued with PR on a number of edits, and used strong language, is not evidence for our ‘wrath’ and PR's irresponsibility. It is evidence for the existence of strong editing responsibility on our side of the wall. Jayjg says we are ‘enablers’ of PR’s edit-warring style. We don’t sit around to seize on 1 edit in a hundred to drag PR before arbitration with malicious joy. Often when PR has asked our various opinions, we have given indications, offered advice, or reverted PR, or as here with Eleland and, in my case, (not only here) with the Menachem Begin, violated ] against one on ‘our’ side.. As G-Dett might justly say, 'with ''friends'' like Nishidani, who needs enemas. | |||
| ::(3), , . | |||
| :::What have the final 3 diffs to do with the price of fish? There is absolutely no trace of anything problematical there. And, to adduce such quibbles is to, once again, further document suspicions or reinforce impressions that this case is a matter of ].] (]) 15:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Dear Nishidani, | |||
| ::::I don't think that three bad edits from the past 10 days are "scraping the barrel". Repeated promotion of JewsAgainstZionism.com -- aka Kaplan -- and ] -- see also ] -- massacre claims, and the other three edits are indeed a sign of concern and PR should give a proper explanation to why he's still, after 5 designated mentors, not adhering to ]. I personally had an unpleasant account with him just before this thread was opened but I figured PR would explain himself, perhaps express remorse. Instead I see a note about "elephants in the room" and a link to his "devastating" (read: bogus) testimony from ''January'', accusing me of sock-puppetry. | |||
| ::::With all due respect, <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 16:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC) diffs 16:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::They aren't 'bad edits', ], they may be neither here nor there, or indifferent, or not particularly improving. look at the Lehi page and see what nonsense I had to put up, regarding bad edits, in sequence, (so bad at the time I decided to leave off editing wiki articles) or any other number of consistent bad edits made. There are quite a few people who simply should not be editing I/P articles who have nonetheless never yet seen anything like the intensity of concentrated scrutiny PR has received. Jayjg doesn't adhere, as I see it, to ] (no HG this is not off-topic) on several pages known to me. PR accused you of sockpuppetry. Jayjg accuses PR of sockpuppetry. We must learn to lay off from these endless wild accusations or pettifogging wars, and think a little more creatively. Ask an Israeli or Palestinian academic to write any of these articles to NPOV standards, and you would probably get a quality article within a week, requiring just a few annotations from the other colleague (this actually is what occurs on Enc.Britannica). Large numbers of people have been editing with good will or warring here for several years, and the result is a semblance of articles that break up into patches of POVs tessellated by compromise, that might at best be evidence for the decline of modern education. Over this last week while defending PR, I haven't quite been able to get ] off my mind. I hope you're familiar with it. | |||
| ::::::One can spend one’s youth frigging around securing salients for pro tem advantage. It is a pity so much intelligence is wasted because of an inability to step back collectively, review the larger problems, try to work out practical rules. Shot down PR or any number of bad editors active on the other side: the problem will persist, since it is structural. PR is right to note this, but I dislike the whingeing tone nonetheless. Regards ] (]) 20:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''Oppose ban, support 5 day special block for everyone who commented here''' 6 days ago, this topic was discussed. It is not near resolution. Therefore, the ban fails. End of story. I suggested 6 days ago that everyone, every administrator, every editor who commented observe an unofficial 5 day ban of themselves until 8 August (and violators would be subject to a 5 day block). This would allow for clearer thinking. Nobody, except me, observed it. The result is that there is still heated arguments. My proposal was for an unofficial ban (so the usual block rules don't apply) for everyone, not just PR. I believe that if my suggestion were followed, the people who observed the proposal would be able to come to an agreement on what to do. ] (]) 22:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''This is the wrong place to try to decide this issue''' This issue should go to ArbCom as a formal case, sent to mediation with respect to specific articles, or be dropped. ArbCom has better organized procedures for hard cases like this. This needs the formal complaint/evidence/workshop/decision process to sort out all the claims and accusations. There's no consensus here, so it's inappropriate to take action via ANI. --] (]) 06:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Proceeding to ArbCom or mediation.''' Well, I find such proceedings unpleasant, but perhaps it would be an appropriate way to deal with the contentiousness over PR and the breakdown of the mentorship arrangement. Would it be helpful for a fairly uninvolved party, such as myself, to prepare a motion for the case? Or should that be left up to the critics of PR's conduct? ] | ] 19:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::For a neutral party to propose mediation might help. There's a path from mediation to ArbCom if that doesn't work. ArbCom is supposed to be a last resort. If mediation has been tried previously, it's probably time to go to ArbCom. --] (]) 20:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::] Just for clarification, does this require a vote, i.e., that a neutral person draw up an ArbCom case? Or is it something anyone can decide to proceed with off their own bat? Regards ] (]) 21:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''Comment'''. As my recommended reading list suggested, anyone editing here would do well to study '''the style''' and temper of several of the finest Jewish scholars and writers who deal with an event as unnervingly indigestible as the Holocaust. Unlike Elie Wiesel, Primo Levi, who had the same experiences, wrote with an intensely controlled sobriety about hell, and its victims, of which he was one. His allusive template was Dante, not a Yiddish Kant he had never read. Hilberg likewise sscrutinizes with olympian self-restraint and clinical detachment the minutiae of a vast system of concentrated extermination which appalled him. Vidal-Naquet has written trenchantly on Holocaust deniers, and yet he could write icily of those who exploited it, especially to defend Israel's actions in Palestine. He once noted that Palestinians often liken (improperly) their decades-long travails to the shoah, recognizing the Holocaust (while elsewhere often doubting it) as a parable for their own fate. Those who sympathize with the victims of that historic disaster which is Palestine, would do well to look at, and absorb lessons from Hilberg, Levi and Vidal-Naquet. They never allowed grievance, resentment or outrage to shadow the precision of their commentary on their own, or to gag them when conscience compelled them to pass in critical review the injustices Israel has systermatically meted out to Palestinians. Unless one wants, as G-Dett and John Nagel suggest, to replay this, in much larger perspective over at ArbCom, perhaps the creative solution at this point would be to sugest to PR, when in doubt, to ask any one in a pool of a dozen pro-Palestinian colleagues to review an edit PR mulls proposing. Mostly, we have here attitudes, grievance and animosity on both sides, and the fatigue of a mentor. So, I suggest those ‘pro-Israeli editors’ who so consistently haul PR over the coals in arbitration, and whose evidence has often resulted, for its brittleness, in a null decision, declare a tahadiyeh, and leave PR the chance of an informal mentoring among a dozen individuals on his/her side still active in I/P editing. ] (]) 15:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive bottom --></div> | |||
| == Abusive ], his impunity and the unacknowledgement of his actions == | |||
| I have waited this long to raise this here because I was allowing the due process of the wrongful sockpuppetry accusations and WQA concerning myself to transpire. I have been left disappointed at the end of it () . | |||
| ] conducted a sockpuppetry investigation on behalf of Wikepidia and I was one of the accused. During the process I was subject to a myriad of personal attacks, flippant comments and manipulative character assassinations. This included the completely misrepresentative action of pulling together portions of statements from disparite locations to say something completely different to anything I was actually saying (or the context I was presenting). There selective use of “false/manipulated evidence” to incriminate me from a page that also had information that would contribute to prove my innocence. I have presened all the details at . This includes a summary of all the abuses and further links to all relevant pages. | |||
| Moreover I was initially not directed to the correct evidence pages nor was I notified of a later, related, ANI compliant. | |||
| It was categorically shown that I was not a sock (at ] & ]), yet there was no apology, nor any acknowledgment for the mistake. | |||
| It now cannot be disputed that his evidence presented against me was poorly researched. It can also be speculated that there existed some kind of personal vendetta on the part of Noclador. At I have detailed how several of my contributions were deleted by Noclador (some under the pretext of claimed vandalism), only to be undone by others. Even over the last few days he has deleted my cited contributions (from a couple of months ago) along with another editor’s recent addition (compare and this ; I have interjected with and ) and claimed it to be non-consensus!! The aim appears to be to target the other editor’s content, but in light of Noclador’s behaviour towards me I see this as a convenient attempt to remove some of my citations. After all, he omits me (the main driver of the subsection, modified from an earlier attempt to include verifiable information) when he lists other editors as having made the consensus contributions. | |||
| Furthermore, others involved in the investigation were prepared to overlook the abuses by ] and impinge me for making personal attacks (plural). This is a baseless claim because the only thing I said was that ] was lying and manipulative (which can be (and has been - at the evidence link) demonstrated to be an understatement). I certainly do not claim perfection on my part, however, this is, quite frankly, a glaring double standard. | |||
| I asked for several things during the WQA discussion and as a sign of good faith modified the statement on my talk page to not include mention of the abuses that were carried out by my “accuser”. I received nothing. (See the two links, as mentioned above: and ) So I see this as another one sided outcome. But I appreciate and respect the efforts of those who tried to mitigated the situation - they have been forthright. | |||
| Given that ] has been able to flout Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines with respect to his conduct, and has received no warning or sanction, then there is no reason for anyone else not to be allowed to do the same. After all, why should some of us have to follow the rules and live up to the Misplaced Pages ethos when others do not? | |||
| ] (]) 11:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Please summarize. Very few people are going to read walls of text like that. -- ] (]) 17:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Summary: ] accused user ] of being a sock-puppet, in the course of which ] behaved uncivily towards ]. When the sock-puppetry allegations turned out to be untrue, ] asked for an apology and ] refused, when the whole thing could have been stopped in its tracks by a simple apology. The issue went to ] where it was not resolved. ] <b><small><sup>(] / ])</sup></small></b> 17:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::* ] comment is only a synopsis of Romaiois accusations and omits facts and lots of details. Fact is: During June a series of new users began to edit WWII topics with with a POV to proof that Italian forces were good fighters in WWII. As the editors in question were obviously part of a sock circus I started a report about them at ]. I added Romaioi on June 25 at 2:22pm because ''"just 100 edits but these are only in Italian WWII military topics (and at that: the usual ones: Tobruk, El Alamein,...) also he copies text that Generalmesse wrote directly "'' and informed Romaioi 4 minutes later about it: "You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page." When he went online 4 days later he could not find the link to the socketpuppetry case as in the meantime the page name had been moved and a checkuser had been requested on the socks - as soon as he informed me about that '''I left him a note''' explaining were he can find the case thus defend himself and what the purpose of a checkuser is . | |||
| :::* Romaioi began to defend himself ignoring all Wikiquette rules: ''"I will be expecting an unreserved apology from you."'' ''"Do your homework."'' ''"Use some of that ] that you mentioned."''; ''"Your moral and intuitive compass is upside down."'' ; ''"I will be contacting my Lawyer tomorrow concerning this matter. This is not a joke and its becoming very personal. Being that it should be a professional environment, there are liability issues involved."'' ''"So let me ask. Does ] have some other agenda? I would like to know what it is."''; ''"How is the witch hunt going?"''; and that was just the first day! I therefore decided to not discuss with Romaioi, but to find more of the socks and more proof linking them together. | |||
| :::* The next day Romaioi started were he had left off the night before: ''"] has lied in his very first accusation."'' ''"I only found the correct link: ] by chance. Given the narrow and manipulative nature of by ]’s evidence against me included on the latter page over the past day (discussed below), I would like to question if this was deliberate to mis-direct me to a page that I could not edit and not allow me to see (nor reply to) the case being presented against me."'' (by chance???) ''"] has persisted with his twisting arguments."'' (I did not respond to him to wait for the checkuser outcome... I did not persist, just did not answer) ''"] attempting to tar and feather me"'' ''"It all sounds frivilous to me."'' ''""''; at this point the checkuser results came back an showed that '''of 13 suspected socks 10 were confirmed socks''', 2 users to old to check and Romaioi was proven to be unrelated.. A attempt by ] to explain him the ceckuser process and had no effect. | |||
| :::* Romaioi continued to insult: ''"that he was happy to lie just to see me implicated."''; and even to come to my talkpage to insult me ''""''; as I had and have no interest to discuss with someone as him and I do not like to be bullied on my talkpage I removed his comment, which let him to reinsert it and hurl more insults at me: ''"stop being petty"'' ''"as you clearly have no idea"'' ''"as I do not think much of you in light of your inability to acknowledge your own mistake(s)"'' - at this point I had enough and filed a report about his myriads of insults at ] but also decided to move on to more important work. | |||
| :::* Today ] informed me that there is a ] against me... Well, '''as it turns out Romaioi spent the last month continuing to smear me''' - and now he filed a complaint against me??? ''"Abusive User: Noclador, his impunity and the unacknowledgement of his actions"'' Abusive??? I went now to check his edits over the last month to get an idea, what he is talking about and found out, that he spent the last month dragging this story on and on: on ]s talkpage ; on his own talkpage with insults and presumptions: ''"evidence presented against ] was manipulative and misrepresentative."'' ''"On 2 July 2008, it was categorically shown that ] was not a sock puppet."'' (categorically was not even used once on the ceckuser page!) ''"anyone in future to be more thorough in their examination of the evidence before stepping over that line."'' ''"No acknowledgement of his error or apology (for either the mistakes or the personal attacks) has been made by ]."'' ''"The extreme prejudice by ] against ] has continued after the sock puppetry case."'' ''"and typically making false accusations of ] as justification for removal."'' ''"Whilst the overall cause for which ] was working for was good, his treatment of an innocent contributor has been reprehensible and devoid of ]."'' ''"The message is to remain here as a permanent reminder of the and example of abuse of authority that remains largely unacknowledged."''. | |||
| :::* and that was just on July 4th and on July 11th he continued with a brazen lie: Answering '']'' <small>'']''</small>, who pointed out that I did inform Romaioi at the very start that a checkuser is noting personal Romaioi answers: ''"] indicated nothing of the sort to me."'' | |||
| :::* On July 15th ] tried to explain Romaioi the checkuser process once more and suggested he move on, but on July 16th Romaioi goes on... ''"I can only ''speculate'' that he may have preconceived ideas concerning my character."'' ''"that there is a slight double standard in my being sanctioned when it seems plainly obvious that the injustice was done to me in several regards yet, the purveyor of it has received no sanction."'' | |||
| :::* and on July 19th, same story continues ''"No one has ever been able to say that I did anything more that claim that Noclador was lying and did not have a clue (and then summarize events and point out that I receieved no apology)."'' He wants an apology for him insulting me or what??? and he insinuates that I would be ready to harm his family ''"Further, to give you some background, where I live there have been incidences of people/families being been tracked down to their homes from IP addresses and being physically attacked, all over online disagreements. I know of 2 such cases. So given the disingenuous nature of the evidence being accrued against me and the talk of IP’s etc I had genuine concern that an attack on my family was becoming a real possibility."'' WTF??? '''This is the worst insinuation he threw around! This is unacceptable!!!''' Is he thinking I will take a plane from Europe to Australia to go an club his child??? God, I haven't even thought about him for 3 weeks at this point! | |||
| :::* and he goes on: claiming first ''"I am not trying to escalate the situation."'' and then smears me more ''"Removal of this would benefit noclador more than me because there would be no record of his behaviour."'' ''"I would like a statement inserted there by an administrator stating that Noclador’s statements are misleading and inappropriate. The statement should also declare that Nocaldor’s assertions should be ignored."'' and he ''"I would also like to see it stressed (]), that accusers are to be polite, courteous, respectful (whatever you want to call it), are prohibited from manipulating and misrepresenting evidence, and must not make personal attacks. There should be repercussions for uncivil behaviour."'' So, being polite and explaining to him everything was not good enough??? Has he looked at all his insults? ''"uncivil behaviour"'' does he have some diff-links to this behaviour he complains about??? | |||
| :::* But he is not yet finished! There is more ''"If he has behaved in this manner once, he can do it again. Noclador should be observed. Based on assessment of the circumstances, I do not believe this incident to be isolated. I may be the first person making the point as far as he is concerned."'' ''"Finally, I would like a statement inserted by someone with administrative authority here indicating that I am not guilty of incivility, but rather was more the victim of it."'' ''"And lets not forget how its started: from a wrongful accusation and bad manners directed at me."'' I am speechless at the level of insinuation, twisting of facts, lying and smearing Romaioi has had the impudence to do behind my back! | |||
| :::* and on July 21st yet another lie: ''"The fact that I was being incorrectly associated with fascists by my accuser, both on the evidence page and on my talk page, compounded my concerns of the possibility of an attack."'' I did not link him to fascists - my statements read: ''"Your interest in topics regarding Italy and its military in WWII and Istrian exodus - both areas were User:Brunodam and the above socks have for a long time tried to manipulate the content (towards fascist glorification and revisionism)"'' and ''"It was written by the aforementioned socks with the stated intent to glorify the Italian Army in WWII. It's not neutral and it uses various fascist claims/statement as sources and that is unacceptable for an encyclopaedia."'' I spoke about the socks not him!!! | |||
| :::* and on August 5th, he still doesn't want to move on and brings his continuing insulting behaviour to new lows: ''"Noclador has been able to move past it because no one has taken him to task on his abuses. He has been able to abuse his power and not be held accountable whatsoever. In fact, he was gven a pat on the back."'' (What pat on the back??) ''"Instead the victim of Noclador's abuses and insults has been taken to task for highlighting the abuse and was perversely accused of abuses he did not commit (the claim that I made personal abuses (plural) is rubbish)."'' (is the above all rubbish???) ''"You have an unethical abuser, in noclador, who now has carte blanche approval to do what he wants to whoever he wants."'' An "unethical abuser"??? Sorry, but once more: WTF!? This is '''the worst collection of insults''' I have seen on[REDACTED] in over 2 years and I had the "joy" of having to deal with über-vandals like ] more than once! | |||
| :::* '''The recent events:''' On August 3rd ] and on August 5th ] surfaced and it became quickly clear that both were new incarnations of the sock circus. After I talked with ] and ] we reached a consensus to mass revert/take the edits by socks down! (to which a IP immediately hurled a and Romaioi returned to continue his smear campaign with '''insults:''' ''"Your abusive friend Noclador tried his darndest to prove that I was one of GeneralMesse's sockpuppets and hurled a lot of insults my way. You must have sparked something in him."'', '''lies:''' ''"In deleting your inclusions Noclador has ] some existing "concensus" information."'' (the consensus was to remove the addition by the socks!) '''insults:''' ''"Another example of him not doing his homework properly."'' & ''"I will undo Noclador's vandalism"''... but he was not content with that and in a second instant went on to | |||
| :::* and then he filed this ] report - in his usual style: ''"During the process I was subject to a myriad of personal attacks, flippant comments and manipulative character assassinations."'' ''"It can also be speculated that there existed some kind of personal vendetta on the part of Noclador."'' ''"I have detailed how several of my contributions were deleted by Noclador (some under the pretext of claimed vandalism), only to be undone by others."'' (the insults on my talkpage I did revert! What else? Maybe he as a diff link to prove this???) ''"Even over the last few days he has deleted my cited contributions (from a couple of months ago) along with another editor’s recent addition"'', yet another lie: s edits and '''not a single Romaioi edit in sight!''' and s edits and '''in the last 500 edits there is not a single edit of Romaioi!!!''' '''So, which "cited contributions" of his did I delete???''' I did revert the ITALONY & Bendiksen63 edits! none of Romaiois edits! | |||
| :::* '''and then he increases the slander even more:''' ''"Given that ] has been able to flout Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines with respect to his conduct, and has received no warning or sanction, then there is no reason for anyone else not to be allowed to do the same. After all, why should some of us have to follow the rules and live up to the Misplaced Pages ethos when others do not?"'' Where '''have I''' flouted the rules??? | |||
| :::* '''Let me summarize:''' Romaioi doesn't do constructive work, only slander, malign and defame. He is lying, insulting and does show 0 good faith. While I have been doing 500 constructive edits in the last month alone, have contributed massively to wikipedia, have not insulted Romaioi, have not threatened him in any way and have moved on after he was proven to be not connected to the sock circus in question, he has continued for now 5 weeks a campaign to smear my spotless record on wikipeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Noclador). I make it now clear that I will not discuss this matter further and expect this report to be closed at once and that it will be made clear to Romaioi that any further actions of his will result in a indef ban as an "no good faith" editor. --] (]) 10:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::* User '''Noclador''' is undoubtedly fair and honest, his great contributions to Misplaced Pages surely speak for himself, and his behavior, as character of the Misplaced Pages community, has nothing common with these mendacious accusations against him. ] (]) 12:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::]'s comments are particularly unhelpful and really do not help to resolve the situation, nor do they reflect what actually happened. The fact is that ] was not the only editor involved in dealing with Generalmesse's sockpuppet circus, I helped out in a small way. To be brutally honest, as I have been with ], had I spotted his contribution I would have added him to the sock puppet report myself; his edits fitted the pattern of the sock puppet master and he actually restored one of his contributions. ] withdrew from contact with ] after he responded by calling him a liar and it got unpleasant; if you check ]'s talk page here, you can see the explanation and response. I have no doubt that ] would have apologised for the accusation were it not for the personal attack and ]'s aggressive demand for an apology. I tried to smooth things over myself here. Now I have attempted to explain at length to ] that ]'s actions were not aimed at him personally but he just doesn't seem to understand how this works. I issued a Wikiquette alert after ] put up another summary attacking ] in the hope that this could be defused. | |||
| ::::Essentially the accusations against ] are entirely unfounded, ]'s responses usually fit into the TLDR category and to be honest I'm somewhat non-plussed by his inability to see that he was not targeted personally and his pursuit of ], with accusations of lying and abuse of power as well as unnecessary personal attacks do seem to indicate he has taken things incredibly personally. I can understand him being somewhat upset at being caught up in the sock puppet case but he has really gone the wrong way around airing a grievance to the point that his single-minded pursuit of ] has the hallmark of ]. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 13:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Can somebody summarize the above material, i'm too busy eating lunch, tia, --] (]) 17:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I've been asked to comment by Noclador. I've never found him abusive of power or lying at all; he's a good wikipedian, in my view, doing useful work on national armies, among other things. While I have not examined all the facts of the case, Noclador doing such things seems to me to be extremely unlikely. Regards ](]) 17:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| (undent) ], do you wish to comment on ]'s description of your conduct? If you ask for an apology but act that aggressively and belligerently, I wouldn't be surprised if someone doesn't want to bother with you again. Be civil. You asked him, he doesn't respond, don't bother him again. Assume good faith on his part for his conduct. Do not assume bad intentions from an error. What is the purpose of bringing it up again and again? -- ] (]) 18:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I've taken a bit of a hit for my comment earlier, perhaps justifiably, but I did think it was clear that I was responding to the request for a summary of '''''Romaioi's claim''''', which I think is what I provided. I would also like to point out that it was I who notified Noclador of this thread (which I mistakenly marked as being on AN/I rather than AN). My apologies to Noclador, and I think I'll now bow out before I mess up again. ] <b><small><sup>(] / ])</sup></small></b> 19:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was in a minor way involved in the SSP case that has caused this mutual rancour. While the checkuser results eventually exonerated Romaioi, his/her coincidental appearance at the same time as Generalmesse's massive sockfarm caused him/her to get accused of being one of the socks. Noclador was, as far as I am concerned, at all times acting absolutely in good faith, and did a sterling job in getting Generalmesse and all his puppets shut down. It was deeply unfortunate that Romaioi got caught up in it, but, frankly, at the time I (and, I believe, most other observers) believed him/her to be a sock. I have since apologised to Romaioi for this, and he has graciously accepted my apology. I think if he had received the same apology from Noclador then the issue would've gone away. However, for whatever reason, Noclador has decided not to apologise. Romaioi should accept that and move on. Now, Romaioi's lengthy post at the top of this thread smacks to me of a vendetta. I am sure that Romaioi as a good faith contributor will be happy at this point, having presented his/her grievances at length, to drop the issue and return to productive good faith editing, which appears to me to be Noclador's modus operandi at all times. ] (]) 21:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I can qualify Noclador as a person who is always ready to hear what others have to say (or read, anyway). He gladly takes information offered to him, as long as it comes from reliable sources. I remember how once I provided information from a reliable military review that proved to be partially incorrect. Another wikipedian corrected it. Did Noclador throw a fit and insult him? No. Noclador took the information and corrected the graphic. This concerned the Tsahal OrBat, for those who are curious. | |||
| ::: I also am the prime witness of his works being used without giving proper credit in a printed military review. It is always a harsh blow for somebody to see his work used not only without proper credit, but actually crediting a completely different person. I warned Noclador. He contacted them. I personally find the e-mail he sent to the review in question as polite and balanced. Those interested can check my talk page. | |||
| ::: It is 4am, I am tired, I cannot formulate long speeches in a cohesive manner. So I shall make it short: Noclador is amongst the best contributors to this whole project, a person that makes Misplaced Pages interesting, reliable and trustworthy and who is always ready to listen(read) what others have to say(type). Thank you for your attention ] (]) 02:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] seems to be a sock of banned ]. Brunodam had/has the habit to create socks wherever he goes, was massively pushing Italian nationalistic-revisionist POV in articles about the Balkans and the former Italian minorities there, liked to threat other users with lawyers, added fascist propaganda to various articles, insulted other editors and so on... Also he usually would leave very long comments and then revisit them often to change/add stuff (example: edit). Romaioi fits nicely in this behavior - especially as Romaioi was the name to Roman people that lived in the Balkans after the partition of the Roman empire (with just 8,280 google results for Romaioi one must be quite an expert to a) know the name and b) know it is Greek). More damming proof that Romaioi and Brunodam are related: Until yesterday I never had anything to do with Brunodam, but suddenly he comes and lashes wildly and - let my say it clearly - --] (]) 08:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I said I would stay out of this, but I have a question that Noclador's supposition raises: wasn't checkuser run on Romaioi? And if he was a sock of Brunodam, wouldn't that have shown up? Or is a checkuser run more limited in scope? (I'm not being disingenuous here, I don't know the answer to these questions.) ] <b><small><sup>(] / ])</sup></small></b> 20:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The SSP check was done against IP by Generalmesse, Brunodam is a different user. Brunodam appears to have returned but is attacking Noclador on those diffs. Now Noclador has never dealt with Brunodam, only Generalmesse. It could be that it is a deliberate attempt by a sock pupper master to create friction. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 22:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Surprise surpise, another sock puppetry accusation.''' This is surely getting beyond the joke. I have been tied up for weeks having to defend the previous sockpuppetry allegations and WQA/ANI. Yet again I have not been directed to an evidence page, and this time my user page has been vandalised. '''And there is wonderment as to why I have chosen to push the abuse case take this to the ANI level?''' | |||
| : I won't bother with a defence of this as I did last time (I do not want to be called a fanatic again!) - lets please take it straight to checkuser. It smacks of what I have been indicating in reference to deletion of contributions and abuse. Above, Noclador claims he did not imply me to be fascist, but in the same fashion as previously he has provided "DAMMING PROOF". Seeing that he is so adamant that I am all these socks, it is clear that he believes me to be fascist - who would not take such an allegation as a deliberate affront? I will only say this, ANYONE WHO INVERSTIGATES PROPERLY WILL SEE THAT THE PATTERNS (and tone) DO NOT MATCH. Whilst, several observers believed me to be giovannegiove and/or generalmesse from the face-value evidence based on one contribution, if any of them looked into my profile, examined my edits, my citations, the number of eidts on Italian military versus the variety of different topics I have contributed to in such a short period of time, and even the fact that I simply built a user page, would see that THE PATTERNS DO NOT MATCH! However, it was not their job to do so. '''They believed Noclador's assertions and selective evidence on good faith. It was Noclador who did not examine it properly''' (which is one of the issues I have been pressing). Here, we have just been privy to a repeat. | |||
| : '''Note that those involved in conversations at''' , including ], '''believe that IP 72.157.177.44 (who is presumably 202.172.105.49?) is none other than GeneralMesse. This is there for Noclador to plainly observe, yet he has conveniently used it to claim that IP 72.157.177.44 = ME = ]'''. In Noclador's words, WTF? Perhaps observers are now beginning to see the points I have been making concerning Noclador's manipulation and misrepresentation of evidence pertaining to me? Why would he do such a thing if he was acting in good faith? This is, as I have been stressing, how it was from the beginning - his first accusations on his GiovanneGiove sockpuppetry evidence page (where he then changed his mind and claimed that I was Generalmesse) were of this nature , as were his ANI claims . | |||
| :Can someone please direct me to the evidence page? Also has the checkuser process been initiated? If not can someone please offer me some guidance as to how I can do so? Better yet, can we please get a list of all the users that Noclador believes me to be and perform a checkuser on every single one of them? This way I can be vindicated yet again. | |||
| :] (]) 12:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I won’t read and comment the excessive accusation above; all I can say as a user and administrator of projects Noclador participates in (de.wikipedia.org, Commons) is that Noclador is a trustworthy user with valuable contributions. Please pay attention to his work and behavior, then judge. --] (]) 21:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd like to make a few points clear before I present my view. Firstly, I am not a sysop nor checkuser. I have not been involved in this, or any related affair until this post. I have only recently become acquainted with ], having performed a mutual review of some of his ] diagrams, having never previously had contact with him nor knowledge of his edits. Similarly, I've never had contact with ], nor had knowledge of his edits. I would claim that noclador and I have just progressed from acquaintances into friendship from our recent collaboration, and he requested that I add my input to this discussion. In an attempt for impartiality, I have reviewed the pertinent pages regarding the conduct of the two users in question (not the results of the request for checkuser, because that issue is resolved), starting with ], and including ], two wikiquette alerts: ] & ], ], ], ], and various bits of data scattered on several talk pages linked to above. I'd also like to note that viewing ''many, many'' diffs, I have noticed the text "(# intermediate revisions not shown.)" shown, and my assumption is that some of the data has been restricted by sysops or possibly higher. | |||
| :My take on this incident is as follows: noclador, in attempting to round up the sockpuppets of a prolific vandal, made a reasonable mistake in including an innocent user who, on the surface, followed some similar conventions as the vandal/puppetmaster. He also warned Romaioi, though made a mistake in linking to the discussion page. Now, as far as I understand, this is the purpose and procedure of a checkuser case: to present the accusation and supporting evidence, allow the accused to refute evidence, and then make a conclusion based upon the evidence and an analysis of IP addresses. It seems that this procedure was followed to the letter. While noclador could have avoided the accusation by digging deeper, I don't personally feel that constitutes any sort of violation or uncivil action; after all, he was researching many accounts at the time, and fully expected that more conclusive evidence would be found before any damaging/irreversable actions could be taken, as was the case. The process was allowed to work itself out: mitigating evidence was produced, and the Romaioi was cleared of the accusation. | |||
| :However, the conduct of the accused has been less than pristine. Naturally, being falsely accused would make anybody angry, adding confusion and disorientation due to his lack of understanding of the process at the time only makes the situation worse. This is not, however, justification for the persistence of this scandal, nor some of the ''very'' harsh remarks made on Romaioi's part. I can sympathize with the expectation for an apology, however, in light of the hostility the accused showed his accuser, I cannot fault nocaldor for refusing to make one. I myself would probably have done the same in his place, I'd view such an action as ], which is not mandated by any policy I have ever read. Even if the accused remained civil and not taken the accusation personally, such an apology would not necessarily be mandated (though certainly appropriate) after the "innocent" verdict had been posted on the checkuser case; after all, that was vindication from all wrongdoing. I do not agree that noclador has performed any sort of slander or smearing of Romaioi's reputation, especially outside of the checkuser accusation. | |||
| :I also find no fault in noclador's decision to limit his involvement in the controversy once it was determined that the accusation may have been faulty. That sort of ] should be expected whenever a possible ] could taint further proceedings. Removing yourself from action where your presence could worsen it is totally understandable. I also applaud noclador's attempts to move past this and get on with his life. It is in that spirit that I think this notice should be closed, and Romaioi be directed to review ] and ] so that he may finally let the issue rest, though it is entirely within his rights to seek a forum for his grievances, and ask for appeal to the decisions (there are several possible venues for further ]: ], ], ], ], and even the "Supreme Court of Misplaced Pages", the ]). I am unclear as to what Romaioi desires or expects these proceedings to produce... Administrative actions against noclador? Jimbo Wales to beat him up and force him to apologize? Unlikely, but I would ask him to further clarify on exactly what he seeks. As far as I know, no double standard exists because both have been reprimanded for thier misdeeds in this whole process. | |||
| :I would also like to take this time to applaud Romaioi for being otherwise gracious and civil to other users. I would hope that you can drop this grudge and move on to more productive matters. Looking at ], you've been wrapped up in this for far too long. My advice for you is to take a short ], spend some time with your family, then come back and focus on your passion for history. | |||
| :Thank you for reading this huge diatribe, it took forever to articulate and type up! ''']]]''' 22:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Romaioi’s follow up comments === | |||
| I have just logged on for the first time since Wednesday to find more discussion (oh and another sock puppetry accusation) than I expected on this. | |||
| However I would like to point out that ] has now accused me of being a sock of ] (see above). He has provided more "invented proof" or should I use his words "damming proof". Dare I say the accusations concerning me are getting ridiculous. Yet again, I have not been directed to an evidence page. I was determined not to be a sock through checkuser. This is another personal attack and it is designed to distract from the evidence I have presented. | |||
| Nocaldor has been clearly prejudiced against me from the very beginning (prejudice which has been proven by a further sockpuppetry accusation). The prejudice originates from my contribution to this . (I provided the basis for my contributions ). A review of my edits will show that most of my edits were supported by verifiable non-Italian, non-fascist citations, . A close investigation would have shown that the patterns of my contribution to this section did not match any of the accused socks. Here is a link to the . | |||
| Even after I was PROVEN NOT TO BE A SOCK, he continued to delete my edits as though I were. While he may be gracious to most, he was clearly abusive towards me. His evidence against me above does not warrant a response. Now I have been accused of being another sock!!??!?! After I have been proven not to be a sock? And what of this vandalism of my user page with the obviously bogus ? I guess my totally unrelated contribution to topics on finance () are damming proof of this too? | |||
| Why are those who are providing supportive comments being attacked? ] comments have not been unhelpful. In fact, I found his summary towards the beginning of the to be very apt. And here he has questioned Noclador’s motives behind his second accusation of me being a Sockpuppet. Are only pro-noclador’s opinions allowed? | |||
| ], you wanted me to comment on Noclador’s accusations above. Well, they do not warrant a detailed rebuttal because they are nebulous and manipulative, as I have demonstrated repeatedly. I suggest that you read the source locations to see what was actually written and in which context rather than his edited version of events. You asked me for a summary. The most appropriate one (detailing how he has misrepresented information) is . On this page I have ''listed Nocaldor’s abuses against me'', such as referring to me as a fanatic, implying me to be fascist, snide comments, etc. To list them here would be repetitious. If you are going to do Noclador the favour of reading his assertions, then please take the time to review mine. Moreover, Noclador has repeatedly referred to me as a liar above (and has directed you somewhere unrelated to prove it on several occasions – as I said, it does not warrant a response). You can check all the links that actually do lead to my edits – I have not lied. Interestingly, I was hammered by Justin for claiming that Noclador was a lying concerning me (I actually demonstrated it) - though Justin has repeatedly overlooked Noclador's abuses. And the so-called “month of smearing him” comes from me being forced to defend and actions. '''It was not smearing, there were no derogatory comments, it was highlighting his abusive pattern of behaviour towards me, the double standards associated with pulling me up for demonstrating him to be a liar, whist his more damning attacks on me were overlooked.''' As you can gather, I have been a member since late May and have been harassed by all this (and now a new sock puppetry accusation) for almost the entire time. How is one supposed to be able to contibute when they attacked as such from the get go? And that is why I have instigated this ANI. | |||
| Furthermore, ], does the fact that I have yet again been accused of being a sockpuppet, this time of ], and the bogus evidence presented there not highlight just how manipulative and prejudiced Noclador has been? It is written in the same ridiculously manipulative style of all his other accusations against me. I did not know that only a handful of contributions (actually one mainly) can so convincingly tie me to being the same as multiple users. What does the checkuser check-up say? | |||
| ], if you wish me to address each of Noclador’s points above, inform me of which are of concern and I will address each in detail. Noclador has not presented information chronologically and he has '''omitted relevant information'''. | |||
| My assertions stand – I have presented evidence to back up every one . And as I have continually been treated with abuse and disrespect, I have no motivation to change my position. | |||
| Whether or not Noclador has a history of being gracious to others (I wouldn’t know because I can only judge by my experience with him) does not mean that he is not capable of abusive behaviour. Nor does it mean he has not perpetrated abuses here. | |||
| I have noticed a pattern with Noclador and his wholesale deletion of consensus information simply because he “BELIEVES” it to be contributed by a sock (but even if I made the contribution then its good enough for deletion). His deletions of my contributions, post-sock puppetry case, (and assertions that my contributions were vandalism) were undone by other editors (I explained this in the summary link above). See this as a separate example whereby Stephen Kirrages had to undo his deletion stipulated to Noclador that “you want to take out so-called "sock edits" you'll have to do it by hand rather than using this very blunt instrument”. Rather than wholesale deletion or material that may have merit, would it not be more constructive to modify it to conform with the Misplaced Pages ethos? Is this not how we develop knowledge of issues and subjects? | |||
| This is among what concerns me about Noclador. He flies off the handle with accusations without the benefit of proper investigation. He makes edits of content (or deletes content) without sufficient research, often destroying verified content in the process. | |||
| I will be deleting Noclador's blatant vandalism of ]. See this for evidence. I have already been proven not to be a sock. Surely this reeks of Noclador’s motives!? - Spiteful perhaps? Noclador has clearly NOT demonstrated good faith towards me from the get go (because of a contribution I made regarding Italian Military history - apparently) – obviously no prejudice there. How stylish, to defend oneself with another false accusation and some vandalism. | |||
| ] (]) 06:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| P.S. the summaries by others pertaining my motives for making my early Misplaced Pages member contributions pertaining to Italian involvement are off the mark. My motivation is purely historical accuracy, that’s it. Maybe I should have started with the Kokoda campaign. | |||
| PP.S. ] I appreciate your comments. Please note that I have only been involved in this too long due to the having to deal with the WQA and ANI (which I was not informed of) issues. If there was some acknowledgment of what has transpired, it would have been dropped. I was dragged further into this because I made a statement concerning the wrongful sockpuppetry accusation on my talk page. I have only continued to this point because I feel the double standard of abuse allowed by some and not others to be a serious issue. Further, whilst I have been willing to concede ground, the opposition has not. I would also like to point out that I have not been stalking or harrassing Noclador. I have limited my comments to the areas where this issue was being discussed (often without my notification - convenient). Over the past month that has been at the WQA. I asked people not to discuss it on my talk page. It should also be noted that I have been making, on average 1 post on this topic per week - always in response to comments of others. So it has hardly been prolific - it has only been that I have had many points to make in reply. What I want is a statement(s) that Noclador went to far, either from the user himself, or an adminstrator, and I want a statement that the WQA was unwarranted. I also want Noclador to be on notice to not commit acts of wholesale deletion, and he should not go anywhere near my contributions again, nor should he ever raise any further accusations against me. I won't go as far as he has, and demand for the others banning, I do not think that is necessary. He should be simply be instructed to toe the line, assume good faith, and ensure that he investigates properly (preferrably in consultation) before stepping over the line with wrongful accusations and abuse again. | |||
| :'''A Final General Comment for Consideration''' | |||
| :There seams to be an inclination to take what Noclador has stated above as factual, with no consideration of any of the evidence that I have presented. Has anybody actually read the summary of events that I have included ? Has anyone actually read and followed the links to the demonstrated abuses? Is the fact that my contributions have been deleted since the sock-puppetry investigation not significant? Why else would I take these measures if such a thing was not occurring? And a further sockpuppetry accusation, what does that say? | |||
| :Many of the comments presented against me above are ''rehashed''. I have already addressed them elsewhere . I often had to do so repeatedly. | |||
| :As I said, I never claimed perfection. I admitted to emotive language at first. I also think it is rather understandable to be aggrieved when you are directed to an evidence page that has not reference to you, knowing full well that you are not as accused and have just commenced (as a new user, not yet familiar with the procedures) making contributions in good faith. '''I have been quite frank in admitting my faults in this matter from the beginning.''' | |||
| :I stated this elsewhere: ''Let me ask you all this. You are on the receiving end of an accusation such as sock puppetry (in this case). You were directed to an evidence page that made no reference to you. Then you found that the evidence being stacked up against you elsewhere was factually incorrect. On top of all that you then had to cop insults, personal attacks and snide comments along the way. What would you be thinking?'' | |||
| :Noclador may have made an innocent mistake to begin with, but it soon turned into something different. He tried his darndest to prove that I was this user or that user (3 different ones now). The fact that I was proven not to be, reflects poorly on his deliberate attempts to misrepresent the “evidence” against me. | |||
| :And to Justin, no I did not inform Noclador of this ANI. Reason: he was likely to delete it as vandalism. Yet as always, you have not considered that he did not inform me of his actions against me on two (three now) occasions. Sorry, but with respect, I believe you to be extremely biased on this issue and missing my point. It is inconceivable to me that you could believe that no personal attacks were made on me. You actually indicated that you may not have read my replies, based on your TLDR comment. If so, then how can you make a informed judgement when you have not considered all the information? However, I understand your intentions and regard them well. But I respectfully disagree. It is not a personal attack if you describe someone's behaviour/actions. | |||
| :The WQA was not resolved, so I brought it here. I have been following the due process respectfully. (Note that I have mentioned the further sockpuppetry accusation on my talk page.) | |||
| :As I said, I have detailed the abuses and chain of events . His attitude towards me during and since was far from exhibitive of good faith. It has been abusive on several levels. | |||
| :Do I really need to list them again here to get it considered? | |||
| :] (]) 08:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''Evidence that ] abuse against me is not an isolated case:''' | |||
| :From (with so that it can't be conveniently deleted like elsewhere), clearly UPSET that someone did not respond to his calls for acknowledgement: | |||
| {{quotation|.... Those fucking cunts!!! I wrote them and clearly explained that they can not do this! They didn't even answer me! I will write them once more and if they do not react, I will sue - this is shameless arrogant thievery! --noclador (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] (]) 12:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :For context, this outburst from Noclador was due to the appropriation by a French magazine of several diagrams that he had created for Misplaced Pages, where the magazine gave credit to the wrong person and ignored his proposed corrections. You may want to consider if an impassioned comment by Noclador in February, 2008 on an unrelated matter has anything to do with Romaioi's complaint. I caution Romaioi that there is such a thing as disruptive editing. I urge Romaioi and Noclador to stay out of each other's way from now on and cease discussion of each other's sockpuppetry. ] (]) 16:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{resolved|Alright, enough joking around, go do some actual work now. Issue at hand is dealt with. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 16:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
| She has been repeatedly adding unsourced information to multiple articles and has broken the 3RR. All of her edits are based around promoting the 'Anarchist International', an organization probably made up of only her and two or three other people. She seems to resist any form of reason and automatically assumes bad faith. She has never shown any sign of being anything but disruptive. I suggest she is blocked. ] (]) 22:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Some context for the uninvolved: | |||
| :*] | |||
| :*] | |||
| :*] | |||
| :* | |||
| :*] | |||
| :] | |||
| : : Four reversions in less than 24 hours by Anna Quist to restore the disputed content, while the RfC in which she was receiving no support was ongoing. | |||
| :See ] for the efforts of several administrators to deal with this editor. | |||
| :I think the community has been more than tolerant of and facilitating to this editor, and has gotten no useful encyclopedic content in return. She may or not be contributing in good faith, but is certainly disruptive and sapping the resources of editors, despite numerous counsels to reform. I concur with Zazaban above that all her edits seem to be promotional, and shows no sign of becoming a productive contributor. Anna Quist has been notified of this discussion. <font color="404040">]</font> 22:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *] ] (]) 23:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Blocked 24 hours for 3RR violation on ]. —]] 23:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : She now appears to be using a sockpuppet to continue to revert to her version of the article. ] (]) 23:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Response to block=== | |||
| {{bquote|1=Some ochlarchist/unscientifical administrator has blocked my account. This is a severe blow to libertarian research on wikipedia! Unblock me this instant we will be forced to try you at the International Anarchist Tribunal and you will be issued a brown card and be removed from the anarchist movement. The information I am adding is based on reliable independent third party sources, easily verifiable, and 100% according to Misplaced Pages's principle about verification. It confirms that the Northern sections of IFA-IAF exists 100%. This is no joke. The so called "anorg-warning you are linking to is totally unreliable and 100% a hoax, and is 100% rejected and turned down by IIFOR at http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html . If my account is blocked, it is an attack on the truth and verification -- Anna Quist | |||
| ] }} | |||
| <font color="404040">]</font> 23:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : She put a similar one on my talk page as well. ] (]) 23:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm debating between a reply of total disbelief, feigned shock and horror, or just outright sarcasm. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 23:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The IP address has been blocked, by the way. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 23:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I suppose I can expect my brown card in the mail. —]] 23:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: May I go and add a sockpuppeteer template to Anna's userpage or does she have to be blocked indefinitely? ] (]) 23:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: It might also be worth noting that the IP was also used by a rather rude troll on anarchism.net, a site that Anna has professed a a strong dislike to. ] (]) 23:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You gotta be fucking kidding me. '''International Anarchist Tribunal'''? Com'on. I consider myself in the "anarchist" category, but this is just hilarious. <small>] | ] | ]</small> 01:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::How would such a tribunal be organized? What rules would it follow? ] <b><small><sup>(] / ])</sup></small></b> 02:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's the beauty, as anarchists, they wouldn't have rules nothing would ever happen. ] (]) 12:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I wonder if that qualifies as a legal threat? But if they're anarchist, they have no laws, right...? ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 03:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Look, this isn't that difficult to figure out. Anna Quist has been promoting her organization as a monolithic, international, logistically capable organization which is a '''''Serious Threat''''' to the establishment. In order to present this, "she" (assuming the user is female -- she claims to be, but she claims to be many things) has claimed to have been appointed the position of spokeswoman for the group by their "secretariat"; that the group's decisions and proclamations are well known to the international anarchist project, and that this is achieved through a high degree of "scientifical" objectivity in the realm of radical praxis that the degree to which an anarchist society is an "anarchy" can be determined mathematically; that it can properly judge what are non-anarchist organizations and promote "proper" anarchist organizations (the Industrail W.W. vs the International W.W.); that her organizations have sub-groups which in of themselves are substantial enough to be considered the largest of their kind in the realm of green and feminist anarchism; and that the group can claim a lineage going back to some of the oldest anarchist organizations. That she now claims that her organization is large enough to retain its own judiciary system and can "ban" individuals from the anarchist movement, and that this will be known widely enough that the shame will stick and mar that figure's reputation, is not any more laughable than any of her other assertions. She must maintain the image – to the end – that the Anarchist International is '''''Serious Business'''''. Why? Because only its "revolutionary" program, well founded in '''''science''''', and therefore objectivity, can firmly unite and guide the international urban proletariat towards '''''The Revolution ™'''''. Those brown cards will mark us all as counter revolutionaries and we '''''will''''' be lined up against the wall when the firing squads are primed on the day '''''The Revolution ™''''' succeeds. | |||
| ::::Can't you call see? This is a madness bred from taking yourself and your politics too seriously. Instead of suffering "activist burnout" and disappearing, or becoming a sell out, or getting sent to jail, or any number of fates that tend to befall anarchists, she has taken the extreme step towards a more "serious" revolution. However, because there were no large organizations to satisfy her, she populated her world with fictional secretariats and tribunals. There doesn't need to be an explanation for how an Anarchist Tribunal would work, who staffs it, what laws it enforces, and under who's authority it sends out brown cards. This is the world view Anna Quist has built up for herself, and banning the world view from Misplaced Pages is a tangible threat to her anarchist revolution. Madness.--] (]) 04:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Hmmm. You do know that you're responding with vehemence to sarcasm and joking, right? ] <b><small><sup>(] / ])</sup></small></b> 06:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Don't worry. My sarcasm has just a bit more bite to it. But wow, ya'know?--] (]) 07:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Well, to be honest, I think you need to be a bit careful over your response to this situation. You do realise, don't you, that by continuing to address this situation with anything less than the gravity which it merits you're rapidly aligning yourself with the counter-anarchic Walesian neo-authoritarian clique, typical of the treacherous post-Godwin-esque rule of law that's been imposed on an unknowing proletariate by a persistent tyrannical oligarchy perpetuated by totalitarian methods of repression and deception to hide the fact that in the background the neo-New World Order is being controlled by the secretive behind-the-scenes manoevring of an arch-Blairite-Bushite faction? <sub>]</sub><sup>]/]</sup> 12:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::A brown card? Is that the thing you get when you run out of toilet paper? ] ] 13:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::No, that's a brown ''hand''. ] {{IPA|ǀ}} ] 15:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::What? No ''running dogs of capitalism''? ] (]) 15:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Seriously, though, I only just got the pun inherent in her name. How slow is that? <sub>]</sub><sup>]/]</sup> 16:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Faster than me. Oy! ] <b><small><sup>(] / ])</sup></small></b> 01:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::What pun? I see no... oh... well, dammit. --] (]) 01:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===I never wrote this note=== | |||
| I never wrote this note. Someone has been setting me up!!!~(] (]) 19:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)) | |||
| :It must be a really good imitator. On August 6, you get blocked at 23:05 and then that IP at 23:09 reverts to your version of the article using the same words you always use and makes at 23:12 a comment on the talk page that copy/pastes one of the last comments that you did on your account before being blocked . --] (]) 20:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Time for ] I think, this is getting to be a tiresome burden on otherwise productive editors. ] (]) 23:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: That IP has also vandalized my user page and tried to rig the first AFD for ]. It uses the same sort of language that Anna and only Anna uses and shares allegiance to the AI and if you look at the contribution history you will see that the IP has only been editing in situations that involve Anna. I can't think of anyone it could be. ] (]) 05:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Also note for the record that {{user|Anna Quist}} in a message two days previous by {{user|74.208.16.12}}. – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 09:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Wow, is she ''trying'' to look bad? ] (]) 20:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::She also corrected the note left by the IP before removing it and then inmediately claiming that it was not written by her --] (]) 01:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Wilhelmina Will's DYK topic ban == | |||
| It seems only a short time ago that we were discussing it, but the issue of {{user|Wilhelmina Will}} has to be raised again. The background to this is that {{user|Blechnic}} called for this ban based on discovered copyright violations, the worsening of articles to make them meet the requirements of DYK, etc. Accordingly a discussion was held .<br/> | |||
| When Wilhelmina appeared to ignore the ban, it came up again , where I realised that, since WW refused to engage the community at the noticeboard, to assume good faith would be to assume that she hadn't noticed. I thus notified her, and closed the request, despite some protestations by Blechnic on my talk.<br/> | |||
| This led Abd to regard me as the "responsible party" for the ban - I accepted that I had effectively closed the discussion, and thus could be regarded as "responsible", which I did principally to give Abd a point of contact since he seems to have styled himself as WW's advocate in these matters (see her talk page and archives, and for examples). Subsequently, Abd has decided that the community consensus was illegitimate because the evidence the community used did not exist. He consequently believes that ''I'' should overturn the topic ban. Now despite my naturally high opinion of myself I felt that I can't undo what I believe was the will of the community. I therefore invite another admin to check whether my judgement of community consensus at the first discussion was correct, although some editors seemed to agree.<br /> | |||
| Furthermore, there is the question of when the topic ban may be overturned. I believe the consensus was along the lines of ''There exists a DYK ban for Wilhelmina at least until she tells us she understands and is willing to abide by copyvio rules and stop treating DYK medals as an end in themselves''. I have invited, on her talkpage and through Abd for her to give me such an assurance that I could bring to the community and say "there it is", but no such assurance has yet to be received. | |||
| I defer re-assessment of my closing arguments to other admins, and the latter question (once again) to the community at large, since my judgement has been repeatedly called into question on my talkpage, and for all I know, I may very well be wrong. ] (]) 08:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :From a review of the above, I would suggest that a topic ban consensus was very apparent and that the subsequent discussion was properly closed once Wilhelmina Will had been advised of the ban and invited to participate in the discussion of its implementation. I feel the argument that the ban is invalid because there is no determined time period is hollow; the editor is topic banned until such time the editor engages with the community with regard to the concerns raised - at that point the appropriate period (if any) before the editor can be allowed to contribute to DYK nominations can be determined. It appears that Abd's conclusions and requests are driven by considerations other than policy interpretation and application of the communities consensus, and are not shared by the majority. I see no reason to vary the sanctions on Wilhelmina Will's account until such time as Wilhemina Will starts a dialogue with those who have expressed concerns regarding her editing. ] (]) 09:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agree with LHvU - until and unless Wilhelmina Will makes an assurance the poor behaviour will cease (even accepting the behaviour WAS poor would be a start), the topic ban must remain. ] ] 10:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::In fairness to Abd, he appears to now be contending that the consensus was flawed, and thus my close showed a "lack of wisdom" (or words to that effect) because there '''was''' no problem to begin with. He says that there is no evidence of copyvios and so the topic ban is an error that I should not have made. I'd paste the discussion over here, but it's pretty lengthy - it's at the bottom of my talk page. ] (]) 10:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::His is, and was then, a singular viewpoint. A lot of people apparently reviewed the evidence and concluded there was a problem. You did not make a decision, you enacted one made by the community. Perhaps Abd might consider that when they are the singular voice against the majority, then it may be them who is wrong. ] (]) 10:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That would be true if I were a singular voice. I'm not. I've written an extensive response, but it is sitting on another computer. This topic ban would not be sustained through an RfC or ArbComm review, I'm certain of that. What has happened is that a lot of editors did not review the evidence and came to a conclusion based on an assumption that the charges were true, and they !voted in that line, some actually stated, "if the charges are true, then a topic ban is appropriate," and I will, in a full comment, provide diffs. Fritzpoll, however, has not fairly presented my argument, though I believe it was his intention to do so. To date, no significant evidence, enough to justify a ban, has been presented for a topic ban. Therefore Fritzpoll has made a closure decision without reviewing the evidence, but, apparently, based on his own opinion outside of what was presented in the discussion, but not only without expressing that evidence, but also not expressing it later, when questioned about it (specifically, about the copyvio charges which he stated were central). He was therefore not a neutral administrator, one more flaw in this affair. At this point there is enough evidence -- but not presented here yet -- for a neutral administrator to reverse the decision, perhaps also sending it back to that community (AN/I) for review; though I would contend that this was the wrong forum in the first place for dispute resolution. AN and AN/I are not part of ], which corresponds to a legal system, whereas AN/I is like calling 911. 911 makes immediate decisions for the protection of the project, but not binding or lasting ones, in the presence of significant disagreement. --] (]) 17:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::As I indicated on my talkpage to you, I based the closing decision both on the consensus of the community ''and'' the AN/I discussion (that I have not linked here) which dealt with her copyvios and introduction of inaccurate material. You are being disingenuous in saying that I acted in a non-neutral fashion when I have already described to you how my decision was reached, and in saying that I have not responded to your request for information, which I did on my talkpage. I also invited you to ask another administrator to "close" the discussion, on the presumption that, if they disagreed, the topic ban could be overturned. I asked you to supply the proof to back up your statement that she had clearly learned her lesson, so that I could propose overturning the topic ban. I asked you to get WW to talk to me so that I could propose overturning the topic ban. Instead you decide to attack my position by disputing my neutrality or helpfulness in this matter - I have not vested interest in WW being banned from DYK (hardly an overbearing restriction in itself), and certainly not indefinitely. Perhaps you need to choose your words with greater care? ] (]) 10:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Once again, Fritzpoll has failed, apparently, to understand the basis of the problem. Yes, Fritzpoll has "described" the basis of his ban. He based in on two charges. I have a detailed response at . What you call, below, "the facts of his argument," have not been presented by you, or anyone at AN or AN/I, ''ever.'' My argument is that there was no evidence presented showing that the charges were anything more than Blechnic's warped and exaggerated allegations. (Which opinion, by the way, has been expressed by multiple editors at various times, before I was ever involved.) In short, there were two "facts" underlying your ban: (1) copyvio, and (2) padding an article to meet DYK 1500 words. The latter is so trivial that it's hardly worth mentioning, but you did mention it. Unless it were shown that this editor continued to do this, and more than rarely, it's not worthy of a topic ban, and the padding would disappear if it actually damaged the article, rather quickly. As it did. The first charge, though, copyvio, would be serious. How do we deal with editors who plagiarize text? Do we topic ban them? No! I don't know of any other example, though possibly there might be an odd one. We ''warn'' them, and we ''block'' them if the action is repeated after warning. Often we will warn them more than once. However, ''no'' evidence showing any pattern of copyvio, nor even a single example, as I recall, was asserted in either AN/I report filed by Blechnic -- and this is what you referred me to when claiming that you had acted based on evidence. No evidence was asserted here, either, nor did you, in bringing this here, note the very clear basis for my effort to persuade you to lift the ban, which I am ''required'' to do before proceeding with further process. The basis wasn't what you claimed. There was a consensus at AN/I. It was, however, a consensus of editors who aren't responsible for confirming the evidence, and a number, indeed, noted that they had simply assumed the charges to be true, and therefore their approval of a topic ban was conditional, and you failed to confirm the condition. And many others, I'm sure, did not look for the evidence, or were confused by the red herrings presented, the few allegedly outrageous mistakes of WW, which, however, were really only outrageous if they were repeated, particularly if repeated after warning, plus some sort of dark assumptions based on WW's "failure to respond." Which should have been irrelevant. (A positive response would be a basis for not topic banning, based on AGF, but a lack of response is ''never'' an offense, only the repetition of problem behavior after warning.) | |||
| ::::::::I did not bring this report to AN, nor would I have done so, until I'd exhausted ], though there is a basis for an attempt at AN/I (I consider that the ban has seriously damaged the project and should be lifted promptly). But it's here, so I've responded. And I will go to the next step in DR, unless some admin takes a look at this and lifts the ban, which, having been discussed, could now be done without wheel-warring. Had anyone confirmed the evidence, sufficient evidence to block, it would be another matter. --] (]) 15:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I will note, now, that I'm accused, via a warning on my Talk page, by ], of failing to AGF for Fritzpoll. I might have made a mistake somewhere, but I am not aware of ever questioning Fritzpoll's good faith, and I have assumed it all along. I have concluded that he erred, and I requested that he review his decision, and then questioned its correctness, but I do not believe and have never believed that he intended anything other than the welfare of the project, and I assume this, as well, of the editors who have been, the last few minutes, piling onto my Talk page to "second" the warning. It's not over, folks, until the diva sings. There is a reason why we don't make decisions based on the first few !votes that come in, they are often biased. We'll see. I'd say, given that I haven't filed any AN or ANI reports, started any RfCs, or even edit warred or maintained tendentious debate against an informed consensus, that blocking me based on my history would probably be disruptive, I'd not advise it. But, then again, maybe some good would come out of such, you never know. It was just suggested, yesterday, to me, that I go again for RfA. Last time the !vote was about 50-50, after the canvassed votes due to an SPA -- blocked for it -- were disregarded. And the reason given by most voters was that I only had something like 1400 edits at the time. Might be disruptive for me to self-nom, though. I won't do that. --] (]) 15:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks for that - I didn't want to be accused of forcing bias in a response by not presenting the facts of his argument. ] (]) 10:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have now commented on your talkpage that Abd should bring his concerns regarding the basis on which consensus for a topic ban was created back to the community which expressed it, and not on the page of the admin that enacted it. ] (]) 10:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Thanks very much for that, LHvU ] (]) 10:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Fritz, I also agree your reading of the consensus was entirely correct. I was considering closing that topic ban discussion myself and I would have closed it exactly the same way. As others have said, if Wilhelmina Will wants the ban overturned, she needs to engage with the community. ] 02:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, Sarah. I figured my first AN/I close was probably worth checking ] (]) 08:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :This was an obvious one. Fritzpoll divined consensus (and an overwhelming one) rightly, and until and unless WW engages with either Fritz personally, or the wider community with regards to the topic ban, it should stay. ]]] 14:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes although some of the way the conclusion was arrived at might be arguable, this was definitely the consensus. What I will say though is that WW herself hasn't edited in five days, and she hasn't done anything to violate or even question that ban herself in the meantime, so the 'blame' for this being made an issue again shouldn't fall on her and I hope this won't effect the outcome. I wish she would talk to the community though to discuss mentoring etc or ask for help, and hope she isn't gone for good. :( ] ] 13:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is correct, there was a "rough consensus," but this affair shows why AN/I is the wrong venue for complex user conduct investigations and response, it is only good for ad-hoc, easily reversible decisions, made necessary by some immediate hazard. Had there been no rough consensus (and from vote count alone, it was a strong one), I'd have been advising WW to ignore it, and Fritzpoll's later comment to her I would characterize as a warning from an involved administrator. But that's not the case. Hence I've advised WW to respect the topic ban, even though I believe it to be seriously defective. It's also true that WW has not challenged the ban, not once, nor did she repeat, after warning, any of the allegedly improper behavior, not before the ban, nor after it. Mentoring would be a good idea, if it were not an utter waste of time. We propose mentoring for good editors who don't learn from their mistakes without it. Quite simply, that isn't Wilhelmina Will. She is far above average for editors. --] (]) 18:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::When he took responsibility for the ban, Fritzpoll gave this reason for the it: ''The general argument was that WW was introducing copyright-violating material (despite repeated requests not to do so), and reducing the quality of articles in order to achieve a DYK nomination. As such, I interpreted the situation as a threat to the quality and integrity of the encyclopedia. In this context the community consensus for a DYK topic ban was justified.'' | |||
| :::Now, the "reduction of quality" argument was based on a single incident, and, as was noted by an editor at one point, her problem was that "she didn't know how to bloviate well enough." Clearly, she made a mistake, but it was not even close to being a reason for a topic ban. Copyvio, though, would be much more serious. Indeed, it would be a shortcut to her goal, DYK nominations, to simply copy existing articles that she finds somewhere. Was she doing this? | |||
| :::Repeatedly, in the AN/I reports in question, requests were made for evidence, and I continued this with Fritzpoll, and evidence wasn't provided. The copyvio charges were trumped-up, I must conclude. I suspect that there was some incident, somewhere, but, since there was active request for the evidence at AN/I, and a participating editor -- tendentiously participating -- who would presumably have had access to the evidence, and who did not provide it, there must not have been much! Definitely not enough to justify a topic ban. And there was, in addition, no evidence that she had been warned and persisted beyond the warning. Topic ban, quite simply, was not justified by the evidence presented in the AN/I report, and Fritzpoll has not responded to this particular issue. Instead, he brought this matter here as if the question were the consensus at AN/I, which then produced the simple answer: there was a consensus at AN/I, something we already knew. And, since, Fritzpoll is unwilling, as closing admin, to reverse the ban without going back to AN/I, the simplest recourse is to go back to AN/I with a request to unban, which I intend to do. He shouldn't have brought this here, nor should he bring it there. Going to AN/I simply because someone criticizes something you've done is not appropriate. The reason I would go to AN/I: the project has been damaged, damage continues, and thus the matter justifies an AN/I report requesting immediate action. An unjust topic ban can be expected to drive away some productive editors, and it seems it is doing just that.--] (]) 04:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, AN/I is probably not the venue for that discussion - I would suggest proposing the unban elsewhere, since AN/I is for incidents requiring immediate administrative assistance. The reason I brought it here, Abd, is that you questioned the validity of what I had done - not being so arrogant as to believe that all my words and deeds are without fault, I brought ''my actions'' here for scrutiny. Wilhelmina was on a Wikibreak, so it is hardly surprising that she hasn't been editing (look at her edit summaries for today) and she is creating new pages again. I have consistently responded to your request for information, including the original AN/I report where the copyvios were discussed. I have offered opportunities to resolve this repeatedly - that you refuse to counsel WW to engage with the community, refuse to accept my offers of compromise in the form of discussion (where I even offered, under certain conditions, to request the unban myself) and instead embark on this crusade on her behalf is bewildering to me. | |||
| ::::You also persist in this idea that I can overturn a topic ban on my own. This is not true - administrators in these instances, as I understand it, enact the will of the community. They do not decide that will - admins are no more special in that regard than any other editor. ] (]) 09:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Just to recap this thread into a clear discussion, there are three elements together which brought about the DYK topic ban against Wilhelmina Will. These are discussed in detail in the threads linked to in Fritzpoll's opening paragraph, and can be summarised as follows: | |||
| :::::*Wilhelmina Will was found to be introducing copyrighted material into DYK candidates that were being prepared. | |||
| :::::*Wilhelmina Will has been found to edit war with others working on DYK candidates in the interest of meeting DYK minimum requirements. | |||
| :::::*Wilhelmina Will has been found to be uncivil to others when the subject is discussed, working against the collaborative ethos. | |||
| :::::While one of these issues on it's own would cause concern, it is the three together that have generated this situation and all three that need to be improved upon before the ban is likely to be rescinded. It is also worth bearing in mind that blocks and bans are preventative, not punitive. In this case, they are designed to prevent DYK submissions from being created that are potentially damaging, either by worsening the experience of other editors wishing to collaborate on the article or through potentially copyright infringing material being introduced. It is also why, in this instance, Wilhelmina Will has been encouraged to demonstrate an admission that these problems exist and a resolve to avoid repeating them in the future so that the topic ban can be lifted. | |||
| :::::In addition, consensus does not equate approval without dissent. Although there are some editors who disagreed with the topic ban and felt that other measures were appropriate, the broad consensus was for a topic ban to be applied. Such a measure does not require the approval of ArbCom or an RfC to be implemented, and is a common remedy introduced by the community in response to editor concerns in a particular area while allowing them the freedom to contribute to other unrelated areas. | |||
| :::::To conclude, I would encourage Abd and Wilhelmina Will to work constructively through this topic ban, demonstrate a willingness to contribute to lifting this through positive means and in the fullness of time rejoin the DYK contribution process with the consent of the community at large. I am concerned that any protracted argument or dispute will only cause further contributors to leave the project, which is somehting I think we can all agree is an undesirable outcome. Consensus has shown a clear way to resolve this issue, and I would humbly request in the interests of all concerned that it is followed. Many thanks, '''''<font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''''' 14:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Well, now ] has been chased from the project for at least awhile. Good grief. ]]] 13:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's unfortunate. All that happened was that I questioned his close decision (made something like a week after the apparent AN/I consensus which had, however, never been closed, with no administrator taking responsibilty for a topic ban allegedly decided there). I did not call into question his editing, ever. I claimed no administrative misconduct rising to a level of bad faith, for I believed, and continue to believe, that he simply erred by not confirming the crucial copyvio claim, not that he intended to harm anyone. He was the one who brought this report here, when a simpler and more direct response, following ] would have been more appropriate. He did not need to insert himself into this, he could have simply done nothing when I pointed out to him that he had warned Wilhelmina Will of a topic ban that was never properly decided. And then he could have made his decision, and continued to do nothing more. I didn't make this into a drama, he did. But, still, he had options, and continues to have options. He has taken one of them, which is, essentially, to do nothing, unless he changes his mind. It's a legitimate option: let the community sort it out. It's the option that Wilhelmina Will took; however, the paradox here is that he held it against her. I won't. No process was begun that he had any obligation to respond to, at all, with no immediate risk from silence, so I find his withdrawal puzzling. --] (]) 15:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Part of the reason for people's reactions and the withdrawal, I think, is that it is difficult sometimes to understand exactly what it is you are saying, Abd. I say this as someone who thinks you often say some very perceptive things, and as someone who disagrees with the views that others are developing about your contributions (see your talk page section and warning). I think the problem is that to engage in a full and frank discussion with you on a topic can be rather difficult due to the length and abstractness of your responses, and the end result can be uncertain. I don't think what you do is harassment, but I can understand some people getting frustrated with the approach you take. I did ask before whether you had considered putting some of your views into an essay? Sometimes the points you are trying to make are best made in the abstract, before alighting on people as examples, if you get what I mean? For the record, I have supported Blechnic (someone you are criticising at the moment) over their flagging of copyvios in the past, so I think you both make good points, while I'm not 100% sure exactly what started this latest incident (I've been away for a few weeks). ] (]) 16:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks, Carcharoth. It should be noted that when I have an agenda, a decision I've made and I'm trying to persuade the community to act, eventually will I take the time to boil it down to brief, effective speech. It takes a lot of time, so when I write at greater length, it is in discussion mode, it is not intended as persuasion, but rather exploration. It should also be recognized that this rewriting takes a ''lot'' of time, discussion is far easier, and that this problem is typical for writers like me. I did not file this AN/I report and am simply responding here, with information and analysis. While it could save a lot of fuss if someone looked at what I've written in the past about Blechnic, I'm not expecting that, though I've been succinct, actually, in some comments on AN/I that were simply ignored. But I've seen long-term, highly experienced administrators filing cogent reports ignored on AN/I. That's part of the problem that I really want to address. I do intend to write about "what started this incident," unless it becomes moot, in which case I may get distracted from that. Yes, I understand why some people "get frustrated." I've been seeing this for better than twenty years of on-line conferencing and communication experience. I don't hold it against them. ''However,'' that doesn't necessarily mean that I shut up when I have something I think important to say. | |||
| ::::I develop the ideas that I might put into an essay by communicating with that part of the community that cares to read what I write, not for the tl;dr crowd. Some people read what I write, some don't. Unless I'm in ''action'' mode, which will be obvious, nobody has any obligation to read what I write, and there is no serious hazard from skipping it. Again, thanks. --] (]) 17:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: goes beyond that doesn't it? . --] (]) 17:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Holy Shit! 87.114 is a ] IP. Two possibilities: Fritzpoll is Fredrick day, a banned editor, which I absolutely did not suspect, though it now does make some kind of sense, or this is Fredrick day is trying to stir up shit by pretending to be ]. It's checkuser time, to clear Fritzpoll, if nothing else. (I would not argue that Fritzpoll should automatically be blocked if checkuser confirms that he is Fredrick day, but I think it is essential that we know, given what has come down here. (FYI, folks, Fredrick day was himself exposed most clearly because he apparently forgot he was logged in and edited signing his post with the sig of an identified vandal; if Fp is Fd, this, then, could be him forgetting that he was ''not'' logged in, thus revealing his IP. But it would take checkuser of Fp to verify this.--] (]) 17:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Em.. I'm quoting the guy - doesn't the link to his statement give that away? I know you like to go on fishing trips and accusing people of being me - but your harrassement of fitzpoll should stop at this stage, you drove him away, what more do you want?--] (]) 17:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::In the same edit, though, we have: ''"...until I'm sure that I can edit without feeling the dread, without waiting for you to tell me..."'' - I read that as Fritzpoll saying 'it's you or me and I'm not coming back until you avoid me or are gone'. I can understand that is being written under stress, but it is equally unhelpful. I have very little sympathy with people who say things are too stressful due to someone's edits, and then argue against that someone from halfway through the door while saying they are leaving. Misplaced Pages is a stressful place, and the balance has to be struck between reducing that stress and not skewing discussions. Take a break or reassess how you do things here (one of the lessons to learn is how to handle people like Abd, as well as how to handle departures, and, to be fair, for Abd to reassess how he does things as well), but don't use leaving as a parting shot at someone. ] (]) 17:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC) <small>For example, if Fritzpoll now says he is leaving again because of what I said, the cycle starts again. See ] for more on this.</small> | |||
| ::::I find your characterization of Fritz's message incredibly unfair. I didn't see it as a "parting shot" at Abd, I saw it as a final response to an editor who had hounded him over the course of several days over a properly made administrative call, threatening all sorts of process-related recourses, until finally Fritz just had enough of it, and decided to take a long break (at least). If you look at Fritz's initial responses to Abd, he was accomodating in the extreme, unfailingly polite, and in no way contributed to the mess that this has currently become. Fritz is not the problem here ''in any way'', Carch. To suggest otherwise does him and the work he's done here a great disservice. ]]] 17:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::FWIW, Fritzpoll that comment. I was trying to make clear that I didn't think Fritzpoll intended it as a parting shot, but was trying to make the point that it could still have that effect. Until you've had it happen to you, it is difficult to communicate how powerless an editor can be when trying to refute an argument made by someone the other side of a still-swinging exit door. I will just repeat again that I appreciate the work done by Fritzpoll. The problem seems to be more social here - many editors getting heavily sidetracked and losing sight of the initial dispute and examining the evidence for that, rather than whether Abd or Fritzpoll dor other editors did the right thing along the way. See my comments below where I say that the best thing would have been to re-examine the whole thing afresh. ] (]) 22:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: But it's a - if you look at Abd's user page - he's been warned off before of making those "you need to listen to me or it's trouble for you" warnings to administrators. Everyone has a right to speak but you don't get to try and force people to listen with vague threats of trouble. --] (]) 17:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::This changes the complexion of this entirely. I had no general complaint about Fritzpoll, which is why the departure made no sense to me. ''However'' Fredrick day has bailed from attempts to persuade him to negotiate a return because he knows that I'd maintain some kind of notice of his activities, which he seems to be totally allergic to. Given what he's done in the past, some level of awareness is necessary. He has stated, elsewhere, that he had other accounts, so it would not be surprising if he is Fritzpoll, but quite surprising that he'd make the mistake of editing as him without logging in, he's usually much more careful. There remains the possibility that he is merely pretending to be Fritzpoll, but there is now strong reason to ''suspect'' Fritzpoll is a sleeper account for Fredrick day. There was very, very little hazard to Fritzpoll here, unless he persisted through much more process, starting with RfC (which would, of course, require another editor's certification, I could not do that on my own), so the strong reaction does make sense. That's how Fredrick day would react if he imagined I was harassing him. We'll see. --] (]) 17:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: That's a pretty low trick - you are now trying to knobble the guy by saying out of the side of your mouth "psst.. he might be one of THEM.. he cannot be trusted" - have you no shame? --] (]) 18:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Back on topic=== | |||
| Just a couple of quick words on this topic if I may. Firstly, like Abd and a number of other users, I feel the initial ban was hasty, ill-considered, and made on some pretty flimsy evidence. I also found it pretty distasteful, quite frankly, to see a 16-year-old girl pilloried the way she was at AN/I, and it therefore doesn't in the least suprise me that she might be reluctant to participate there. It also bothered me that no-one thought to notify any of the DYK regulars to see if they might have want to express an opinion, and I didn't even know about the ban until the topic had been closed. | |||
| Subsequently a was started by Blechnic, in which I tried to clarify just what the nature of the ban was. It transpired that most people merely felt that she needed to acknowledge some mistakes and accept a mentor, but since no-one put up their hand to act as mentor and the discussion petered out without much response, I decided it would have to be handled ad hoc. Since then two articles by WW have been nominated on behalf of her by other users, one has been promoted and one IIRC was not. | |||
| So just for the record, I would like to say, firstly, that I personally have no problem dealing with submissions to DYK from WW provided they are on general rather than technical subjects. Secondly, I think I should add that I frequently see much worse copyvio offenders on DYK than WW (in fact I haven't actually seen a copyvio from her in spite of all the accusations), but my response has just been to disqualify the article and warn the user. So why WW has been singled out for a DYK ban I can only suppose has been due to Blechnic's persistence in frequently bringing her case before AN/I. At this point then, I think we need to make our minds up whether WW's trangressions were really so exceptional as to deserve a ban in the first place, and if so, what exactly needs to be done in order for her to have the ban overturned. Some clarification at this point would be very useful. Thanks, ] (]) 17:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with you entirely, and I say that as someone who initially supported the ban. While ] is correct below when he states that copyvios were not the only or even the primary reason for the ban, the copyvio issue was by far the most serious issue. The rest of the issues were one inappropriate revert, one uncivil remark in an edit summary, and some statements indicating a lack of comprehension on certain topics she has been editing on, leading to some inaccurate statements in articles she creates. None of those would - or even all together - would seem to warrant any sort of ban, maybe a short term block at most, if it wasn't for the copyvio issues. And so far the only copyvio that has been uncovered is an item that is 7 months old, and apparently was a result of some misunderstanding with another user (possibly an admin). And by the way, BOTH of the articles that WW created and were nominated for DYK by other users were ultimately accepted. ] (]) 23:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that some important clarifications are required, in a restatement of my original response to Abd: | |||
| :*As part of , a temporary ban was put in place. Copvio concerns were not the only (or even the primary) reason, but civility and edit warring were heavily discussed. It was the combination of these three areas that brought about the topic ban. Stating that it is purely regarding copyvio is, regrettably, only part of the problem. | |||
| :*Copyvio evidence, as has been repeatedly requested, is documented in under the section 'Her existing copy vios and vandalisms that need edited'. Please note that this is not the only concern, as stated in my previous point. | |||
| :*Fritzpoll intervened in this matter due to the convoluted nature of mutiple AN and ANI threads on the topic, in order to act as a single point of contact and simplify matters. Since taking up this role, the majority of discussion has been around the legitemacy or otherwise of a topic ban, and not (as was intended) progressing onwards from this point. | |||
| :*] has no contributions to[REDACTED] outside of this topic. The IP is used by PlusNet, an ADSL broadband provider in the United Kingdom. As such, it is '''exceedingly difficult to level accusations of sockpuppetry without strong, (usually checkuser based) evidence'''. If you have such material available I would strongly urge you to come forward with it or drop what ammounts to a fundamental accusation of bad faith. | |||
| :It wouyld seem that WW is prepared to work within the guidelines set to improve the quality of DYK submissions and regain the trust of the community. I reiterate my request to Abd and WW to progress in this avenue. Constant resortion to debate and argument tends to stall progression on the isse and only perpetuates a needlessly tense situation. Many thanks, '''''<font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''''' 18:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I thank Gazimoff for taking the time to investigate to the degree to which he has. However, it's not adequate, there are aspects to this situation which can rather easily be overlooked until one researches it depth -- or reads an RfC or other discussion that thoroughly explores it, and such doesn't exist yet, and I've been hoping the whole thing could be resolved more simply. So some corrections and points in response: | |||
| #Yes, other matters were discussed, but Fritzpoll based his eventual closure on only two points and the rest not only wasn't considered important enough to mention, in our discussions, but I'd agree they were moot, minor faults; however, minor faults pointed out in the context of other allegations that are much more serious can add to an impression of wrongdoing, which clearly happened. | |||
| #Fritzpoll intervened, first, without realizing what he was doing, if I AGF, which I do. There was an AN/I discussion where a clear majority supported a topic ban, but no administrator investigated it and drew a conclusion for closure. As a result, WW was not informed of the ban and made another DYK nomination. Blechnic complained, and Fritzpoll then took it upon himself to warn WW that she had (allegedly) been topic-banned. It took me a day or so to sort this out and realize the implications, so I can easily understand that others might still not get it. | |||
| #We don't make decisions by vote. Ever. Votes represent a rough consensus, we make decisions through servants, closing administrators, trusted by the community to review not only some apparent consensus, but also the ''evidence'' and the analysis, and a closing administrator is obligated, in fact, to make his or her ''own'' decision, being informed by the community as to evidence and opinion. Part of this is a responsibility to investigate the evidence, to understand the basis for the decision. However, when Fritzpoll went to the WW Talk page to warn her, he denied that it was his decision, he essentially said, "Don't shoot the messenger," I'm just reporting the community's decision. He most explicitly did ''not'' take responsibility for the decision. | |||
| #I raised at one point the possibility that Fritzpoll was not neutral in this affair, but that's not a point that I pursued. Rather, I acted as if he were, in fact, neutral, and thus able to properly close if he agreed with the evidence and conclusion. | |||
| #When the community makes a decision through a polling process, there is always a close by an administrator, or sometimes another editor; when a topic ban is involved, custom is that this is an administrator, because the administrator then becomes responsible for enforcing the ban with blocks if necessary. Since there had been no close, the ban was not in effect, it was not merely that it hadn't been communicated to WW. However, when I discovered this and wrote about it (on my Talk page?) I cautioned WW to continue to assume that there was a ban, until it could be sorted out. But I also wanted to give her some hope, so that we might avoid losing her entirely. As well as, possibly, to assuage her probable hurt feelings. At least she could know that ''somebody'' was trying to sort it out! | |||
| #So I went to Fritzpoll and pointed out that there was no close, and invited him to review the situation. I mentioned several options: He could simply not act, in which case there would be no ban, and I'd return to AN/I with that, probably, or at least to DYK (which is where most of this should have happened in the first place.) He could close the discussion, either with a ban or not. He elected to close it, to take responsibility. I considered this as progress, even though I considered the decision incorrect. Now there was a responsible administrator, and I could attempt to negotiate with him, or could ask others to do so. It never came to that, because Fritzpoll continued to insist that the decision had been the community's, not his. I asked him for the evidence of copyvio, and he provided only a diff to a former AN/I report by Blechnic, which didn't show copy vio. I'll note that copyvio evidence recently posted here, taken from Blechnic's Talk page, posted ''after'' the ban, was a single example, from many months ago, with extenuating circumstances. I understand there is another example, it's been mentioned, but I haven't seen it myself, though I've looked. It's not important. If there were a pattern of violation, worthy of a topic ban or even a ''warning'' of a topic ban, we'd have seen it by now. This has been a very productive editor, with many, many articles, and it's quite possible that going over it all with a fine-tooth comb would turn up something else. But we don't ban for this level of problem. ''''''Wilhelmina Will was a productive editor, with 29 DYKs to her credit and many short articles created and standing.''''' I look now, and I see, to my relief, that she has resumed editing. She was gone for a week. | |||
| #While I was negotiating with Fritzpoll, and then while I was traveling for three days, he took the matter to AN for review -- without necessity, it was his choice --, but he didn't present the crucial argument: the lack of copyvio evidence. Instead, he was looking for what he thought important: confirmation of the consensus at AN/I on the ban. He thought that if there was an apparent consensus, that meant that he was justified in his close. It's an error, but it is an error which, I assume, could be corrected; the appearance of a consensus was never challenged. What was challenged was the underlying arguments and evidence, or lack of same. Some !voters at the AN/I report specifically prefaced their comment with a disclaimer: "If the charges by Blechnic are true, and I see no reason why they would not be, ...." | |||
| #Yet Blechnic was an editor, fairly new, previously blocked for harassment, who, I'd already concluded, was, indeed, harassing WW, beyond all reason, tendentiously arguing against every positive thing said about her or questioning his report. While it is proper for editors to AGF and make a prefatory remark like that, it was ''not'' proper for an administrator to consider those !votes as being effective unless the administrator personally verified the evidence. And, absent evidence to the contrary, we can assume that most !votes are, in fact, dependent upon the evidence visible when they !voted, so such verification is crucial, or, at least, when a close without personal examination of evidence is made, and challenged, it should be immediately investigated and fixed. Which Fritzpoll apparently never did. (I don't think he needed to consider the !votes at all, the matter is simpler. He should have looked at the charges de novo, and verified the evidence. If the evidence was verified, then he'd have presumably made ''his own decision'' based on it, which might or might not match the community's apparent consensus. | |||
| #It seems that Fritzpoll had some impression in his mind that there had been copyvio problems, I've mentioned this "other" incident. But one incident can create such an impression, yet a ban should be based on a ''pattern'' of incidents, likely to be repeated. Now, lots of admins make close decisions, and then change them when aspects of the decision are questioned. There is no difference, in principle, between an AfD or an AN/I poll decision, and it is fairly common to reverse an AfD and, in fact, the standard first action, before challenging an AfD at ] is to discuss it with the administrator, who can change the result, and going back to the community (i.e., re-opening the AfD), isn't necessary, because there is simple recourse available for any member of the community who disagrees with the new admin decision. | |||
| #Eventually, I came to question Fritzpoll's competence as an administrator, based on a series of factors that I won't review here, since it is moot now, but ''never'' his good faith, and there was no risk to Fritzpoll's admin bit unless he tendentiously opposed ''the community'' in possible ensuing process. My reference to hazard had to do with the possibility that he would do this, and I made that clear in my full comment (on my Talk page, by the way, not pushed in his face). I did not threaten that further process, I move very slowly, normally, unless pushed by circumstances. He didn't need to do anything. The fuss that ensued was caused by his report here, and then my answers to it. Further process only becomes burdensome at the RfC level, which would require quite a bit of preparation, including independent efforts to resolve the dispute. And I continued to make it clear that Fritzpoll wasn't the problem. The problem was unclear process and practice at AN/I, for which the ''community'' is responsible. | |||
| #Yes, this is long. But quite a bit shorter than a full RfC would be. Nobody's obligated to read this. I'm not pushing for anyone to be blocked, and this is not where I'd ask for a reversal of the WW ban -- though it's once again questionable due to the departure of the closing admin, for whatever reason. | |||
| #And I haven't provided diffs. Don't trust me? Don't worry! You won't personally be held responsible. I've been threatened with being blocked, twice today, most seriously for the sock puppet issue, so I should address that. | |||
| #87.114 is Fredrick day IP, the possibility that this was other than Fd would be minute, and I've read that 87.114 has acknowledged being Fd, not that this was ever in doubt. See ] for a list of IPs, known or reasonably suspected to have been used by Fd, together with some other sock puppets. I do know what I'm talking about. As to Fritzpoll being Fd, I do not consider it proven yet, there is merely reason for suspicion, most notably since Fd did use the first person singular possessive pronoun, referring to Fritzpolls' administrative status. I'll decide later if there is reason to file checkuser, which would simply be routine at this point, it's possible that a checkuser coming across this would do it on their own. Or not. Fritzpoll was not a disruptive editor, as far as anything I've seen. It would be the community's decision as to what to do if it turns out that Fritzpoll is Fredrick day. Continuing the sysop status would be out of the question, I'd say. (If you know what Fredrick day has done, I think you would agree.) But blocking would be another matter. Misplaced Pages does not punish, we protect, and that is exactly what I'm doing all this work for, to ensure that the policy and guidelines are a reality. --] (]) 21:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::The only thing I'll respond to here, Abd is your last point (#13). You '''''are not getting it''''' and need to read your user talk, which I presume you're doing. You have completely misunderstood the "possessive pronoun" bit, and I can't find another way of explaining it to you. The IP (who admitted to being F-day), copy/pasted from ''Fritzpoll's talkpage'', not from ''your talkpage''. The "MY" in the post is a direct copy paste from the person who said ''MY'', Fritzpoll. Your "suspicions" are laughably unfounded and are serving you no purpose other than to deflect from the core issues. Type less, think more. ] {{IPA|ǀ}} ] 21:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Two more points of note that I see in this latest missive: | |||
| :::*Carcharoth has just made the point (elsewhere) that it's unfair to see Fritzpoll leaving (hopefully not for long) as an exacerbating factor in re Abd, yet Abd in #6 above is directly using the tactic for their own benefit "I see, to my relief, that she has resumed editing. She was gone for a week." | |||
| :::*And in point #8, "Blechnic...previously blocked for harassment" which seems to elide the ] where Blechnic's block log was subsequently modified to indicate that the blocks were . | |||
| :::And of course, to continue with a sockpuppet discussion of any kind, especially based on the premise of the leading two octets of an IP address (that leaves 65,000 possibilities doncha-know) somewhat strains credulity. ] (]) 22:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Good Lord. What a mess. I'm going to ignore the sockpuppet accusations, while noting that Abd has been blocked indefintely for the accusations (see his talk page). Somewhere in those points 1-12, though, there is an important point, which is 'individual admin responsibility for their actions', versus 'actions that "enact community consensus"'. It is incredibly easy to hide behind consensus and the conclusions of previous discussions, instead of standing up for your own admin actions and examining the evidence ''de novo''. In that sense, Abd is right: when asked to look into something, admins should examine the evidence afresh (no matter how tedious it might seem), and not just rubber-stamp previous decisions. This is similar to the way "unblock" requests are supposed to work. An admin answering an unblock request might end up agreeing with the previous decision, but they need to make clear that they have done an ''independent'' examination of the situation, and not just briefly read the previous discussion and nodded a few times. It is difficult, but that is the only way to avoid ]. ] (]) 22:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| My what a wikidrama this whole thing has turned into. I have not read every single word in this tomb but I have read enough to get a sense of what has happened and who has done what. As a totally uninvolved editor here, I would say that people just need to chill out for a bit and stop being so sensitive to perceive slights and defending entrenched positions. While there are many bit payers in all of this, here are the most significant points as I see them: | |||
| # WW appears to be a 16 year old who is enthusiastic and motivated to help create content for the project. This should be viewed as a good thing and she should be encouraged not tarred and feathered. | |||
| # As such expecting a professional level of maturity from her is unrealistic and totally unnecessary. So being motivated to win some DYK award may seem trivial to some here, it is quite conceivably important to a 16 year old. If she has made mistakes, the can be corrected. Finding a support structure to help her improve should be the goal here, not deriding her because she is intimidated to come here to the "Hall of Authority" to defend herself and her actions before a group of much older and oft times much more uncivil authority figures. | |||
| # As far as I am concerned Abd has done a good thing by taking up an advocate position for this user who may simply lack the assertiveness to deal with the BS that goes on here that only comes with experience and maturity beyond her years. While he may be verbose, and while some of his ways of putting things may appear as threats, his underlying premise in this case appears to be sound: an early consensus was formed simply by uninformed editors piling on (with all good intent) because they were hearing accusations of copyvio violations which is the only substantive charge I see in this whole mess, but for which I have seen essentially zero evidence given the amount of discussion space already dedicated to discussing things ... well there was that single 6 or 7 month old one liner ... which has apparently already been dealt with. This warrants a more thorough investigation whose goal should be simply to find and repair and past damage and to compile a list of example to present to WW so that she might learn to avoid similar mistakes in the future. | |||
| # I will agree that it is important for WW to engage the community but there is no need for this to be a threatening experience for her as I am sure it must be. Simply allow Abd to continue as her advocate and adviser so that she has the structure to help her to properly engage in the experience. This would be a valuable life experience for her in the long run and as long as she embraces the changes that need to be made she promises to be a prolific contributor to the project. This is, after all, what the goal should be here, right? | |||
| # As for Abd leveling accusations of sock puppetry, I think that things are being over blown here. His statements were hardly clear cut accusations. They were mere stream of consciousness suspicions as is Abd's way. In the end after Thatcher's post and some reflection Abd clearly acknowledged that Fritzpoll is NOT Fredrick Day and apologized for any distress that his suspicions may have caused. This is, I believe, the trigger that people were expecting to lift his ban? If so the threshold would appear to have been reached. | |||
| # For what it's worth, I find Carcharoth and Gatoclass to be the most level headed voices of reason in all this. i found their positions and assessments to be the most compelling. Most of the pointy sticks in this discussion were based on entrenched positions and a lack of willingness to admit a rush to judgment. | |||
| # I clearly believe that Fritzpoll was acting in good faith when he closed the original ANI imposing the DYK ban. There was a clearly stated consensus there so his actions were justified but it is also important to note that many of those voting had admitted that they had not actually looked into the matter personally and were taking the word of other editors on the charges. I have no reason to doubt the good faith intentions of those whose findings these others listened to, but I also note a distinct lack of verifiable diffs to back up all the bluster. As such, I think Abd was correct in his assertion that this ban was premature and potentially a rush to judgment that should be corrected. | |||
| # I also believe the Blechnic was acting in good faith in his actions here and his desire to protect the project from what he saw as harm. While this is admirable I think that he is being overzealous in his pursuit of WW, especially in consideration of her age. To the extent that his actions have prevented further damage he has been vindicated, but now that the threat has been halted I would hope that he would switch his focus towards finding a positive solution to this situation which allows WW to continue to be an enthusiastic contributor to the project regardless of what motivates her to do so. There is no reason that the desire to achieve a DYK award should be considered a negative as long as his primary concerns regarding copyvios, the padding of articles just for padding's sake, and a couple of thinly veiled insults are addressed. With the exception of the copyvios, neither of these issues is worthy of a ban, IMHO. On the issue of extensive copyvio allegations I am seeing very little here in terms of actual diffs. That does not mean that they don't exist, but without them a ban is clearly premature given the number of conditional votes in the existing consensus which is all Abd is claiming, also IMHO. Even if they do exist a ban should not be the goal. Correcting them should be and WW will probably be more than willing to help in that effort as long as the process is not pursued in such an intimidating manner. | |||
| --] (]) 07:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The main problem here is that Abd, whilst claiming to have tried to follow ], seemed to lose that in a quest to be "right". As I felt was appropriate, I offered, as one means of resolving the dispute, having another administrator review the close (since I can't unilaterally overturn what I perceived as a community ban). Following Abd's block last night, I asked Carcharoth to perform this task, which will hopefully be to the satisfaction of all concerned. ] (]) 08:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I think an independent review is a fine step, but I don't see that as a resolution moving forward. As I said above I believe that you were acting in good faith and given what you had before you that you were justified in your actions at the time. The question now becomes what is the best positive outcome that can be achieved here and what is the best means of effecting that? What the community has done only the community can undo, which is the core of your point, correct? So let us formulate as best we can the conditions which have to be met so that the ban can be lifted by community action. Whether the ban was right or whether it was a rush to judgment is rather moot a this point, IMHO. It is done so let's focus on moving forward and let the independent review serve as a retrospective to help everyone avoid similar problems in the future (if it is deemed a problem at all). If the independent review reveals an injustice was done in the form of a good faith rush to judgment then it should be easy enough to garner community support for the lifting of the ban. If the judgment was justified, well, then the issues identified need to be addressed by WW in a construction way for the obvious reasons. | |||
| ::: Clearly actual participation by WW here would facilitate this process. While ] coupled with her age can explain (but not excuse) her alleged actions she will eventually have to step up and become accountable if she is to be taken seriously. More than anything I think the main complaint or uncomfort I am hearing in this whole discussion is a lack of active participation in this process by WW, which I think is fair, and this then becomes her first challenge in getting this matter resolved. I simply think that this will be most effective if Abd continues to be an advocate and an adviser but ultimately with her direct participation here. In that context I would urge Abd to encourage WW to take some responsibility and engage the process. 16 years old or not if she refuses to address the community it should be no surprise that the community will view her with suspicion and in a negative light (regardless of whether that is justified or not). It is simply the reality of the situation. | |||
| ::: Personally I prefer to wait for the results of the independent review before formulating any next steps. This will not prevent WW from working on additional contributions as part of her DYK goal, as far as I can tell, as long as the ban on her self-nominating is respected until this is resolved. Personally I have no particular problem if others within the DYK community want to nominate her work within that process so long as the nominator takes responsibility for insuring quality concerns are properly covered before making such a nomination. Do others have any serious objections with such an arrangement? It seems she has some support from within that community so perhaps that could be a workable arrangement? --] (]) 16:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree with all of the sentiments above, and, to be explicit, I don't think it should be considered "ban evasion" (as it was once termed by an editor) if another editor nominates on her behalf, provided that editor takes the same responsibility for the nomination as if it were their own ] (]) 16:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is a secondary problem here, which is that WW has apparently not been communicative with ''anyone'' in recent days and has successfully avoided addressing ''any'' concerns. It's nice to see people standing up to protect this poor frightened sixteen-year-old - except that she professes such that she's unable to join in a project, she doesn't to read about what's happened, she's still creating technical and she's at them. I suppose these issues are subsidiary to the big show and I won't pursue them. I'll just make my prediction that this topic will recur here, some new players, some the same old same old. I'll try to watch more quietly next time. ] (]) 10:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I think that you raise valid points, some of which I have addressed above. On the issue of leadership and not having time to read what's happened I think the ] view of that is simply her rationalizing things so she can avoid the trip to the principal's office, as it were. This seems to make perfect sense in a 16 year old frame of mind, IMHO. | |||
| ::: On the issue of her creating technical articles on material which she does not understand, I would suggest that Abd convey to her that this is no longer an advisable set of material for her to work on unless and until a suitable reviewer or reviewers can be identified to volunteer to vet her work. Still, if the material is sufficiently above her level of comprehension that she is writing incomprehensible gibberish then obviously this would be of no value to anyone, including herself in her quest for the DYK award. Clearly it would be best for her to confine her activities to topics that she can reasonably understand, but even on technical articles ''IF she is able'' to get things into even a 90% usable state this can be a way to make those interested in such topics much more efficient at creating new content since they would only need to help her get the last 10% completed. This is obviously only a viable option so long as suitable arrangements are made with other appropriate contributors who are capable of and willing to invest that extra 10%. Thoughts? Concerns? | |||
| ::: I would also suggest to Abd that he convey to her that quality is just as important a goal here as quantity. In other words, 5,000 really well written articles is probably a more laudable achievement than would be 10,000 sloppy and inaccurate ones. Agreed? --] (]) 16:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===] blocked=== | |||
| Just a quick note as the blocker; Abd was blocked solely for the de facto campaign of harassment against Fritzpoll (even after the blocking, the closest he can come to an apology is that . This has nothing to do with the wider issue re WW (FWIW, somewhere in the thread you'll see me actually arguing in support of WW; I'm not trying to "suppress the opposition" here). | |||
| As I've said, I specifically mean "indefinite" as "undefined", not "forever". If someone genuinely thinks this was an abusive block (but note the ''seven'' warnings ''after'' the final warning), or Abd comes up with a legitimate reason to unblock, I won't oppose anyone unblocking – although having done some research through his contribs, he seems to have some very serious COI issues; as the self-declared inventor of a voting system, more than 50% of his mainspace edits are to related articles; there also seem to be some off-wiki issues, for what they're worth.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> – ]]</font> 22:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I think you've made the right call here. Much as I often agree with Abd on more general topics, his behaviour here was beyond the pale regarding Fritzpoll, who is an excellent contributor to mainspace. ] 00:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::For the benefit of anyone trying to resolve this mess, and to save reposting a huge chunk of diffs, the "personal attacks following final warning" on which the block was based (incidentally, despite what Abd is saying, the warning was ''not'' given by me), are listed . Even after all that, the closest he's coming to a retraction is that , a claim that I somehow cooked this up because I wanted to block him but couldn't find a reason, and a threat to take me to Arbcom for "putting him in talk page prison".<font face="Trebuchet MS"> – ]]</font> 00:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::For what its worth, there is no technical evidence of a connection between Fredrick day and Fritzpoll, and substantial circumstantial evidence to actively refute a connection. ] 00:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't think the reference to a "trick" was that Iridescent was tricking Abd. The reference seems to be that F.D. was trying to trick Abd into thinking Fritzpoll was a sock of F.D. Which apparently succeeded, although rather than being an attempted trick it was apparently a case of missing quotation marks. ] (]) 12:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No – . "''I've seen these kind of arguments before. They come up when admins want to block someone, but need to figure out a reason. This affair has, so far, to me, all the signs of that. It's fine with me. I don't need to be able to edit Misplaced Pages to prepare an ArbComm case''" is explicitly referring to this block being an admin conspiracy and/or a deliberate abuse by myself, and an implicit (albeit laughable) threat of an RFAR.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> – ]]</font> 13:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I made one of the last warnings, asking for input from others at the same time. I thoroughly support this block, more so now that Abd is claiming in the aftermath he was "tricked." His hints about Fritzpoll were utter smears and whether in good or bad faith, were disruption. He is clearly here to drum for his own interests, in his own meta-talk ways, far above and beyond anything else. ] (]) 00:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I see on his talk page just now what i take as a rather full apology, so the block has served its purpose. I support an unblock. ''']''' (]) 04:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I also support an unblock as Abd has thrice made my ]. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing! Sincerely, ]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 04:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::What? How silly. Iridescent, the blocking admin, also appears on your "list of wise wikipedians". So I guess really you should be neutral? ] {{IPA|ǀ}} ] 14:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : On his talk page Abd has clearly acknowledged that Fritzpoll is not Fredrick Day and has apologized directly to Fritzpoll for any distress this misunderstanding may have caused and they seem to have parted on friendly terms. This seems to be a significant constraint that those who supported the ban wanted from Abd. He has now provided it. I support unblocking him. --] (]) 07:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| This is ]'s "apology" to ] : "I can also, now, apologize for my thoughts, expressed above, calling into question Fritzpolls' competence as an administrator. I still think he made some mistakes, but.... what matters is what happens next, and it looks like he's properly handling it now." Although ] uses the term "apologize", he still claims that the mistakes were on ]'s side. ] apologizes only because ] "is properly handling it now". Yellowbeard 11:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ===So the state of play is?=== | |||
| I note that no-one has yet replied to my question, which was, what exactly is the state of play regarding WW and the supposed DYK ban? Hopefully I can get an answer this time. If I don't, I think I am just going to have to assume that there is no consensus and that it will be up to the DYK regulars to formulate a response for themselves. ] (]) 07:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :That a topic ban is currently in place, but that I have asked for it to be reviewed by a neutral administrator, who will get around to it this evening. Hope that helps ] (]) 11:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ho hum, the drama goes on. Thanks for letting me know. ] (]) 11:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :One minor correction to your summary above, Gatoclass. You stated "It transpired that most people merely felt that she needed to acknowledge some mistakes and accept a mentor, but since no-one put up their hand to act as mentor..." however at least two people offered to mentor her. WW simply "archived" those offers along with anything else put on her talk page with in minutes of seeing it and did not respond to them. I, myself, am one of the ones who agreed with the bans because her reactions to them showed she didn't care at all about the guidelines and made it clear that she was her because she felt she "had" to make 10,000 articles and get a lot of DYK's to make a name for herself. I am mildly concerned that she has such an obsession at a young age, one that would daunt many older, more experienced editors. | |||
| :I felt a topic ban was necessary to stop her from violating ] (which I know she has done frequently in other topic areas, such as films and television because I was the one who went behind and corrected her and thought, mistakenly, that she had learned rather than just moved to a new area) and from violating ] with her inaccurate additions where she admits to not knowing what she's reading or writing about, her actually sourcing herself in some articles, etc. These are two very core policies that editors can not just be allowed to ignore because they are "young" or "inexperienced." I know another editor who is about 10 who has learned about those and come to understand both reasonably well enough that he even checks to make sure a source is ] if he isn't sure himself. If a 10 year old can learn that without having to come to this extremely, sure WW should have gotten it by now? Her talk page history shows that rather than learn, she is ignoring, and that is not good. I would like to see her get turned around, as I think she does have the potential to be a good editor if she'd stop ignoring the community, policies, and guidelines, to do so. I worked with her on a few articles and it took some time but I thought she'd learned something, but it seems she hasn't learned to apply those teachings across the board, and has allowed herself to become obsessed with amassing DYKs. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 14:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Having reviewed the various threads myself for the first time I can now comment. There was a clear community consensus to topic ban her from DYK. The most important underlying problems were concern about plagiarism and writing articles that just weren't right. The intent of topic banning her from DYK was to get her to slow down and do a better job herself, instead of depending on the rest of the community to repair her articles to an acceptable standard after the page has already been on the main page. Thus someone who quickly forwards her suggestions for DYK noms is undercutting the intent of the ban, and in the long run is likely to lead to further restrictions being placed. The community was open to mentoring - which would require the mentor to actually review her work closely - but WW did not indicate any such openness (and some evidence from her talk archives seems to indicate that she is not willing to work with or learn from anybody). | |||
| It might be possible for another editor to review her new page creations, take responsibility themselves to make sure it is a decent article, explain to her the changes that were made and why they had to be made, and then nominate the resulting article for DYK under their own name. When they stop having to make changes to her articles to get them into decent shape, then it would be time to nominate on behalf of WW. It would be most effective if each type of change was made in a single edit with appropriate edit summaries - say one edit to clean up any copyvio/plagiarism, one edit to correct the article's wording and facts, one edit to bring the referencing up to snuff, and (it appears likely to be needed) one edit to use multiple sources. This would have the effect of mentoring her, though it would work better if she were actively participating in two way communication. Given the pace at which she has been operating, this may be more than any one editor can do on their own - and given her prior attitude we may have trouble finding volunteers. It takes me a couple hours to produce a decent non-stub article - and it will probably take about as long for any reviewer to make sure that a new article from this editor is in fact not just a stub (regardless of the presence of absence of a stub template). ] 14:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I think you're right. I also think we should not be spending lots of editor time, just to facilitate some editor who seems more interested in racking up a new high score than in collaborating usefully with others. Anyone who actively subverts the topic ban probably needs to also be topic banned. ] ] 14:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :GRBerry, I was going to ask/echo "is it worth it?" when I saw Friday had said rather much the same thing. As you hint, if there are volunteers willing to help out with this, wonderful but otherwise it seems to me she isn't ready to do this on her own yet. ] (]) 15:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :One of the problems is that, if you look closely at new articles (not just the ones being looked at here), lots of them have problems. That is part of the point of a wiki, after all, that people come along and improve what you have written. Where to draw the line with problems with articles and explaining this to those who start articles in a stubby state (we've all done that, I would venture to say), is tricky. I've spent time trying to find out more about , to see if WW's choice of one source over another for one date (1967, instead of 1937) was correct, but it is difficult. I agree with those that have said that an obsession with DYK is not good. The aim should be to improve as an editor overall, not rack up DYKs. Oh, and in case anyone thinks I write good stubs, ] needs attention... ] (]) 15:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == BKLisenbee and Opiumjones 23 topic ban, redux == | |||
| On July 25, ] proposed a for ] (] '''·''' ]) and ] (] '''·''' ]). There were no objections before the text was archived, so I am working under the assumption that the topic ban is effective as of the time FayssalF posted it. The edit warring in question has continued, with edits directly from the BKLisenbee account (, , etc.), along with anonymous edits that I suspect were made by, or on behalf of, Opiumjones 23 e.g. reminding BKLisenbee about the topic ban (, ) along with ] edit summaries (). FayssalF has described a troubling conflict of interest on the part of both users. Furthermore, both appear to be ] (i.e. centered around a group of articles having to do with Beat Generation and related figures in Morocco). I've seen this go on for a couple years, and FayssalF, who has tried to mediate this all along, must have infinite patience or some unspecified reason for not simply blocking these two accounts and being done with it. I'm blocking both users indefinitely: given the continual COI, SPA, and edit warring, I don't see what else these editors are contributing to the encyclopedia other than their quarreling over a certain set of articles. -- ] ] 14:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Opiumjones 23's block has been lifted, as checkuser evidence points to BKLisenbee as the culprit, evidently an attempt at a frame-up (, ). Previously, BKLisenbee had insisted that as long as he is to be blocked, then both ] (] '''·''' ]) and Opiumjones 23 should be as well. PiCo, for what it's worth, has made Misplaced Pages edits across a range of topics outside those included in this ban. -- ] ] 02:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :There has been one main reason why I never blocked both accounts indefinitely... | |||
| :* They are the only accounts with major edits (90%?) at all the concerned articles. We have had some similar situations. If you block the ''only'' existing editors of a disputed article then you'd risk ending up with a biased, an advert article or some BLP violations. The articles may need a review from third parties but without the help of these accounts nothing can be reached. They are the main people who know all details about the topics in question. The problem is that nobody cares much about the topics they edit. I have asked for help many times using multiple noticeboards but there has been little interest. | |||
| : My topic ban was meant to encourage discussions at talk pages. They had already agreed to all the requirements and conditions I proposed a few months ago. I assume part of the responsability in this mess. I have been quite busy, for a few months -- both on and off-wiki, and that probably caused the failure of the plan agreed by all parties. I am less busy nowadays and I suggest a conditional unblock: | |||
| :* Participation will be limited to bringing reliable sources for questionable and disputed edits to talk pages for a review. I'll post a notice at the WikiProject Music talk page and noticeboard and hope some people would be interested in reviewing the articles. In case there would be no people interested then I can do that myself as they had already agreed to it. You can help, Gyrofrog. And of course, no personal attacks (inappropriate conduct and name calling) otherwise we'll be obliged to block the offender and communications would become limited to e-mail. -- ] / <small>]</small> 02:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fayssal, I don't see how ''you'' are responsible for any of this mess. I understand your point about why you would allow their continued participation, at the same time there is an obvious COI on the part of both editors, and as each seems to have such a big personal stake in the outcome I don't see how this could possibly lead to ''less''-biased articles. This is further complicated by the checkuser results that Hersfold has reported, I can't think of any good reason to unblock BKLisinbee, nor can I see any good faith behind such actions. In any case, I don't think it's right that, thus far, you've shouldered the responsibility for mediating this all along. It was obvious that the two had exhausted your patience if not the community's. Thanks, -- ] ] 02:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Since my name has been mentioned I'd like to add a comment - though I'm not sure I'm really allowed to, as a non-admin. Anyway, for what it's worth: yes, I've been editing the ] article lately, and it's turned into an edit war with BKLisinbee. This is because ''any'' attempt to edit that page in a way BKLisinbee doesn't like results in a reversion - he believes he owns the page. What I've been doing is trying to protect an edit or group of edits reached in a rare period when a whole group of editors were present, and none of them were BKLisinbee. Those editors were the gay mafia - yes, they do exist - and they were trying to insert justification for including Bowles in their favourite category, gay and lesbian writers. To help them out, I added a section on Bowles' achievement, which was previously lacking. Personally, I think a writer's sexuality should only be mentioned should only be mentioned if and as it's relevant to his achievement. Bowles' sexuality was pretty marginal to his career as writer and musician - only one short story deals with gay sex, out of a pretty big oeuvre. But it's also a fact that that story is frequently anthologised in gay collections, and that's notable enough to merit inclusion in the article, IMO. BKLisinbee, however, is on a mission to whitewash Bowles' reputation - he won't have anything that paints the Master as anything other than a red-blooded heterosexual. The facts don't seem to bear him out - Bowles' obituary in the BBC website, for example, explicitly mentions his homosexuality. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't mention this in passing, although I don't want to allow it to dominate the article. ] (]) 10:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : While any edit warring is discouraged, the dispute you have with BKLisinbee appears to be separate from the one between him and Opiumjones 23, and my impression is that you are ''not'' affected by the topic ban (in which Fayssal did not mention your name, anyway). You don't seem to have the same personal stake in these articles that the others do, your contributions are across a range of subjects (and that was the point of my mentioning you, sorry this wasn't clear). Thanks, -- ] ] 15:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :PiCo, your involvement is minimal and as Gyroforg explais, you don't have the same personal stake in these articles that the others do. | |||
| :P.S. I have no particular interest in the sexual orientations of ] but "he was a lover of men and boys" is a tabloid lingo; something far away from our practices and MoS guidelines. Another note, isn't paulbowles.org a primary source in this case? The best scenario would be using a third party reliable source. It seems like a ] indeed especially that PB doesn't explicitely and literally say he "loved boys and men." -- ] / <small>]</small> 07:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Re paul Bowles in fact the Bowles page is central to the other issues as it was Bowles and Hamris 50 year long enmity, despite social meetings, that created the Jououka/Jajouka mess with Bowles stirring the pot. The book to read that clarifies matters is "Without Bowles: The Genius of Mohamed M'Rabet" by Andrew Clandermond and Terence McCarthy, (Tangier 2006) The authors assert that Bowles deliberately mislead publishers on facts regarding M'Rabet (Page 95) discusses his homosexuality and lover Yacoubi (PP 100-1). Many mis-truths constructed by Bowles are being continued after his death by people working for his estate and official website through this site. | |||
| ::As to the topic ban. I think that the User:Emerman (Did you never did check user him Fayssal?) sock of Lisenbee drove all reasonable editors away. My own attempts to get a sourced rational and accurate version on various pages may benefit those editors. I am happy to leave notes on talk pages re errors and sources. keep up the good work Pico] (]) 23:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Opiumjones 23, I cannot respond to your question regarding the CheckUser explicitely but I can assure you, as in the cases of {{user|Tuathal}} and {{user|Abelelkrim}}, that they would have been already blocked for sockpuppetry if they were the same user. I have some few notes: | |||
| :::* I have just received an e-mail from user:BKLisenbee telling me that he is not the one who edited with IPs lately. I then asked him for more clarifications. I am still waiting for that. | |||
| :::* You had already agreed not to use people's real names. Is there any reason why aren't you stopping? | |||
| :::* It looks that you are involving user:PiCo more than enough. Please read and understand my response to user:PiCo above. Him editing ] is one thing while you editing that article is another thing. You have been using it to pursue a blatant clear agenda. What is important to you is the relative relationship between Paul Bowles and your real-life activities. You explain it better than no one else when you say above that "the Bowles page is central to the other issues as it was Bowles and Hamris 50 year long enmity". Isn't that because Hamri is also central to your real-life activities? | |||
| :::* I haven't followed the full violations of the terms agreed upon (see ). Just a random check leads me to one of the central disputed articles which is ] or ] (you know what name to choose). The article has an external link (we have plenty of times discussed the nature of external links in this dispute) but it seems that you are still using your interview as a unique external link. This violates clearly our agreement. I am not sure if you are still using the brink.com website as a source. | |||
| :::* I suggest you recuse yourself here as you are officially topic banned. It is also unfair to listen to you here while dismissing the other party's points and claims. You have both done wrong. You both deserve being topic banned but getting one party blocked indef while keeping the other one half-free is nonsense. -- ] / <small>]</small> 07:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Where did I use real names? User:BKLIsenbee is the same as BKLisenbee, therefore i did not use the User's real name. Yacoubi is dead and his name is in the book mentioned and others. | |||
| :::::The book reffed is an important source. | |||
| :::::*I did not block User:BKLisenbee and I have not been involved with multiple wars with editors over POV as he has. I did not try to frame users and I did not blank pages from Calgary IPs, or act in concert with other editors as recent edits on the various pages by User Jajoukatruth and BKL show they have been. | |||
| :::::*I have tried over and over again to comply and consult with you over a wide range of sources and issues at the Fayssal/JK page but was the only voice there !!!! | |||
| :::::You did not respond to my emails regards many questions. You seem to be overly concerned about USer BKL's pleadings. | |||
| :::::* I am happy to be topic banned if the other party and his socks are also. | |||
| :::::*You state above that this ban is from editing and that you would be happy to receive info on talk pages.However you generally ignore such info in my experiences. | |||
| :::::*I can't be made responsible for ]'s indef block. I think that many users and editors will welcome that block and pages will improve greatly.part from the Paul Bowles page you should look at the Choukri and M'Rabet pages that are full of his POV edits. Chourki was explicit in his condemnation of Bowles in Morocxcan newspaper articles before his untimely death. | |||
| :::::*The new sources that I used on recent edits are 100% bone fide and independent of me. | |||
| :::::*I have researched and published work on Brion Gysin and William Burroughs before Misplaced Pages or indeed the internet as we know it was conceived. Therefore I am an expert on those area, regarding both primary and secondary sources. Note that musch of the background info on the cvarious Joujouka/Jajouka pages was added by me and has not been attacked by BKL or his socks. | |||
| :::::*paul Bowles.org is as reliable as the Jewish Internet Defence web site ] (]) 11:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I emailed you a recent article from the Guardian and one from the Irish Times. Both papers are papers of record. Factual errors are/can be addressed through the letters pages or through other actions. No one has questioned a single fact in either article] (]) 12:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You used a real name above. No idea? | |||
| ::::You are an expert on the area. You are deeply involved. You know most of the details -as does the other side. You are a music expert having financial interests in telling the world that Jajouka should be spelled Joujouka, that Master Musicians of Joujouka are the real ones and Master musicians of Jajouka are impostors, Bowles was a "lover of boys and men" (why not just say gay or pedophile if you got independent reliable sources?). Using Misplaced Pages to advertise your own festival is inappropriate. You are sourcing it using your own site indeed! <s>And I know very well that ''your'' festival (especially the unauthorized filming of the tomb). If you were here for neutrality you'd have reported that as well.</s> But, no. Instead you are using your own non-notable website (same for the other party's website) to tell us about a failed festival. No, that is totally inappropriate here. You had done the same to promote your music album and you were warned. On the other hand, you are posting and following each other on the internet. Your comments are found everwhere the other band announces something about their activities. This is true for the other side as well but it seems clear to me that you are managing a real internet campaign. I wouldn't care about all this bruhaha but you are using Misplaced Pages as a battleground and being topic banned is the least that can be done. You both have been topic banned but appearing now to tell us here that you are so correct respecting policy/guidelines/agreemnts is nonsense. | |||
| ::::Yes Frank. You have e-mailed me ''The Guardian'' and ''The Irish Times'' articles. I also receive similar consultations from the other side in similar fashion from time to time. My e-mail is open to both of you since the first day. But you rebember that I told you I was very busy lately. I wished I assisted to the festival as well but failed for the same reasons. I listened to both of you for almost three years and you know that you both deserve a topic ban. You both are here for a reason other than writing an encyclopedia. You are both here to represent your interests (music producing, festivals, copyright, legal issues, etc...) Your lawyer edited for a long time before being detected. Misplaced Pages should be filled with reliable independent references and sources. It is great to hear that you have started to use them. I told you both that jajouka.net and joujouka.net are prohibited here (all agreed, right?). So why are you still using it to advertise your festival? But, it is great again to see parties using reliable sources though I'd not dismiss your relationship with the Irish media. -- ] / <small>]</small> 21:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: User:Pico and I have been in touch before and need no intercessions. He/She is a fine editor] (]) 12:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, S/He is a fine editor. No doubt about that. I have nothing against PiCo's general edits. S/He's been around for a long time and I respect their dedication and all their contributions to the encyclopedia. As Gyrofrog states above, PiCo is not a single-purpose account at all and I personally believe they got no interest in all this. But if you have been in touch before and need no intercessions with PiCo then my opinion on PiCo involvment in this has to be reviewed. I'll assume good faith as usual but if PiCo jumps to the rest of the articles then I'd understand that as a kind of meatpuppetry. -- ] / <small>]</small> 21:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Re Blatent clear agenda You are correct re Paul Bowles but that agenda was to return the page to factual accuracy and remove inaccurate and blatantly incorrect info of the User you are dealing with by email. We both knew Bowles, BKL also knew, and has been involved in the personal and professional life of several other article subjects. You know this already. ] (]) 12:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: In fact, it is one of your friends (a journalist) who met Bowles for an interview. You have a clear and official interest in having "Bowles loved boys and men" inside the article. By saying and insisting on the specific wording (you could bring an independent reliable secondary source or use a specific citation) you make it clear that you are here for a specific reason. So that is blatant, Frank. This has been going for more than 3 years. You have been both officially topic banned before being blocked. You are both guilty of using Misplaced Pages to protect or/and promote your real-life interests... So whatever argument you'd use here is useless. Neither you nor BKLisenbee would bring us something new. Don't forget that Misplaced Pages is about verifiability, not truth. I will be having a general review for all these articles and invite all editors and admins to assist me. Both your points will be taken into consideration and sorted out one by one. That has been the reason behind the topic ban. Nothing changed. -- ] / <small>]</small> 21:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Really you are getting very one sided info. 1/ Festival a clear sucess with full co operation of village council, co-operative, Caid and government of Larache. | |||
| <s>How can you claim filming in Sidi Ahmed Schiech was unauthorised other than quoting User BKL who was not there. Fully authorised by Moroccan government permits and the village council and Caid at Tatoft!!!! Sorry to disappoint you all crosses crossed and i's dotted there.</s> How can you make such a statement here and claim a semblance of neutrality? | |||
| The festival was attended by a host of independent media their reports will follow soon. | |||
| I will address you by email re this. But I think you have been feeding from a fountain of angry lies. | |||
| Re: Bowles the above book says enough and is a good source, really I could care less except for post mortem hypocrisy of his friends which only barely surpasses Paul's own. The facts are all there in the secondary printed sources that keep getting pulled from the page as User Pico states. | |||
| What about other peoples interset in US media | |||
| Plus I have NO financial interest in Joujouka/Jajouka they are people who need charity/as they are poor and mistreated people. Dont further that mis treatment by siding with cranks and oppressors | |||
| Seek the truth it is there in the secondary sources | |||
| ] (]) 22:04, 10 August 2008 | |||
| ¨Plus saints preserve us just as User:BKLisenbee gets blocked ] makes his first edits in a year. You will recall he /she stopped editing when you treatened check user . And speaking of names see | |||
| I think that you better check use and also block before that user gets off the ground] (]) 22:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Opiumjones 23, this is Misplaced Pages. A neutral encyclopedia. We are not supposed to use the arguments such as "charity" and "poor". I don't care about your real-life activities (both of you). I wish there has been no dispute. But I care about what happens here. And you have been told many times that user:Emerman is not user:BKLisenbee. You whether stop that or go for a RfCU otherwise you'd be blocked for ]. user:PiCo talks about one (1) article and as it known we are dealing for 3 whole years with a dozen of ones. So please leave PiCo out of your dispute. You have never questioned my neutrality in all and we had reached agreements which you disrespected (your interview link for the jajouka/joujouka article?) What I am saying here is that you are '''both blatantly guilty and you are both topic banned.''' BKLisenbee is blocked indef for using IPs and his account to edit during the ban. You are not blocked indef because you didn't violate your topic ban. You remain topic banned and I don't see why your points should be listened to here and not his ones. End of story. -- -- ] / <small>]</small> 23:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Wakah I remain silent ] (]) 01:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Great. Now, please send me by e-mail all your concerns (like main points of disputes). I won't listen/accept your real-life disputes (following each other on internet and other mutual claims and accusations). Only concerns related to Misplaced Pages editing. I'll post both your concerns at FayssalF/JK (to organize myself better and have a central place for other wikipedians to join) and start working from there. All articles are in a messy state (violations of many policies and including BLPs) and need a firm attention. Any other editor or admin is welcome except you (topic banned), BKLisenbee (blocked indef). -- ] / <small>]</small> 01:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == user ] == | |||
| Hi, user: ] continues to disrupt categories. He/she has several warnings on his page. Please have him/her blocked out. He is VERY persistent in removing categories. Other users seem fed up with him/her too. It seems that Wikipolicies for dealing with this type of ''determined user'' are not working. What can you admins do about this person? It does not seem appropriate to just sit back and let him waste everyone's time. Please block him. Thanks ] (]) 19:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The user seems to have been helpfully removing some redundant categories and doing other cleanup. Do you have any particular ] of concern? -- ] <sup>]</sup> 20:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Regarding the various comments, please see: ]. Thanks ] (]) 04:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :See also the successor of this comment: ]. Cheers, ] 18:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == WP seemingly used as a social network == | |||
| There are a few kids using their Talk pages as MySpace or something similar. They published a '' Friends'' list and they talk about stuff in their pages. The main users in question are ] and ]. Another admin ] had already talked to them. I saw the behavior and gave them a warning. One of them came back with a bellicose attitude , daring me to block. Otherwise they seem like harmless kids (even though ] has two recent short blocks for personal attacks and edit warring and ] one recent for 4RR). They seem to be obsessed with everything about ] characters. Their edits seem OK, not vandalism, therefore I don't want to block but their use of WP as a social network is troublesome. Opinions from other Admins? Am I off-base on this one?, as I prefer not to block. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that talking to each other on their talk pages is pretty harmless. They are active editors after all so it's not as if they are only using[REDACTED] to network. ] | ] 20:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The main reason (nah, the only reason) why I did not block outright and came here for opinions instead. Thanks. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::] is policy, and while I'm not one who desires community interference in the pages of individual users, such a thing sets a bad example, a bad example which is worse if it is ignored. You're here to edit an encyclopedia, or at the very least manage the editing of an encyclopedia, so these users should have no problem complying with policy here. Regards, ] (<small>]</small>) 21:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| This is the first time I can remember ever disagreeing with Theresa on something like this. Their encyclopedic contributions are way too thin, clearly tokens thrown to uncaring sysops. Moreover, their responses to these worries are snarky, so MySpacey. Safe for MySpace, I've a couple pages there meself. I've blocked both accounts for social networking. ] (]) 21:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| If you disagree with me. You must ]. Let that be a lesson to you. ] | ] 21:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Theresa Knott if you ever tell Angela I've been one of her biggest fans through thick and thin only cuz the keenest of us know she can do no wrong even when she canny botches it I'll crawl into a corner, curl up, weep my heart out in the chavel of my broken dreams and blame you. :) ] (]) 21:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Please remember that this is ant hen-cycle-op-ede-helia, and keep your myTube soshulizing to a minimimiumiumuimum. Thank you. ] (]) 22:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I think these blocks may have been a little harsh. ] has 730 mainspace edits vs. 646 talk page edits. ] has 212 mainspace to 46 talk page. Hardly "token" editing, and hardly users who are using the site primarily for social networking. Having reviewed a random sampling of mainspace edits from each, there are some contributions that could certainly be categorised as, well, bad, but others that have been perfectly OK. I feel a softer approach may have been warranted on this occasion: a warning, certainly, but also clearer guidance on where they were going wrong and how to contribute more positively. All these blocks will have done is to turn two potential useful contributors away from the project. Is there any chance that the blocking admin could take another look at these blocks? ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 22:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Seriously, I was going to block them for the weekend but GG got there first - and indefinite means just that, no determined length of time. Yes, there are valid contributions; but this is a world wide contributor driven encyclopedia and not an excuse to bring a few mates around to buff up the video games articles. The other point is, that one of the participants ''dared'' an admin to block them - and again I confess that GG beat me to it! I don't think an attitude of taking it to the edge and seeing who blinks first is an appropriate method of editing WP; if they realise they have gone too far and undertake to edit according to practice and custom then unblocking them is the proper course, but if they don't want to "play" according to the rules then, ultimately, the project is best of without them. Lastly, SLJCOAAATR 1 has been previously blocked - I'm not sure the message is getting through. ] (]) 22:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Seeing as ] now has managed to break ] while blocked, after I offered a second chance, I'm not sure they were here to do good to begin with. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::They should stay blocked. Its not like the blocking admin ever chats or jokes with other editors, err, uhhh, scratch that, never mind. --] (]) 22:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not at all swayed by ] shreds edited into articles on video games they clearly play day in, night out. ] (]) 22:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Fair enough; you took the time to reconsider, and took the time to reply. Thank you. To the others who might read this, I will only say that while SLJCOAAATR_1 responded badly, in a manner that warranted action of some kind, I don't think the initial broaching of the subject ] was handled in the best manner. An immediately combative tone, coupled with an immediate threat to block, rather than a helpful explanation of where the editor was going wrong. Other, bona fide excellent contributors with thousands of edits to their names, keep lists on their userpages of editors with whom they have worked (note that SLJCOAAATR names the section "Wiki Friends & Allies In Editing"; far from a real world "friends" list). And many of us do use Misplaced Pages to communicate with other editors with whom we are friendly, on subjects not directly relevant to the improvement of any particular article. Anyway, 'tis done now. I would only urge a calmer approach in future; it might not always work, but it wouldn't harm things to try. All the best, ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 23:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I have tried to understand the justification behind the indef block of Super Badnik, see ], but have heard nothing so far that seems to justify indef blocking a user who has made constructive edits. There seems to be a mix of MYSPACE/OR reasoning, but nothing that really seems to add up to justification (especially not for an indef block). There seems to be a lot of assumptions ("video games they clearly play day in, day out") but little assumption of good faith. Without stronger justification, in my opinion this block is simply bad and goes against common sense. Why are we alienating a user who has done nothing to actually disrupt Misplaced Pages? Let's not forget that, once the autoblock expires, this user can be back on Misplaced Pages in 24 hours using a different account, and probably not in the mood to be constructive. I would like to see this user unblocked but, as you can see from my first link, the blocking admin is not happy with this. ] (]) 23:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Well, I've just cleared out any items in these user's userspaces (most of which were userboxes only they used or sandboxes that were forks of articles they worked on). And I found these other users who they call "friends": | |||
| *{{userlinks|Fairfieldfencer}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Person373}} (two article edits) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Sonic&Mario KId}} (one article edit) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Unknown the Hedgehog}} (148 article edits) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Talon the cat}} (three article edits) | |||
| I'm thinking we should also apply these blocks to the users who I've pointed out the number of edits for.—] (]) 03:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| It may also be worth it to examine the other users involved with ] and ].—] (]) 03:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I've not been thrilled about handling this because I can more or less understand where these editors are coming from and they have neither been vandalizing nor causing lots of disruption. However, their use of talk pages tends to stray far from ] and taken altogether, the contrib histories are very thin. While there are nods to websites, the article edits are short, shallow and mostly original research from playing the games. The worry here is that if there were thousands of SPA accounts like this on en.Misplaced Pages, the servers would be handling mostly chat and images and the bedrock of ] would quickly start growing <s>cracks</s> crevices. Accounts like these have been blocked in the past and I see no reason why we shouldn't be very careful about this kind of editing. I have indef blocked all the above editors but for ], who is more targeted on meaningful edits in the article space. There are maybe two or three more editors in the WikiProject lists (above) who also have shallow contribs in the article space, but they're a bit less active. I see some good faith lurking about among most of these editors. I'm willing to talk with each of them and reconsider each block, depending on how each editor responds and what they plan to do now. Some of this is clearly owed to a misunderstanding of what Misplaced Pages is for but I'm afraid these blocks have been the only way to get them to take heed. Lastly, a notion has been put forth that we could make "enemies" of these users, who could be back in a day with new accounts as vandals or trolls. Not only do I think this thinking strays from AGF but the truth is, Misplaced Pages is rather fit at handling vandalism and either way, mustn't be held at bay by those kinds of fears. Input on all this is welcome, as ever. ] (]) 06:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, I'm going to go through the user space edits of the accounts that you did block.—] (]) 06:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. Especially the blocking of Person and Talon, not to mention the deletion of a WikiProject. Those two are still learning what to do and will become good editors. And the deletion of WikiProject is a terrible thing to do. Would anyone here like it if I deleted ]? As for them editing video game articles, would like them to edit articles they know nothing about? If users did that there's be misinformation everywhere. Users should stick to editing what they know about. As for the OR, I myself as a Sonic fan, see that as important information to the characters make-up. We're not treating this like Myspace, we're just being friendly. Or would you prefer it if we were ]?] ] 08:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :There's a difference between being friendly and misusing Misplaced Pages. Person and Talon had more edits to their friend's user pages than to articles. Even after my deletions, they still don't have more edits to articles. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia first and a community second. And if your only contributions to Misplaced Pages are based on ], then you are also violating policy.—] (]) 08:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Care to point out how being nice and friendly is misusing Misplaced Pages? And the reason why those two haven't made edits to articles is because they're afraid that they will make mistakes and get blocked. As they are now.] ] 08:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::They have done nothing but make friends. Misplaced Pages is not MySpace, Facebook, Craigslist, etc. Accounts are to be used to improve the encyclopedia. Those that don't improve the encyclopedia (through destructive or simply non-constructive means) get blocked.—] (]) 08:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Also note that we do not block users because they make common errors in articles (unless these errors constitute the deliberate insertion of disinformation) —<strong>]</strong>] 08:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yeah, but do they know that? I don't recall anyone telling them that, and I've been wacthing their pages.] ] 08:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Why would they assume they would get blocked? --] (]) 08:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Because they're inexpierienced.] ] 08:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I agree. The only error that seems to have been made is perhaps some original research and it is not clear to me that somebody has spoken to the users about it. I am very concerned about this. This seems to have turned into a witch-hunt against users who do have 200+ contributions simply because some people don't like the idea of some social interaction (I don't see people getting blocked for leaving barnstars or "plates of cookies" etc - which seems to be social interaction here). When I raise the concern that we have probably turned good contributors into vandals, and certainly lost their good contributions, the answer seems to be "that's OK, we can deal with vandals". I can understand a concern if somebody was only using Misplaced Pages servers to hosts their "MySpace" content, but if they are are making decent contributions (albeit needing some guidance), then it doesn't make sense to me. They do not seem to have been disruptive in any real way. It is simply not true that they have made no contributions (at least the user I mentioned above), if we are not happy with their contributions we can deal with that. As for the justification that they got confrontational, are we surprised? I bet we could make most of our contributors confrontational if we suddenly became authoritarian with what they could and couldn't do, when there is no logical justification. Just go and find somebody leaving plates of cookies, tell them they are social networking and threaten to block them, and see what response you get. This goes for long term contributors with project buy-in, never mind kids who have just joined the project. ] (]) 09:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That is not the issue. There is no "witch hunt" or prejudice against contribution count. If an editor's only contributions are social interaction, they are misusing Misplaced Pages and should be putting that energy into another website where social interaction is the main goal. Every so often, we find MySpacey editors, list them here (or ANI), and try to figure out what to do with them. These users don't cause problems, but they don't do anything else.—] (]) 09:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Super Badnik helped save an article from getting merged. SLJ made a task force to help improve articles. And all the other editors that were blocked were part of that task force. Two of them were still learning. And to learn they need to go to userspace and talk. Or as you call it, "Wrongly using Misplaced Pages." Apparently it's against policy to teach inexpierienced users.] ] 09:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Anyone who is enjoying their time on Misplaced Pages clearly should be blocked indefinitely, and new users should always be blocked until they have contributed at least 3 featured articles. It is completely unacceptable to start using Misplaced Pages until one is an experienced contributor who understands how everything here works. {{unsigned|DuncanHill}} | |||
| ::::::::::Excuse me? That makes no sense. How can they make a featured article if they're blocked? And you're saying if someone enjoys Misplaced Pages they should be blocked? I teach inexpierienced users in my userspace or their userspace. What you're saying makes no sense at all. I've been here for almost a year and haven't made a single article on Misplaced Pages. But have not been blocked once.] ] 09:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::He was being sarcastic. ] (]) 09:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Sorry Ryulong but you are wrong. Here are the article contributions of Super Badnik (just shy of 200). If he was only using it for hosting his content and chatting, then yes we would have a problem, but not when he has made a decent amount of contributions. Again if there are problems with the contributions, that can be dealt with in other ways. I have not checked the contributions of the other users, who may only be hosting/chatting, but that doesn't mean that we should block Super Badnik. ] (]) 09:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I don't recall anyone saying she has been using Misplaced Pages only for hosting and chatting. I do know that instead of taking any of ''five'' chances to talk about this, she made an explicit legal threat. ] (]) 09:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::After you had blocked. Again, go around blocking other contributors because they have a chat with another use, talk about themselves a bit on their user page, or leave someone a barnstar, and see the response you get. The block just escalated matters. ] (]) 09:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| (OD)A look at those contributions doesn't show 200 quality constructive edits, it shows quite a few tiny edits quickly reverted either by himself or by other editors. It's thanks to editors like this that the article for ] is longer than the article for the ]. ] (]) 09:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :So if there are issues, we can deal with those, rather than issue an indef block. I don't get your point about the Sonic article being longer than the Great Wall of China article. Remember this is a new user who doesn't understand all of our policies and guidelines. We need to be clear why we are blocking them. Is it because we don't like their contributions? ] (]) 09:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::In this thread (above), . ] (]) 09:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::OK, well none of that gives you justification to block Super Badnik. It is just a jumble of concerns about some social networking and the quality and depth of contributions. Is there any policy basis to this block? If it is IAR, what problem are you solving? ] (]) 10:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::(ec)The block notices that GG gave provides not only the reason, but also the basis by which they can be unblocked - and indefinite means just that, there is no minimum period so they can be unblocked just as soon as they undertake to use WP for the editing of articles rather than networking. I would comment that there is little evidence that they don't understand policies and guidelines, as they have got the hang of joining Wiki projects, indenting talkpages, linking, etc., so it appears that they choose not abide by some rules. Lastly, this is Misplaced Pages; it is well known as being the internet encyclopedia that anyone can edit - thus anyone participating on this site should expect to be involved in doing encyclopedic work. I don't see how this is difficult to understand. ] (]) 10:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::None of it is a valid reason to block, and he has made contributions. Just because we might be willing to unblock him later, doesn't mean with have to have a very good justification in the first place. ] (]) 10:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::SLJ and I taught them how to do those things. I don't know if they've read the policies or not, but I have feeling if they read the policy about using WP as a place to chat, they wouldn't have thought being tought things and being friendly fell under that category.] ] 10:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If I may please ask, what chat policy are you talking about? ] (]) 10:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::(ECx2)Well put. Basically, the users are put on hold until they can show admins they know what's going on and what's expected of[REDACTED] editors. Once they do, they're reinstated. If they don't want to do that, they're not here to help in the first place. End of crisis. ] (]) 10:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Being an admin doesn't give us the authority to "put users on hold" until they can show us that "they know what is going on and what's expected of Misplaced Pages editors". There are a very well defined set of reasons why we can give preventative blocks, and we are expected to weigh that against the cost of the block. Here we are going well outside of our remit. Even if we IAR, please have a look at the problems that ] aims to solve and see if we have any of them here. What are we preventing with this block of Super Badnik? ] (]) 10:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I was talking about the non-social policy. This is probably assuming bad-faith or something like that, but I think that these blocks are abusively using admin powers. And this should be noted, Badnik said this when she was appealing to be unblocked: "'' I have already showed i do not use[REDACTED] as myspace by making alot of contributions and i have started several articles and edit more articles than left messages on talk pages.''" "''Started several articles.''" Definitely should be noted.] ] 10:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I'm waiting for the users to speak up. Badnik's talk page has been protected because of her legal threat and SLJCOAAATR has started on his 2nd chance project. ] (]) 10:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :This is an abuse of power. SLJCOAAATR doesn't need to prove that they can provide positive contributions because they already have. Super Badnik does need to withdraw his legal threat. We are acting as if we are in a position of authority rather than just having some extra buttons. I would like to unblock SLJCOAAATR and also Supe Badnik (once they have withdrawn their threat), before more damage is done. Objections? If anybody does object I would like them to explain what we are preventing with these blocks. ] (]) 10:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::The unblock requests made by those two editors have already been declined. ] (]) 11:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, the two people that reviewed declined, but I also reviewed and I would have accepted. After all of this further discussion I am requesting again that I be allowed to unblock. I am all for working with these editors to address any issues, but am not comfortable with them being blocked during the process unless we are actually preventing anything significant. They do not seem to have ever been actively disruptive. So, please, let's give the benefit of the doubt. ] (]) 11:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh for the love of Pete! Leave the kids alone. Forget ]... this is 'chew em up good and make damned sure they have no reason to like us'. The actions taken also make about as much sense as an ostrich sticking its head in the sand. There is a feeling that they spend too much time chatting on their talk pages and not updating articles... therefor the proper response is to block them from editing articles and make it so that they can ONLY edit their talk pages. BRILLIANT! | |||
| :Suggestions for how to handle the inevitable re-appearances of this issue in the future: Say 'Hi!'. Be friendly. Give them a 'welcome' template with links on how to edit Misplaced Pages. Wait a while. Politely point out that they are spending alot more time talking than editing. Wait a while. Suggest that maybe they could have more fun on MySpace and that we really aren't here for all this chatting. Wait a while. Apologize for having to protect their user talk page(s) until they start editing more. Wait a while. Block, politely and with hopes of future reconciliation, only when it is clear that they aren't really going to contribute. Then put a note on their talk page telling them how to request unblock when they're ready. --] 11:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''Note:''' Super Badnik has retracted the legal threat in an email to me, so I have unprotected their talk page. ] (]) 12:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Further, I would like to unblock Super Badnik and SLJCAOAAATR, and plan to do so if nobody objects. I will leave it an hour to see if there are any objections. Again, if you do object, please describe what a continuation of the blocks would prevent. ] (]) 12:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have no objection; my decline was based on a number of factors, mainly ]. I do think these users need to contribute to the encyclopedia in a more constructive way, but regardless of my opinion, if they say they will do so, then ]. ] ] 13:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't have an objection either, just a question. What's going to happen to Unknown, Talon, Person and Sonic&Mario?] ] 13:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm greatly concerned about the block of {{userlinks|Unknown the Hedgehog}} specifically. He has ~150 mainspace edits which, while small, seem to be improvements to articles. Why does calling another Wikipedian his "friend" get him banished for life? Is there really consensus that this user should be banned? ] (]) 19:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I see that as I was writing this Gwen unblocked Unknown. Issue resolved? ] (]) 19:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Unblocked=== | |||
| '''Note:''' I have unblocked Super Badnik and SLJCAOAAATR, restored their user pages, and left them a request to review ] and ] and to make sure they stay within those policies. ] (]) 13:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You really shouldn't have unblocked with such a short duration. ''One hour''? Give me a break. That's not long enough notice given that there was no consensus towards the block or against the block, and the numerous unblock requests were all denied by other administrators. There should have been say... 6 hours notice. I'm not going to wheel war over this, but I am disappointed that you have unblocked without much of any discussion or consensus. <small>] | ] | ]</small> 15:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::To be fair it has been discussed substantially, and when I asked previously (3 hours before the unblock and last night) all I got back was a response to say that the unblock requests have previously been declined. Nobdoy has been able to provide a justification for what the blocks were preventing. Keeping users blocked when the block can't be justified doesn't seem the right way to go. But I didn't do this quickly, it has been discussed since last night. ] (]) 15:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| (outdent) This is why I will not edit under my old account. I have well over 15,000 constructive edits to this project and really enjoy it but who ever said admins are folks with extra tools and not in positions of authority said it well. Wiki is not Myspace but it is a community. I actually have never even been to myspace and have no interest in it. Again, the blocking admin never chats, jokes or socially interacts with others on this project?? We all do it to a certain degree. There has to be a better way then indefinate block. If persons are being disruptive and have been given chance after chance and still won't abide by policy that is one thing, but this imho is another. Also, there is no place for legal or any other kind of threats. There are plenty of truely disruptive troll like creatures out there, I agree, but have these folks risen to that level? I admit I don't know. Cheers, --] (]) 14:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Whoa! There's a lot to wade through here so I might have missed something.. but someone was enough of a whiny little kid to make a ''legal threat'' and they were unblocked anyway? I can't agree with this. Legal threats should pretty much be it - I can't think of much of a stronger indication that someone is not the kind of editor we want around here. Cut newbies some slack, certainly, but the minute someone displays an attitude of "screw you, I'll do what I want" then it's time to show them the door. ] ] 15:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :How about warn them, block them (48 hours or a week or whatever), then the door? --] (]) 15:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think that calling them a "whiny little kid" helps here. They retracted the legal threat, which was made in the heat of the moment and in the face of a block that nobody has really been able to justify. ] (]) 15:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can you blame her for wanting to take legal action? Getting blocked for being friendly is ridiculous. If someone nominated that particular policy for deletion, they'd have my full support.] ] 15:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::It seems clear from what they're writing on their userpages that they see themselves as heroes, playing out some grand drama of them fighting the good fight versus those evil admins. Sadly, what's been done here has played into their little fantasies instead discouraging them from thinking such nonsense. If they're going to be unblocked, someone needs to babysit them to try to undo the damage we've done here. TigerShark, I assume you're volunteering for this task? ] ] 15:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If he doesn't I will.] ] 15:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, this has become a drama when it never needed to. What do you think caused that drama? My actions? ] (]) 16:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::As an aside, yes, I can blame her for going straight to a legal thread for getting blocked from a website. That's a pretty big overreaction. Glad she's redacted that now, but it's not a good idea to respond to criticism with threatening a lawsuit. — <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 16:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| What happened here is, three other admins declined the unblock requests of these two editors (one of whom made about the strongest legal threat I've seen lately) and at least three other editors supported these blocks yet a single admin unblocked them without consensus. ] (]) 19:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :And likely that action will stand. I don't think anyone's willing to wheel war over this, and chances are pretty good that the users have learned their lesson. If they haven't, it's not like it's difficult to block them again. Shall we just let it lie for now and see what happens? <font color="green">]</font>] 20:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Someone already did wheel war but never mind. Very happily and helpfully, nobody else took it up. As I said from the beginning, I was planning on talking with each of these editors and would have been startled if we hadn't wound up unblocking most (if not all) of them, after finding ways to help them tone down the MySpaceyness whilst still having fun and contributing meaningfully to the project. As you say, hopefully they've learned from this. ] (]) 20:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think it is a bit harsh to accuse me of wheel warring after I genuinely tried to discuss this with you. I have asked you several times to justify the blocks with a policy based reason or with an explanation of what the blocks were preventing. All you have done is say that the blocks were declined by other admins and mention WP:MYSPACE and WP:NOR, plus something about them "badgering". When I have followed these up you have never given any details that justify a block. You can accuse me of whatever you like, but perhaps you want to take this opportunity to provide a justification (again based on policy or what was being prevented). I feel that I can justify my actions, can you? ] (]) 21:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You wholly ignored my thorough explanations many times, asking the same questions over and over again as if I'd said nothing at all, so I'm not startled to see you carrying on with that. You wheel warred alone against a consensus of at least seven admins. You assumed bad faith on the part of the Sonic editors by claiming they would come back as vandals, even while I clearly said from the beginning that I saw good faith among them. You assumed bad faith on the part of other admins and topped it off by misquoting and misleadingly paraphrasing explanations and discussions (even while claiming these explanations didn't happen). The pith is, it's likely we both were hoping for very similar outcomes, but you didn't have faith in ''anyone'' involved, or in consensus, so you skirted what everyone else was doing and tried to "fix" things yourself. You won't agree with me, I'm ok with that, this is a collaborative project, so far as I care, we're done. ] (]) 22:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The problem is that I have not seen an explanation grounded in policy or in preventing a problem. Can you give one? Are you really claiming that you assumed good faith? You comments to the editors were along the lines of "you clearly aren't here to build an encyclopedia, so I have blocked you". How is that assuming good faith, when they had made many article contributions? ] (]) 22:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The last I heard, it is ] within policy to use Misplaced Pages for anything other than building an encyclopedia. As I and others have told you many times, their article contributions were thin, shallow and largely orginal research, along with being much outweighed by their userspace edits. I would also add that they rudely rebuffed efforts to talk about these worries before they were blocked and one of them resorted to legal threats when she was blocked. Are we done yet? ] (]) 22:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Again, saying these editors were all here to build an encyclopedia isn't really accurate as most of their edits didn't really add anything. Gwen blocked them, but clearly pointed out that the block would be lifted if they expressed an understanding of what[REDACTED] is actually for. One blocked editor responded with a legal threat, which clearly shows they didn't have an understanding of[REDACTED] in the first place. Now that the editors have been reinstated, they seem to understand wikipedia, and the expectations of an editor. I don't see why this is even still an issue. ] (]) 22:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Meanwhile they're talking on their own about a way to do most of the chat stuff off-wiki, which I think is very cool. ] (]) 20:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Told you I'd help sort it out. But we're going to be giving lessons in userspace. I'll try to get to Talon & Person to edit more.] ] 21:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::For what it's worth, I think the best way to learn here is to go for it and edit articles straight off. ] (]) 21:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I really don't think SLJ has learned anything. He requested that I undelete every single one of his userboxes (at least 4 dozen of them), and after reviewing 4 of them again while deleted, I said I was not going to bother. If this is the first thing he wants to do as soon as he's been blocked for ], then I think that TigerShark's unblock was completely wrong here.—] (]) 23:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I fully agree. Since the unblock, he's got a grand total of 18 contributions outside of User:, User talk:, and Misplaced Pages:. Several of those edits weren't even constructive improvements, just the reversion of vandalism. That's great and all, but there is practically no motivation towards ''building the encyclopedia'', especially compared to the extensive forum-shopping effort he put into getting half a zillion userboxes restored. Absolutely ridiculous. If Tiger can get off with an hour's "discussion" and it not be considered wheel warring, I'm going to give it and hour and a half. If no objections, he's reblocked for two weeks (NOT indefinite). ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 01:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Given what I've seen over the past few hours, I do think the unblock was a mistake. ] (]) 01:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I also agree with the reblock. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 01:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also to be considered is this user's past - incivility and edit warring block July 21, attacks and immaturity a week later. While the attacks have toned down, I don't see that the maturity level has improved much. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 01:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I also agree with the reblock. The original block being lifted with no consequence or understanding didn't help this situation at all. ] (]) 01:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am also in agreement for a reblock. The original unblock did not help matters as it was done without consensus or discussion (discussions in the night and with such short durations are not conductive to reasoned talks). <small>] | ] | ]</small> 03:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Against my better judgement, ] has proposed a deal to return the code of the offending userboxes only, subst'd directly onto SJL's userpage. If, however, he recreates them as templates, he is to be indefinitely blocked for ]. Again, if there are any objections.... ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 02:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivetop}} | |||
| ===Mentoring?=== | |||
| Just sounding this out to ask if the community feels that offering mentoring or guidance would be a useful alternative in this situation as an alternative? I edit in a similar area to SLJ and would be happy to offer my assitance and suport in trying to guide his efforts, on the understanding that he in turn passes this on to others. I'd be interested to know if the community feels that this would be a suitable approach and if they would feel comfortable endorsing such a proposal. Many thanks, '''''<font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''''' 09:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :If it keeps him out of trouble, then I think I speak for all of us when I say, "sounds like a good idea." But he's been talking about leaving Misplaced Pages. But he's said that before and come back, (obviously). I'll ask him about it.] ] 09:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::That does sound like a good idea, if he's willing to do so. Now that his userboxes are back, it does seem as though he's actually working on articles, but it definitely wouldn't hurt to have someone keep him on the right track. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 18:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Leave them alone. They're not hurting anything. Even if they've made just a single good-faith article contribution, that's enough to make it worthwhile to let them do whatever "social networking" they want as long as it doesn't cause any actual problems. See my essay ] and spend your limited time and energy fighting stuff that actually ''matters''. Sheesh. ] ('''<span style="background-color: white; color: blue">Go</span> <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Colts!</span>''') 21:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Where would you put the bounds? Would one single helpful revert of vandalism "buy" 500 social networking edits? 5,000? 50,000? ] (]) 21:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Certainly, why not? As long as they're not actually hurting anything, there are more useful things the rest of us can be doing. This just seems like pettiness on your part for no productive purpose. Stop it. You're not actually doing anything good here. ] ('''<span style="background-color: white; color: blue">Go</span> <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Colts!</span>''') 21:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::So you're saying giving the bandwidth and server space for 50,000 social networking edits (and images and whatever else) in return for one helpful rv would be worthwhile? How many accounts would this web hosting deal be open to? ] (]) 21:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::How many useful edits buy wasting so much time and effort trying to get rid of a few editors enjoying themselves? ] (]) 21:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::How many is a few? Where are the bounds? Would the bandwidth and server space for 50,000 social networking edits (and images and whatever else), never mind the volunteer admin load, in return for one helpful rv be worthwhile? How many accounts would this web hosting deal be open to?] (]) 21:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::If you ignore it (as you should), what "admin load" is there? Why are bandwidth and server space any of our concerns? Don't worry about them. Stop it. ] ('''<span style="background-color: white; color: blue">Go</span> <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Colts!</span>''') 21:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Ok, you don't care. I only wanted to understand. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. ] (]) 22:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I support mentoring too. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 22:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Stop issuing imperatives, Kurt. You have absolutely no right to do that. Like anyone will do what you say anyway... LAWLZ. That's laughable. ]] 23:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Isn't that an imperative itself? Why do you think he would listen to yours?<b>] ] ]</b> 23:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::I would have thought the irony would've been clear? I know he won't. He doesn't listen to anyone, apparently. But I know subconsciously things get through to him. He's human. There'll be things in his head quietly simmering away until he's about forty. That's when psychosis will hit him. Effortlessly predictable. ]] 23:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::Well, that was a helpful. Is it based on your own experience? ] (]) 23:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Since the balance of opinion seems to be that offering mentoring would be sensible I'll pass the suggestion on to SLJ. Please drop me a note if you would like to be informed of its progress. Many thanks, '''''<font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''''' 23:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It's now a moot point. The offer has been , for now at least, though the offer is still open. '''''<font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''''' 00:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| == ] has passed on - no drama just a note == | |||
| As many editors are now aware ] has died. Checkuser information and general human interaction appears to have confirmed this. I have fully protected his user talk page and created a ] for memorial comments from our fine community. This is at the request of a new account, which I have no reason to distrust in their honesty and accuracy of the situation regarding their relationship IRL to Jeff. This is just a note regarding my admin actions. No talk is really needed unless others find them in error. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span><font color="black">]</font></small> 22:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Out of respect for the decedent, should his account not be indefinite blocked to ]? (Unless we're waiting for more official confirmation) –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 22:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Why? It's not +sysop or +crat or anything that can cause harm to WP. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span><font color="black">]</font></small> 22:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I suppose to prevent the password from being cracked and someone using it for mischief or to toy with people's emotions. I agree it's probably a non-issue, I just thought it was something that was standard and done out of respect. –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 22:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Maybe part of me hopes that Jeff will come back Monday morning and edit, proving this to all be wrong. Sentimental? Yes. Wrong? No. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span><font color="black">]</font></small> 22:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::(ec)Policies/guidelines aside, blocking a well-respected editor after his death seems wrong to me. I can't really explain it; it's just my personal view. ] ] 22:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I should think that anyone abusing the account of a deceased editor is going to catch so much hell that - to be honest - it should be left open to snare such an individual. Other than that, I feel that it should be left to the wishes of those who knew him best. ] (]) 23:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I agree, let those who knew him best decide what he would have wanted. --] (]) 00:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Sounds good, I just thought it was standard procedure. No disrespect was intended, of course. –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 00:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::It is. See ]. That said, I've never seen the need for it. There are plenty of people who die, or just leave and forget about their accounts/passwords. The 'threat of being hacked' applies just as much to those... but isn't really a significant problem. Ergo, the ones we know about aren't really a significant problem either. Could just as well leave the accounts unblocked in case a family member wanted to leave a last message or some such. In a hundred and forty years or so we will no doubt have a bot go through to clear out people who couldn't possibly still be alive... so it'll all get taken care of eventually. :] --] 12:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Memorial=== | |||
| {{discussiontop}} | |||
| {{resolved}} | |||
| I know this is one hell of a can of worms, but... why are we keeping a ] page in his user space? — <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 16:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :What's there doesn't hurt anything, in my view. The whole "not a memorial" thing is mainly so people know not to make ''mainspace'' pages that are memorials. ] ] 16:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :(ec)It says in the text that this relates to '''articles''', and I think there is a lot more latitude given to userspace. ] (]) 16:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Because that's not an article and that only applies to articles. — ] <sup>]</sup> 19:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : There's precedent, and no harm. It would be tactless and unnecessary to close those pages down. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :There is also ample precedent at pages like ]. By the way, there is a request on the talk page over there for someone to write up something about Jeffpw for that page. Possibly there is enough to write something there now, but it feels too soon to me - I'd wait until something appears elsewhere online or in a newspaper, or until someone hears back from the family or friends who were in touch with him (everyone on that list is listed by real name - did anyone know Jeff's name?). ] (]) 01:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Can we please nip this in the bud right now? As far as I can tell, that page only includes Wikipedians who had divulged their full name, and for whom sources are cited wrt their deaths. I don't know who else knows Jeff's full name, but I'm certainly not divulging it '''to anyone''' and I will encourage his family not to do so, and if anyone convinces any member of his family to post it to Wiki, I hope it will be quickly oversighted while others have a chance to discuss the reprecussions with them. I hope that page will be left for cited, sourced deaths including full names, and please let Jeffpw rest in peace. And I should add how disappointed I am to see others revealing Jeff's profession on external sites; I hope info that he hadn't publicly divulged is not divulged now that he's gone. ] (]) 02:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: On the other hand, if that page is intended to handle using only an editor name and only sources to his own page, then there's no problem with divulging new information. I just hope that people are sensitive to not revealing personal information now that he may not have revealed before. ] (]) 02:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not sure what exactly the scope of that 'Deceased Wikipedians' page is, but I did notice that everyone there was listed under their real name, which is why I asked above about Jeffpw's name. If that is a problem here, then as Sandy says, the idea should be nipped in the bud. But anyway, it is far, far too soon to be talking about all this (a discussion at ] in a few weeks time would be a better way forward). For now, the (very moving) tribute page should be more than enough. Could someone close this subthread in a tactful way please? ] (]) 03:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{discussionbottom}} | |||
| == Edit war at ] == | |||
| Please help!!!!!!!!!!! | |||
| --] (]) 23:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| If Hythiam was Reichstag climbing, this is, well, metaphors fail me. The article was created by ] on Aug 3 and had serious NPOV issues from the start, leading to massive edit war over the following days. ] (]) 23:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Several editors have tried to turn your advertisement/]/] into an encyclopedia article, but you act as though you ] it. You have already violated ] today. Please stop reverting before I report you. Thank you. — ] (] '''·''' ]) 00:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've protected the article, because of the edit war. ] (]) 00:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::<whine>But you protected the ''wrong'' version.</whine> :-) Thank you. — ] (] '''·''' ]) 00:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It seems I am not worth being answered while Sheveshalosh is. Good. I only wrote 5 FA for wikipedia. | |||
| ::::He wrote here "Ceedjee is a clown" : after complaining and attacking me at different places. | |||
| ::::All I asked was a somebody (a sysop...) "warned" him so that he should keep cool and don't have the feeling his attitude was a good way of solving problem and he doens't feel in a "strength" position. | |||
| ::::Thank you, guys. | |||
| ::::] (]) 09:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I've placed a warning for the clown comment. I can't speak for the rest, as I'm not familiar with the subject matter. — <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 12:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thank you. | |||
| ::::::That cooled down the matter. ] (]) 18:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Vandal IP user == | |||
| {{Resolved|], move along... ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 18:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
| Hi, user: ] continues to disrupt categories. | |||
| He/she has been asked for an explanation and provides none. | |||
| And he/she has insluted other users before when they warned him. | |||
| He did receive a "last warning" 2 months ago, not is at it again. | |||
| He/she has several warnings on his page. Please have him/her blocked out. | |||
| He is VERY persistent in removing categories. Other users seem fed up with him/her too. | |||
| It seems that Wikipolicies for dealing with this type of ''determined user'' are not working. | |||
| What can you admins do about this person? | |||
| It does not seem appropriate to just sit back and let him waste everyone's time. | |||
| Please block him. Thanks ] (]) 00:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :To clarify, I have blocked this IP for 72 hours for continually removing valid categories from articles despite warnings . On retrospect, that block length may have been a tad long - I can reduce it if it's desired here. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 00:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Regarding the various comments, please see: ]. In the end, I took the time to type it all up. It is all clear from the talk page of the article in question, but in the end that user managed to take up a lot of time from everyone involved and laugh at them: ''his initial intent'', obviously. I really think Misplaced Pages policies need review, as explained there. So many good people have to spend so much time to deal with a few guys who can sit at a Starbucks and laugh at everyone by just hitting undo. Please consider a review of Misplaced Pages policies on IP vandals in general. Thanks. ] (]) 04:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Either way, ] is worth thinking about here. ] (]) 04:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, I looked at that page. But it is an essay based on a psychological theory. There has been no clinical validation of that theory with respect to Misplaced Pages, as far as I can see on that page. A more suitable item would be a simple ] or ] approach, adapted to multiple reverts, category restructuring etc. By the way, both of those intrusion pages need serious clean up, and the time I have spent dealing with this fellow, could have been used for that.... sigh... ] (]) 11:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You can't honestly expect us to get a clinical study of vandalism on Misplaced Pages. Be practical. Instead of complaining about how much time you've "wasted" through your complaining about our policies, go improve the articles you say need cleanup. We can't just wave a magic wand and have things suddenly work our to your exacting specifications, so don't expect us to. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 18:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| What I am going to do is design a better system. Frankly, I see you admins as working ''far too hard''. As you may have noticed, user Face figured out the identity of that vandal by doing some clever analysis. I think you guys are in real need of better tools and better methodologies. One day, you should be able to click a couple of buttons and figure out what Face discivered after an hour or two of work, within 90 seconds. Do you have a database of known puppets and their behavior patterns that can be easily queired? I guess not. Puppet knowledge is folklore now. It must be centralized. You are doing visual inspection of files. In this day and age of database technology, someone needs to say: "STOP & BUILD a DATABASE". Think of the effort that will save all of you. The technology is there, Misplaced Pages just needs to wake up and start using it. I will start designing that database soon, and post the design somewhere and try to see what happens. I really feel you guys are working way too hard just because you have antique tools. That should change, and will in the long term improve the content of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 04:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Would someone review this deletion by Fut Per? == | |||
| I'm pretty certain ] by Fut Per needs review here. I'm not looking for DRV, I want some commentary on the actual use of tools by Fut Per. It seems out of line to override the fact that both commenters recommended "keep", and supported their recommendations with valid commentary, and delete anyway, citing the admins own view of NFCC (which was contradicted by both commenters, and is disupted at ])as the only reason seems a clear misuse of tools. ]]] 03:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Please address deletion concerns at ]. Thanks, ] ] 03:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :*I made it clear my reason for bringing it here: misuse of administrator tools. ]]] 03:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Reports of administrator abuse should go to ], not here. Sorry for the run-around. ] ] 03:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I wouldn't classify it as "abuse", nor would I necessarily classify it as an "incident." I simply wanted some commentary on this administrator's use of his tools to simply enforce his view of hos policy should be interpreted over the discussion at that IfD. This seemed the best place for it, as there was no urgent action needed or anything like that. ]]] 03:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If it is neither an abuse nor an incident, then it really is just a disagreement over Fut Per's decision to delete. ] is the proper venue to challenge the deletion. ]] 03:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::(edit conflict) I don't see any <s>abuse</s> misuse of the tools. Fair use policy always trumps consensus, so at most this is a disagreement over interpretation and borderline calls like this are not easy. I do think it belongs at ]. ] (]) 03:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I would say that the two views of NFCC enforcement are so different, that calling it a difference in "interpretation" is probably underplaying it a bit too much. I'd say that it's basic enough that a policy disagreement is the best way to describe it. In that case, the question becomes something on the order of "Is it appropriate, when there is a clear lack of consensus about how a policy is to be enforced, for an administrator to use his or her tools to follow a '''''specific''''' and '''''extreme''''' version of enforcement?"<p>As an aside - I don't really understand the conceptual difference between what should go to WP:AN and what should go to WP:AN/I. Can someone give me a thumbnail version? Thanks. ] <b><small><sup>(] / ])</sup></small></b> 05:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The ]: ANI is (ostensibly)for issues requiring immediate admin attention (massive vandalism, abuse of admin tools, hacked accounts, etc.); AN is for things needing a more broad discussion, and possibly action using admin tools, but not necessarily something that has to be responded to "OMG NOW!" | |||
| ::::::In this case, neither is really appropriate because the NFCC policy is just plain vague. There have been recent debates on the subject here & on DRV and consensus seems to be that we're stuck with a vague policy that can be loosely interpreted. Until the Foundation clarifies NFCC, there's not much that can be done about it. — <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 12:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Thanks for the AN-ANI lesson, which makes perfect sense. About the vagueness of NFCC policy, I agree, and I understand that it creates problems for admins trying to enforce it, but I note that for Fut Per, there is '''''clearly''''' (from the evidence of his comments on ) '''''no problem whatsoever''''', and that his/her understanding of NFCC is '''''precise and strongly-held'''''. The difficulty with that is that he or she has substituted their own ideas about NFCC enforcement for the non-existent general consensus, hence the existence of the complaint made here. ] <b><small><sup>(] / ])</sup></small></b> 21:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::My question for this noticeboard (given your above commentary) is whether or not Fut Per's substitution of his draconian interpretation of such a vague policy for the measured recommendations of the commenters is appropriate. It is definitely admin-related, as he used his tools to delete the image in direct violation of the guidelines set for IfD-closing administrators. ]]] 14:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::This noticeboard isn't really the place for that debate. As I said, the problem is with NFCC being as subject to interpretation as it is. People have ''already'' debated FP's methods, and came to no conclusion other than "Foundation will need to reassess the NFCC policy." At this point, there's no real consensus other than that. It is not clear that FP's deletions are inappropriate, much less "draconian." If this really bothers you, your best bet is to open a ] on the topic (not necessarily FP himself, though that may be appropriate as well). The problem being, even if it goes to ArbCom, there's not a whole lot they can do. FP might get sanctioned if he's overdoing it, but the fundamental problem with NFCC is beyond their control. — <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 16:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *I've opened a deletion review on this image. I completely concur with Ed's assessment above. Fut Per takes his/her NFCC interpretation to extremes, and uses the tools to enforce this view. I don't personally upload non-free images, but this type of admin deletion really needs to stop. ]]] 05:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == SWAT article == | |||
| Would an administrator please look at the article on ]. An IP editor ( 140.232.150.91) keeps adding info back in that is ] and making disruptive edits. I have appealed to him to discuss the issue several times, but he is refusing. He is also making the article point to military references instead of strictly law enforcement ones, such as calling them ]. I don't want to get into an edit war, but this is becoming disruptive. ] (]) 10:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :To add to this, I'm coming at it from the military side, the IP does appear to be pretty dogmatic about associating SWAT with military SF, despite the significant differences. A review of contributions indicates an unwillingness to discuss contributions across a range of similar articles. | |||
| :] (]) 17:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::My contention has been simple: SWAT in and of itself is notable. There is no need to prop it up with terms to make it sound like SF or Seals. He seems to want to over-emphasize the counter-terrorism role. ] (]) 18:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi, I think that fellow ] who was just blocked just reincarnated as ] and went after both me and Hugo again, vandalizing and insulting. He is doing EXACTLY the same reverts as the blocked user. Could you block him again, and permanently so? Thanks. ] (]) 13:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :''I am not an administrator'' but IP addresses '''cannot''' be permanently blocked. Policy forbids it, as most are dynamic<span style="cursor: crosshair">......] .. <small>]</small><sup>]</sup></span> 13:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would recommend nothing more than 72 hours, although 84 seems reasonable<span style="cursor: crosshair">......] .. <small>]</small><sup>]</sup></span> 13:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Translation: Policy allows a user at a Starbucks to cause havoc and laugh at everyone, and Misplaced Pages admins are unable to protect the content. Hence the policy needs to change. It is a hopeless policy, obviously. It needs to change so ONLY registered users with a given number of valid edits can change said pages for say 3 months. ] (]) 15:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Mistaken identity? This IP, ], has since June 1, mostly on religious topics. On 23 April 2008 someone using this IP . That was four months ago. Most likely a different person using the same IP address. I see no cause for blocking this IP. ] (]) 16:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Again: policy failed. period. Said IP left me an insulting message and did the same reverts as the blocked ones. And you see''nothing''. Great. just great. What can I say....? ] (]) 16:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::So, you want us to prevent people from ever using Misplaced Pages at that Starbucks location? Really, if you have a problem with policy, try to change the policy (]). But you can't say "policy failed," when the entire point is that we don't punish everyone who uses a public IP for the problems of one person. As for "only logged in editors should be able to edit," see ]. It won't happen. That aside, if you're getting harassing messages from an IP, your best solution is to ]. It won't be permanant, but short protections are good for bursts of trolling. For most trolls, though, your best policy is ]. — <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 16:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree with HandThatFeeds. Revert and ignore them. The more attention you give them, the more they celebrate. I've ignored the particularly nasty vandalism on my user page and nobody's bothered me since then. -- ] (]) 17:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I have investigated the edits of ], who was ] earlier by History2007. I have discovered that this person is very likely ]. Please see my comment and the following AN and ANI discussions I found: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| Pionier is a sockpuppeteer who has been active on this wiki and the Lithuanian Misplaced Pages for more than a year. He or she is a Christianity and Judaism POV pusher, with an interest in categorization. He/she is also against gays and against Lithuanians, and has made personal attacks against users who are. In my opinion, this goes beyond simple revert-block-ignore vandalism. This is not some dumb teenager looking for attention. I think further action should be taken. May I suggest a central ] to keep track of all the IPs used? Cheers, ] 18:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Well, here is what ] found out (copied from ): | |||
| ==== User:82.2.236.210 / User:Pionier ==== | |||
| I see that ] was while I was away. I have investigated his/her edits, and found the following: | |||
| *He/she has altered the categorisations and nationality of Lithuanian Jewish chess players in an attempt to emphasize that they are Jewish, and to de-emphasize that they are Lithuanian. Those edits do not seem to be very ]. Here are some examples: . | |||
| *He/she has removed ] from other category pages. You seem to know a thing or two about ] stuff. Could you check if those edits are ok, and if they're not, revert them? | |||
| *He/she has made personal attacks against Hugo.arg , who states on his userpage that he is a native Lithuanian. | |||
| *The remaining edits of this user mostly consists of placing categories in another order, making wikilinks, and adding newlines. This is not disruptive. He/she seems to have made quite some constructive edits. | |||
| *He/she is interested in articles about Christianity, and has added/removed several categories in related articles. Some of these edits seem correct, others seem not. | |||
| The most interesting edit I found is this one: . This indicates that the person is very likely ], a known sockpuppeteer who has been active on this wiki and the Lithuanian Misplaced Pages for more than a year. See: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| Woohoo, welcome to the noble art of vandal fighting! Perhaps a central ] should be created, where we can keep notes about all the IPs s/he has used so-far. I will leave a note about this at ] because I think further action should be taken. Cheers, ] 18:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <hr /> | |||
| Yet, I am amazed that Face has to spend so much time to do something that better ] technology could have done. That is what is missing from Misplaced Pages policies and procedures. ] (]) 18:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Considering no security has actually been breached, intrusion detection would be ineffective here. Kudos to Face for sussing this out, though. Still, about the best we can do is a ''temporary'' block on the IP. — <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Why don't we set up an abuse report? A lot of different IPs seem to be used by this person, as you can see ]. As ] also noted there, nearly all of the addresses go back to England and ], and some of them belong to internet cafes. Cheers, ] 19:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I beg to differ on the technology issue. Please see ] and how it could have reduced Face's workload here by a significant amount if applied to user edits. Thanks ] (]) 19:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not sure you understand the scope of the problem. Face had to make a logical leap ("this looks similar to edits by X") and ''then'' investigate the matter. How do you write machine code to make that first association by intuition? — <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Serial Reverts by {{User|2o345h}} == | |||
| :{{resolved|Blocked indefinitely. ] (]) 14:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
| Could an admin have an urgent look at , looks very odd. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 14:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It's not an IP - but it is odd. The best theory I can come up with is use of ]<span style="cursor: crosshair">......] .. <small>]</small><sup>]</sup></span> 14:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Of course you're right, not an IP, but a new user. I lack the equipment to deal with it, but the sooner someone puts a stop to it, the less work afterwards. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 14:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::(EC) Nope, it's not AVT. I'm thinking sockpuppetry .They're all about ] too<span style="cursor: crosshair">......] .. <small>]</small><sup>]</sup></span> 14:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::User is systematically undoing edits by {{User|Will Beback}}. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 14:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Blocked indefinitely. ] (]) 14:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| === Serial reverter, part 2 === | |||
| *http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Ejn5rt6jn5 | |||
| *http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/John--Joghn | |||
| *http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/45iohj | |||
| <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 15:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Lemonsquares&action=history <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 15:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/La_Secta_All_Star <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 15:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks, everybody, for the help with this vandal. It's the latest rampage from {{vandal|Primetime}}. ]] ] 16:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Privatemusings arbitration remedy == | |||
| Proposal to overturn <s>.</s> ] (]) 15:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Actually, you moved it . ] <b><small><sup>(] / ])</sup></small></b> 20:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Second opinion, please == | |||
| {{resolved|One from from column "G", and one from row "11", please Carol. <sub>]</sub><sup>]/]</sup> 19:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
| Could I have another admin look at ], please? It's been a bit of an adventure already - I tried to tag it as a G11 speedy with Twinkle, but Twinkle decided to just delete it without confirming with me, then it was recreated, so I tagged it manually, the creator removed the tag, and I've now tagged it as an advert and would appreciate someone sanity-checking for me. It has what appears to be an attempt to indicate notability, but I don't find much in searching about, and it's written entirely in marketspeak. I've done more than enough to the poor thing already, I'd appreciate someone else's view. ] <small>]</small> 19:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I was about to try a rewrite, when I realized there wasn't enough inside of that market-speak for me to tell what the company actually does. So I G11'd it again, ignoring the removal of the tag by the author (they're not supposed to do that anyways). Company might be notable, but it's extremely hard to tell from what I've seen so far. Cheers. <font color="green">]</font>] 19:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :When there are reliable third party sources then there may be an article, but not as it stood. Good (without prejudice) delete. ] (]) 19:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Much appreciated, folks. ] <small>]</small> 19:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Working Group on ethnic and cultural edit wars == | |||
| As some may know, as part of the ArbCom ] case, a ] was established to spend six months investigating the problem of ethnic and cultural edit wars, provide data about the problem, and recommendations on how to proceed. The final report from the working group is now available, so anyone that wishes to review it, please see: ]. --]]] 19:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Can someone explain what ] is? == | |||
| Looks like nonsense to me.--] (]) 20:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :No, it's what's called a double redirect. The first page (Shree Swaminarayan Sampraday) redirects to ], which in turn redirects to ]. To protect you from potentially ending up in an endless loop, however, the Misplaced Pages software will only follow the first redirect. If it hits another one, it stops. That's what you're seeing there - you click on ], then you end up at ] where you only see the code to take you onto ], not the page itself. It's fixable by pointing the first page directly at the third, cutting out the middle-page. <sub>]</sub><sup>]/]</sup> 20:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Which I've now done. More info can be found ]. <sub>]</sub><sup>]/]</sup> 20:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *That's not what I saw before I reverted it; I saw a huge page full of something added by Maelgwnbot, whom I have now notified. Seems to be a rare glitch. --]] 20:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok. *coughs*. Well, erm, you can have that lesson on double redirects for free, anyway...<sub>]</sub><sup>]/]</sup> 20:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::The content added by Maelgwnbot looks like a copy of ]. The bot made other errors around the same time; a similar edit on ] and a different error on ], changing a redirect to an article into a Wiktionary soft redirect. --] ] 21:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposal to overturn Privatemusings' arbcom restrictions == | |||
| {{discussiontop}} | |||
| {{resolved|The Arbcom thread seems to be handling this better. As always, any unresolved issues can be restarted in their own sections or taken to talk pages. ] (]) 23:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
| (moved to AN per many suggestions) <small> ] (]) 20:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC) </small> | |||
| Proposed: By consensus of the community (should such consensus be found below), ] is hereby overturned. (background: arbitrators have indicated that the restriction is being kept in place to penalize his attitude towards arbcom rather than out of a genuine need.<sup></sup> This constitutes a dereliction of the committee's duty to the community, and the committee is clearly no longer competent to decide this case.) --] (]) 07:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Neutral''' - arbcom have not yet commented on it since my proposed remedy. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 07:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn''' — I think the 90-day block ''and'' an indefinite restriction from editing BLP article is out of hand. If he begins to commit ''serious'' BLP violations, then greater penalties should be meted out. − ] <small>( ] • ] • ] )</small> 08:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. This doesn't seem the right place to be making this type of proposal. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 08:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Contrary to Random832's contention, arbitrators have not indicated that Privatemusings' restriction on biographies of living people is being retained "to penalise his attitude towards arbcom". Privatemusings can't edit BLP articles so we can't directly assess what would happen if his restriction was removed. When considering whether to lift the restriction, arbitrators tend to look to an editors' general behaviour. If they are spotted editing pages they shouldn't, or making disruptive proposals anywhere, this counts against removing restrictions. ] (]) 10:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I see it's been an interesting wiki weekend! - Sam - in taking a look at my general behaviour, did you have a look at the many BLP suggestions I've been making over the last month or so at ]? - I'm not really sure how you could have missed that page with even a cursory look at my contributions, and I'm not sure you would have made the above comment if you had seen the page... hmmmm.... about the "editing pages they shouldn't" bit - are you sure that ] "shouldn't" be edited at all by the likes of me? (I was genuinely unaware of this policy being different to any other) - why not protect it? I felt consensus was clear after substantial discussion, and was glad when the section was added to the policy. | |||
| :Obviously I'd like the restriction lifted, and it seems others may be reading events the same way as Random - I really appreciate this community discussion, and will follow it with great interest. My talk page is always open if anyone has any questions.... :-) ] (]) 10:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :At this point, I'm with Fyslee and Sam: I don't see how it is assumed that the arbitrators were just making a ] with PM (fact tag applied in humor more than anything else), and this doesn't seem to be the right venue for overturning ArbCom. — <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 13:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :If the arbitration committee believe that editors are not permitted to edit the arbitration policy it should protect the page to make this clear. I don't see how making a (relatively minor) edit to a policy, being reverted, and accepting the reversion can be considered disruptive. As for the other diff you offer as evidence, I don't think most people would consider that proposal disruptive or indicative at all of his ability to edit BLPs; it's actually a fairly amusing proposal and not at all malicious. ] ] 16:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Sam, its funny the only examples you use as disruptive editing were edits relating to arbcom, and the edits were not all that disruptive. ] (]) 15:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Overturn'''. I don't see where the damge can occur, many editors are watching him and the restriction has already done its job. ] (]) 15:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Overturn''' He has learned his lesson and I feel is very trustworthy. ] (]) 15:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Overturn:''' Sanctions should ''preventative'', and not used to punish. The sanctions are greater than necessary, and overturning this one should do no harm<span style="cursor: crosshair">......] .. <small>]</small><sup>]</sup></span> 15:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Overturn:''' Dozens of editors have been either lightly to absurdly/disruptively critical of the Arbcom over the Cla/SV/FM arbitration which is about to hit four months of non-activity. ] for that isn't helpful, and the general community that elected the Arbcom can do something like this '''''if''''' there is consensus. Besides, if he screws up even once on a BLP edit afterwards I'd give it <30 minutes before he's hauled in front of ANI to renew the sanctions with a valid community mandate that has teeth. <font color="#156917">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>) 15:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Overturn''' As others have said, sanctions are meant to be preventative, not punitive. This goes farther than it needs to, and I don't see how keeping it in place benefits the wiki at large. While I always ], I can't help but notice the two coincidental facts that the user has an attitude critical of arbcom and that he is receiving much more than regular sanctions for this type of offense. <font color="629632">]</font> <sup><font color="7733ff">]</font></sup> 15:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * VP has '''no standing to overturn an arbcom ruling'''. So I'll merely '''comment''' here... to say ''overturn'' is rather presumptious. While I have some considerable sympathy to the comments of the arbitrators that PM ought not to get quite so involved in meta matters (and I've counseled him that way more than once, see my talk and his garden page), I do think that he's shown his mettle with respect to BLP matters now, and I'd advocate lifting the restriction.... ++]: ]/] 16:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :* Just tossing it out for Devil's Advocate... <font color="#156917">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>) 16:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :** For what it's worth, I'm under the impression that that particular page was not an actual Committee, but discussion about a Committee that never resulted in anything. ] (]) 23:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Venue error''' - should be on ]. Did anyone actually mention this to the arbitrators, perchance? - ] (]) 16:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I think discussion here is ok, regardless of the venue. The arbitrators know, because its on the RFAR page by random832. Even if this is impotent, the message is clear. ] (]) 16:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::If it's impotent, there's really nothing but Wikidrama to it. Really, this would be better handled through an ] than through a straw poll on the Village Pump. Polling here is going to accomplish nothing, but an RfC at least has some legitimacy. — <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Disagree, process is not important here. What is important is that the arbitrators see this discussion, no matter the location. I don't think they will say "It was not in the RFC namespace, so we won't listen". Thanks, ] (]) 17:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Wish we could overturn''' but I don't think that we can. I strongly urge the arbitrators to overturn it (rather than forcing a showdown against the community on village pump). ]] ] 16:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Why not? We elect them to serve us as a dispute resolution venue, not to be our invulnerable overlords. A people's nullification is badly needed to set an example for the Committee, and this is an excellent candidate for it. <font color="629632">]</font> <sup><font color="7733ff">]</font></sup> 16:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Because by overturning this committee that we have put into power without a formalized-by-policy method of doing so, we are setting a precedent that all of their decisions can be overturned by a group of people who think they know better. In essence, we would be destroying our current arbcom, and creating little mini-VP arbcoms whenever we don't like a decision. No, this cannot happen. I want to see PM's sanctions lifted as much as anyone else, but it must be the arbitrators, or some other "higher authority" such as Jimbo that does so. Not the Village Pump. ]] ] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Correct, this is symbolic. For this to be binding would have many implications. If it is done, it must be one by the committee. ] (]) 20:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Questions''': Who is planning to close this discussion? If they close it as "overturn," what is supposed to happen then? Isn't all this is doing basically sanctioning wheel-warring, since if this proposal passes both an admin who blocks PM for editing a BLP article and one who unblocks him can claim to be following procedure? And in adjudicating such a wheel-war, what on earth would arbcom's position be? ] 16:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a display of community opinion. I don't think we can actually overturn. ] (]) 16:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Hopefully, someone comes around who favors old-school consensus over elitism. Although, as NonvocalScream has pointed out, the community has lost its power, so we have to rely on the good graces of the admins and bureaucrats to keep the oligarchs in check, which is an unlikely outcome. <font color="629632">]</font> <sup><font color="7733ff">]</font></sup> 16:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Per Nonvocal Scream and Swatjester'''. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 16:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *<p>'''Oppose overturn'''. The village pump is a poor choice of venue for discussion of overturning an arbitration remedy. Discussion such as this should be done "by the book" and with as little deviation from our norms as possible, lest any consensus derived from here be void: until a move is made to a more appropriate forum (I recommend the] or a ]), I'm unwilling to offer my support here regardless of the situation's specifics. Furthermore, I am not convinced of the legitimacy of this thread: it seems to be to be an opportunity for editors who hold an anti-ArbCom stance to facilitate the undermining of the committee by the community. That's not fair on Privatemusings, not helpful to the encyclopedia, and not the way to bring about change; and yet, I fear that is what is really happening here.</p><p>As a comment re/ the specifics of Privatemusings' case, it case seems to me to be that he is "making tracks in the right direction" -- however, more work is needed. On the condition that Privatemusings continues to make positive improvements in his approach to wikipedia's BLP articles, including "toning down" his contrib's to the more ''high profile'' BLP articles to be more reasonable, I would be happy to file proceedings with the Committee in (roughly) three month's time, to have his restriction loosened or (if appropriate) lifted. We're a tad too early at the moment, for a few reasons (※ ]'s comments during the most recent appeal against PM's BLP restriction), but it's not far to go now. However, this discussion is ''certainly'' not the way to go, and I'm simply relieved Privatemusings hasn't instigated this thread himself. ] 17:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :While the Committee (as an entity, taking into account its history of overstepping powers granted it by the community, et cetra, not meant as an insult to the current incarnation) has a lot of problems, I think the community is headed in the right direction in terms of reforming it into something more useful and managable by the electorate since the recent RFA. I wouldn't necessarily call those who commented here 'anti-arbcom' solely based on the fact that they don't appreciate the body's bias in making decisions that affect the ability of a user to edit and that the community is left with no recourse but a sort of people's nullification; personally, I think we need an ArbCom, but what we don't need is one we can't control. It shouldn't matter ''where'' discussion is held; the important thing is that it is held. Process for the sake of process is ridiculous. The important thing is that the discussion is held in a highly public, neutral venue; I can't think of anything more neutral and highly public than the village pump, so I would argue that this is the perfect place for this kind of discussion. <font color="629632">]</font> <sup><font color="7733ff">]</font></sup> 18:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' If you actually want this to happen, why don't you raise it as an appeal to ArbCom (somewhere on the RfAr pages) instead of presenting it in the form of an insult here that they should rightly ignore? If you're right about this issue, you're still wrong about this approach.--] (]) 19:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :As I am sure it is referenced more than three times in this discussion and in the proposal, this is in reference to a request already at RFAR. o.O ] (]) 19:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *In my opinion it is inappropriate for a consensus among dozen or two editors to override the consensus of a committee chosen by hundreds of Wikipedians for the purpose of handling cases just like this. If the community doesn't have faith in the decisions of the ArbCom it should deal with that problem directly. PM's topic ban is a very minor issue, and even if it were unneccessary it does negligible harm to the project. OTOH, undercutting the ArbCom would have a tremendous effect and I can't see how it would benefit the project. ]] ] 21:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose overturning''' Given PM's past record of editing in violation of his restriction, attempting to coerce uninvolved admins to proxy-edit for him, announcing his intention to defy his restriction twice, I cannot support overturning this restriction. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose overturning'''; Privatemusings' behavior has indicated willful disregard toward the remedy, going so far as to ignore it at one point. I don't believe removing it would have a positive effect on the encyclopedia. And for the record, this is the wrong way to go about this. ] (]) 23:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose overturning''' I don't believe we as a community should be overturning AC decisions unless they are egregiously wrong. Even if you disagree with this remedy, it is clearly not unreasonable. To promote the general effectiveness of Arbitration decisions, only outrageous ones should be overturned. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| === Discussion closure === | |||
| ] attempted to this as "improper venue for discussion". I reverted this. Discussion is ok, should not be silenced. Venue is not important here. ] (]) 17:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Needless to say, I disagree completely but, eh, not worth stressing over. I'm not trying to silence discussion, but this is just straw-polling, not discussion. Venue is important if you want to actually ''accomplish'' anything, rather than just sitting around ]. (Good god, we have articles on everything!) — <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually I think closure on that basis was entirely appropriate. Aside from the merits of the proposal itself, these things are normally discussed at AN or ANI when they come up at all. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 18:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not sure even ANI is suited for this. My close message proposed an ], as that would allow people to provide much more input than this, and allow for more nuanced discussion. If the purpose is to overturn ArbCom... well, realistically, that won't happen. If the purpose is to ''bring attention'' to this matter to ArbCom, then an RfC is much more effective than this show of hands. — <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Actually, now that I think about this, I'm '''positive''' this is the wrong venue, for one simple reason: take a look at how large this discussion has become in less than a day. Give it 5 days, and how much of VPR will it have taken over? This is either going to overwhelm VPR, or get moved to a sub-page. — <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, the community has been known to add remedies on top of what ArbCom has imposed. Overturning an ArbCom remedy is a different matter: it would be a radical move, especially since the Committee recently confirmed its decision in this instance. With respect toward PrivateMusings (whom I collaborate with in other matters), this particular proposal attempts to open two or three different cans of worms simultaneously. No matter how I feel about the merits of his sanction (or the current state of ArbCom), this proposal is crafted and presented in a way that would set too many difficult precedents. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 18:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I agree with Durova, this should have been at ] instead. ]] ] 20:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Moved. ] (]) 21:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Er, why should this be at ]? Is this something only adminstrators should be aware of, or is the administrators' noticeboard the new, de-facto community noticeboard? --]|] 23:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::There were a few suggestions to move to AN. I can't make everyone happy. ] (]) 23:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah, I've seen them above. And I'm curious about the reasons for those suggestions. --]|] 23:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * What, overturn it on the grounds that he violated it almost from the outset? Not, perhaps, the very best idea I've ever heard. PM still does not even seem to accept that he did anything wrong, so overturning the remedy would not IMO be a terribly good idea. He spent the whole of the time he was banned telling everyone that he'd done nothing wrong, and is doing so still. His edits to the di Stefano and King articles were, as the arbitration case found, careless. In the di Stefano case, he also completely failed to heed wise counsel. And he edited BLPs as soon as he came back. So I'd not ereally be comfortable with overturning a sanciton imposed for good cause without evidence that PM is prepared to abide by it - i.e. show self-control and self discipline. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> | |||
| **No, overturn on the grounds that it's being kept in place for a reason other than a concern that his future edits to BLPs would be problematic. If you are concerned that his edits would be problematic (a concern that the arbitrators '''do not in fact share''', based on the fact that Sam Blacketer has said he would have considered lifting it if PM had not criticized arbcom) you're welcome to watch his edits yourself. --] (]) 23:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ***I think you are materially misrepresenting Sam Blacketer's statement above. My opposition to removing the sanction at this time is not based on criticism of the Arbitration Committee. To the best of my knowledge, it is not the basis of other arbitrators' objections either. However, I think that the Committee would be more open to defining a clear timetable (with strong pre- and post-conditions) for removing this restriction and would support a sensible proposal along these lines. ] (]:]) 23:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| To clarify something: any discussion of this type must be considered absolutely a nonbinding discussion. There is no possibility for "By consensus of the community a decision of the ArbCom is hereby overturned." If the time has come for Privatemusings to make an appeal, and if he has many good people in the community willing to vouch for him, then I am sure that both the ArbCom and myself will deal with it appropriately. This idea of ArbCom vs. the Community is poisonous, please do not let that kind of meme take hold.--] (]) 18:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with Jimbo above. I like the fact we are having this discussion, it is however, nonbinding. But I encourage it to continue. The committee executes our will, I'm sure they will see this. ] (]) 19:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't agree. The ArbCom is intended to handle issues which the community can't solve on its own. In cases where the community can come to a consensus on something (and I have no idea if that is the case here) there is no need to involve the ArbCom. ] (]) 18:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :"ArbCom vs. the Community" can only take hold if the two parties are thinking in different directions, and if that is the case it is hard to avoid. If we value having the ArbCom and the Community being on the same page, it seems pretty clear to me which party should be the accomodating one. ] ] 22:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :"ArbCom vs. the Community" is, I am afraid, being fostered by the ArbCom, not the Community. You should also note that there is an RfC (]) in progress that aims to review and reform the Arbitration Process. I do not believe that the people who have contributed to this process believe that it's only 'advisory'. We intend to actualy change the Arbitration Policy. The Arbitration Committee must be accountable to the community. I hope you will not block this. --] (]) 00:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you saying that a community discussion can never reverse a decision taken by ArbCom? Doesn't that do against everything we're supposed to believe about community supremacy? Puzzled. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 06:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Jimbo, this "Arbcom vs. the Community" stuff all stems from the community having very little faith in the present Arbcom members. Mostly because they have been twiddling their thumbs for '''three months''' now on ]. I do not believe most of the present Arbcom are capable of dealing with anything other than simple cases in an appropriate manner. ] ] 00:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :*The key here is that this is a consensus based project, ultimately the arbcom works for the editors, not the other way around. Arbcom needs the community to support and carry out its rulings, or it is powerless. Arbcom has been growing more and mroe separated from editors since its inception, and that is causing a whole lot of issues. Ultimately some editors and arbcom members need to be reminded who works for whom. <span>] <sup>]</sup></span> 03:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed that the delays in that case are getting kind of ridiculous, but ArbCom do seem to be pretty good at handling smaller, less controversial cases, and I'd say one they've already ruled on fits the bill for that. ] 04:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::If we're going to consider a true "Arbcom vs. the Community", I myself start paraphrasing Ronald Reagan-- ''My idea of the Community versus The Arbcom mmembers is simple, and some would say simplistic. It is this: We win and they lose.'' , we of course, being the larger community. | |||
| :::If the community ever has a consensus, a true consensus, with a truly representative sampling of the community--- then it's essentially a policy and thats the end of story. Arbs are there to resolve disputes when no consensus can be found-- not to dictate the results of disputes in cases where consensus has been achieved. | |||
| :::But totally premature to try to argue that abstract debate here. For one, I don't seem myself arguing for a community-based ] in this case. And secondly, this is a simple case-- if there's was an actual consensus here, arbcom would support it, I'm sure; so in the end, it doesn't matter one way or the other what we would do if arbcom ever tried to go against consensus. --] (]) 08:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *There are no binding decisions on Misplaced Pages. But the community certainly can decide not to enfoce an ArbCom restriction. As in some other recent cases, there are probably good reasons for the ArbCom's behavior, but they are not communicated to the community well enough. In this case, arbitrators should try not to come across as using criticism of their actions as a reason for seemingly unrelated editing restrictions. In the C68-SV-FM case, it would be nice to get signals from ArbCom of the type "we're still working on it" or "evidence is still welcome that might help us decide either way". A breakdown of communication in the OM case has recently damaged the ArbCom's reputation; now we find (at least) two more communication problems. Clarity and openness from the ArbCom (along with the regained trust by the community that comes with openness) could probably help against the "ArbCom against community" meme more than disallowing organized dissent. ] (]) 08:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Request for patience=== | |||
| Hi, could we suspend this discussion for a little while? I've had an idea that might resolve this pretty well on all sides. Am getting in contact with Private Musings and if he agrees I'll move forward formally. Best regards, <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 03:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I disagree and believe the discussion should continue concurrently with the AC review, and the appeal to Jimbo. Incidentally, I have offered , anything I can do to help you and help this editor edit productively, let me know. ] (]) 04:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Please see ]. I hope that's generally acceptable (it is to Privatemusings). Requesting courtesy closure of this thread in the interests of drama reduction. With respect toward all, <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 04:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I hope the arb.s will look at the mentoring suggestions now at the arb page (and I'm glad that recent comment may be moving in that direction...) - on a 'point of order' I'd hope that a very strong community consensus could certainly supersede any arbcom decision, and believe open discussion of this sort of thing to be healthy and a 'good thing' :-) I can't honestly say right now that there's a strong enough consensus for me to be able to edit freely immediately - but I do find it interesting to look at all rationales presented.... I'm afraid I find some comments to have lacked rigour in their examination of current events.. your mileage may vary of course... cheers, ] (]) 04:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: PM, the problem was careless - in some cases almost wilfully so - editing of biographies, along with hopping accounts to avoid scrutiny. You've devoted an enormous amount of time, effort and energy to trying to prove that you did nothing wrong, but very little as far as I can tell to showing that you understand that, for example, warring with Fred over an article on probably the single most litigious ] subject the project has ever seen was a ''spectacularly'' bad idea. And all the debate above does not actually address that. You're not restricted from BLPs because you criticised ArbCom, you're restricted due to calreless editing of BLPs with a coplete lack of any evidence of acceptance that there was a problem. One might justly criticise ArbCom for the severity of the measures against you, but the outcome was, I believe, entirely right: you were using alternate accounts in a way well outside community norms, and you were editing extremely sensitive articles in a way that was not in the least bit sensitive. You are a very pleasant fellow, but you still seem to be fighting the original case. As any parole officer will tell you, parole comes after the prisoner has accepted their guilt. And guilty you were, I'm afraid, caught bang to rights. Now, I personally don't think you're at all evil, I think you just got carried away. The characters whose articles you were editing are controversial and certainly not at all the kinds of people I would choose to socialise with (understatement alert). But we have to be very careful, and in the di Stefano case in particular you took against someone who had been carefully negotiating in numbingly tedious detail with a highly vocal, well-connected, powerful, rich and ''extremely'' litigious individual. That was well beyond not smart. Do please point me to the place where you have accepted that this was a foolish thing to do and shown that you would never do such a thing again, because ''that'' was the major problem the arbitrators had with you, as far as I can tell. | |||
| :: To the rest, I think this is drawing needlsess battle lines. Standing PM up as a crusader because he's a nice guy is not going to undo the fact that he took on someone in direct contact with a very difficult customer, when the prudent thing to do was to walk briskly in the opposite direction. That's not ArbCom v. rest of world, it's ArbCom v. jeopardising the entire project (and yes, di Stefano does indeed have the wherewithal to sue the foundation into the ground). Misplaced Pages is enormously high profile, and our structures are unbelievably free and easy under the circumstances. Anybody who handles OTRS or who talks privately to Jimbo about cases like di Stefano will rapidly understand that here we are only scratching the surface of a problem which has the potential, if not handled tactfully, to bankrupt the project in one hit. It really is not a case of free speech and the nasty arbs doing down the nice guy. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Does this have anything to do with a stalled arbitration case? Because I'm reading this and considering the rather particular way that *you* handle certain cases, Guy. It would really help if you could say how you know when to take the "walk briskly in the other direction" approach (which you say PM should have done, and I agree with you there) and the sometimes excessive "Guy" approach (see aforementioned arbitration case), because I can never tell which approach is best. Which is why, I think, the best approach (one that I see others adopt - I can't in all honesty say I'm active enough in resolving such disputes to say that I adopt it myself) is to tread carefully in all such cases, and avoid offending people. The only case I remember recently is the ] article, and that has gone pear-shaped again the last time I looked at it (in the sense that lots of the material you excised has returned to the article). I recall that the last time you went there you cut it down to a stub. What now? BLPs are a problem that will never go away. Focusing attention on PM doesn't really help. ] (]) 22:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| (outdent) As of now, the proposal is for mentorship with three experienced Wikipedians and review at the end of a 90 day period. If serious problems arise, any member of ArbCom may intervene to reimpose the full sanction. Privatemusings responded well to mentorship on Commons earlier this year, so this may work out for the best. Three arbitrators have responded so far and all of them accept the proposal. With thanks toward everyone who participated, this situation may be in hand enough to mark this thread resolved? Best regards, <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 23:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{discussionbottom}} | |||
| == Is this even a concern? == | |||
| {{resolved|1=Peculiar, but resolved. –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 21:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] has been indef banned for vandalism way back (and appropriately too). However, (s)he is still editing a lot on their talk page ], basically looking like they are creating articles that mimic the season pages for many reality TV shows, exception that they are complete false w/ fake(?) participant names, episode descriptions, and soforth, and that the user seems to cycle through a new one of these every three or four days, erasing an existing one to restart a new page on a different show. | |||
| There's been no obvious IP/different user attempt to merge these changes into WP, so I doubt there's an issue of sock/meatpuppetry going on, but I wonder what the heck this user is doing and if its something that we really should be worried about. I can't trace it easier to any off-WP activity, but it could be a "fantasy" league of some sort, but if the user is using WP to "track" the results, that's obviously against WP:NOT. Am I just being paranoid about this? --] 21:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi Masem, I've reverted and protected the page. ] (]) 21:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == JPG-GR removed rebuttal comments in WP:RM page == | |||
| ] removed rebuttal comments in ] at stating that the rm discussion was on the talk page. It is NOT in the WP:RM talk page. He also restored the proposal by ] to rename the ] article to "ABN Amro" in the August 10 section of the WP:RM page. So I restored the rebuttals to make it very, very clear that the ABN AMRO renaming proposal is contested. It was JPG-GR who first moved the ] article to "ABN Amro", causing the renaming war in that article, so his edits should be investigated. ] (]) 23:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :] is not the place to discuss the moves, it is there to record the fact that a discussion is taking place on the articles talk page. The comment would be removed from ] as they should appear on the talk page of the article in question. ] (]) 23:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Then can the ] to ABN Amro be moved to the contested section? It is clearly being contested. ] (]) 23:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::The contested section is only for those articles originally raised as uncontroversial and that are contested by another editor before the move takes place. The dated sections are for all potentially controversial moves to be recorded. After the 5-days are up then one of the people processing moves will review the details on the articles talk page and act appropriately. ] (]) 00:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| As I'm just now finding this section, thank you, Keith, for explaining what I just finished attempting to describe ]. ] (]) 00:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I don't think this need admin attention. All parties should discuss the name of the article on the talk page, as Keith D (who is an experienced user in this area) says. <big>]</big> 00:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == IP address of persons who edit.. Is it protected? == | |||
| {{resolved|1=I've followed up their original question on ]. ] ] 11:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
| I have come across an edit in the article "SENSEX" dated December 4, 2007. The edit has been credited to a person by name Dchoudhary. However there is no display of IP address. | |||
| Is this hiding of IP address done on request? | |||
| In case we need to contact the person who edited for some information, is there a method? | |||
| Naavi <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :There are a few things you can do. First, every editor has a talk page; you can easily leave an editor a message. Second, every ''article'' itself has a talk page - a general comment or inquiry there will see more eyes. Finally, if there is something wrong with an article, you could always change it yourself. If you're alleging some specific factual problem, the article's talk page would be the way to go. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 04:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Alternatively, you can ] the user, that is, if the user has e-mail enabled in his or her preferences. But that user has been inactive for quite a while, so I have doubts that the user would check his talk page at this time. It would be best emailing the user if they have it enabled in his preferences if you really need to talk to the user. But I don't think it would be necessary and I see no need to, IMO. But like what was said above, you can change it yourself or discuss it on ]. -- ] (''''']''''') 09:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :"''Is this hiding of IP address done on request?''" - All IP addresses of users who are logged in are hidden. Only a ] of people have access to that information and they are required to abide by the . ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 17:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Some more eyes on this, if you please. At the moment we're not doing too badly (semiprotection has helped, and the lede has vastly improved overnight) but we need some more attention to stop the article turning into a complete Russian-nationalist-dominated mess and to enforce ] and ] on the talk page as far as both sides are concerned. Already this has caused a couple of threads at ]. '''Do not fully protect, it's too high-profile and the war itself is still in flux'''. Just block the edit-warriors. Be warned: banned user {{user|M.V.E.i.}} has been targeting this article with socks. Block anything that looks like him on sight. Thank you. ] (]) (]) 08:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :] isn't getting as many edits, but might also need some eyes. – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 10:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Watchlisted both. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 12:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ditto. ] ] 12:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Uncharacteristically, I'm ''unwatching'' for a while; it's getting too much. Someone else step up. ] 13:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Watching. ] (]) 15:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Wow........this does seem to have a very Russian POV. Part of my concern is that a LOT the sources are Russian newspapers. Aside from the POV problem (all of the sources being from one side of the country who invaded), they are in Russian language and it's tough to know if the content is being represented accurately. (And many of the Russian sites make my McAfee give me warning). ] (]) 05:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"Part of my concern is that a LOT the sources are Russian newspapers..." A reminder of ]:<blockquote>Because this is the English Misplaced Pages, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others are likely to challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Misplaced Pages editors.</blockquote>If they don't comply (and ] is a core policy like ]) you can delete the material. --] (]) 07:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| === 3RR block for ] === | |||
| * , , rv Gbentley x3 | |||
| * , , rv Numlockfishy x3 | |||
| * rv Russavia | |||
| Many more reverts since then. Blocked for 3 hours. ] (]) 15:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :User is requesting unblock. Please could someone else take a look? If you want to unblock him, I won't be offended! At the moment, I'm just trying to catch anyone who appears to be edit warring, so I'll focus on that. ] (]) 15:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was reviewing this already. I'm going to unblock, but on a short leash and with some warnings. ] {{IPA|ǀ}} ] 15:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| === SPA's === | |||
| I've noticed several accounts just being used to participate in discussions on the ], take for instance ] and ]. Is this allowed, to have accounts being created so they can be solely used to participate in certain discussions? ] (]) 16:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, we can't force accounts to edit other articles. If you suspect sockpuppetry, start a report. ] {{IPA|ǀ}} ] 16:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| === 3RR block for ] === | |||
| * Reverted Mkosmul | |||
| * , rv Lihaas x2 | |||
| * rv Colchicum | |||
| Has been blocked for 3RR previously, so I've given him a 24 hour block. As usual, I won't be offended if another admin feels that a shorter block is in order. ] (]) 08:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Subarticles=== | |||
| There's now about five or six sub- and related articles, including, ], ], ], ], ], ]. These all need keeping an eye on. ] and ] appear to be articles, covering the same conflict, but ] is written in a far more POV manner, and has much less sourcing, so ] it to ]. ] ] 08:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I've also redirected ] back to ] and protected the redirect (no mercy). We can't have an article on a "supposed" naval conflict that nobody's sure happened, sourced purely to Russian sources. ] (]) (]) 11:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{user|Top Gun}} is blocked indef for lying about sources. ] (]) (]) 11:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::re the ] article - there's non-Russian sources (e.g. , , ) that state a boat was sunk, but I'm not sure it warrants an article of its own, and all the news articles simply report that "Russia states it sunk a Georgian boat". Redirecting is probably the right thing to do for now. ] ] 12:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :(Outdent) I've created a new category for the war, ]. It appeared to me that we had, at least marginally, enough articles to have a category make sense for them. But add in the careful attention we are putting over the whole situation, and I felt a category would be a good way to keep track of any more sub-articles that might pop up. - ] (]) 14:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Notability == | |||
| I'm rather ambivilent about ''']''': what is Misplaced Pages's policy on individual items of spyware? Further, if it is notable, it is in quite bad state and has been for over a year. Would appreciate others' opinions.--] (]) 09:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The article is wholly unreferenced at present, and is lacking in any real assertion of notability. I don't think it quite meets speedy deletion standards, particularly as there are ''some'' references out there (see ), but the place to go is ]. ] ] 11:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Sanity check please == | |||
| I'm a relatively new admin, and up until now, any admin actions I've taken have been a result of seeing reports on places like ] and the like. However, I have carried out my first deletion and spam block just from what I've seen rather than from what has been reported. I saw an advert on ], and deleted it (no links). As the name matched that of a company, I blocked the username too, without giving warning (no other contributions, just that spam advert) | |||
| Could someone please check my actions and level of block, and let me know if I was being overly harsh with the type of block I used? Thanks! ] (]) 16:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It looks good. ''''']]]''''' 16:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::No problems here - ] {{IPA|ǀ}} ] 16:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you! ] (]) 16:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] blocked for a year == | |||
| This will also automatically give him another chance in 12 months, but ]. ] (]) 16:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd prefer it to stay at indef myself - his attitude doesn't seem to of changed. My fear is that in a years time he'll just be disruptive again. ] (]) 16:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::He may be, yes. Perhaps a community ban would be more fitting? ] (]) 16:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think any further time spent on our part is a waste. A year is fine, if he comes back and continues, we'll indef then. ] {{IPA|ǀ}} ] 16:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::(ec) If someone comes back from a year's block and is disruptive, we should trust the people who will be around then to deal with the matter appropriately. The real question is under what circumstances would an unblock request be granted. For a community ban, you'd also have to go through the contributions and gather the evidence into one place. ] (]) 16:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Likewise, this is why I blocked for a year, nothing else will need to be done for 12 months. A ban would be more open to unblock requests. ] (]) 16:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I bring to your attention this user, who has a long history of disruptive editing, and was involved in an Arbcom case last year. He is currently edit-warring on ], which he has flooded with nonsensical OR/POV-pushing material. Would it be appropriate to file an arbitration request here? ] (]) 17:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :<s>Without delving into it any farther, you've violated ] there with four reverts in 24 hours (, , , and ).</s> Please stop edit waring there. The same goes for ], though he has not violated 3RR quite yet. <font color="green">]</font>] 17:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The reverts you listed as mine were made by two different people. ] (]) 17:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Bah, sorry. Those comments stricken, though I still highly suggest not edit waring. Cheers. <font color="green">]</font>] 19:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No reason to be sorry, you were right the first time, according to ]: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| The ] does not require the same editor to be reverted, only the same content. I will try to make sure that this is resolved, I recommend you bring this up on the talk page, and if there is support and no grounded objection after a day or so, add it. In this way consensus is formed and conflict is averted. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| ] (]) 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::In this case Eschoir insistently added the irrelevant lengthy comment, opposition to which had been expressed, ''without'' "bringing it up on the talk page", as he had been invited to do, and without waiting to see "if there is support and no grounded objection after a day or so". He has not attempted to respond substantively to of the relevancy of his inserted comment. ''In such circumstances'', could it not have seemed logical to revert his reverts, considering them equivalent to vandalism? ] (]) 06:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I notice too that Prodego was speaking of ''one editor reverting several editors who had posted the same content''. He was not, if I understand him correctly, speaking of several editors individually reverting the content that a single contributor kept posting. It was Eschoir, not the others, who acted against Prodego's ruling by repeatedly reverting the same content posted by different editors. ] (]) 07:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Just want to add a little information here: I accepted a ] request to help out with ] where Eschoir was warring with another editor. After it went back and forth for awhile, the article was put on full restriction until the edit warring stopped. It seems that Eschoir took the battle from the Origin page and took it to the History section of the main Eucharist page. — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::This could potentially be spreading out to ]. Eschoir's mainspace edits indicate a lot of edit warring on this topic. ] (]) 22:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::And I proposed following the guidance of ] and work out differences in a sandbox, which I did, but have yet to be joined there by any others.] (]) 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::"Work out differences" by building a sandbox and telling others they were free to add to it, but of the opinions that he keeps adding to it with no consideration for the views of other editors! He should settle the matter by putting to the editors the question whether his sandbox text or the text in the article itself is the better basis on which to work. Then work could proceed. ] (]) 04:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == That Rotary guy again == | |||
| I'm getting a little peeved about this continuous issue, and would like suggestions for how to end the foolishness. Our friend ], who we have seen in these pages ] (there are several other AN and ANI reports that I can't find just now) with, generally, the same results: Pierre is a POV-pushing anti-Rotary editor who has been told many, many, many times that his edits are not acceptable and his theories trying to tie the organization to various unsavoury types who may or may not have been members at some time should not be included on the ] page. His campaign's even been picked up (and mocked) by . Needless to say, several editors on the Rotary page have been, um... "enjoying" Pierre's editing for some time. He recently switched over to using IPs, which has made it easier to take care of the situation by simply semiprotecting his favourite targets (three times, now - he comes back and resumes his activity every time the protection expires). Which, now, is leading to him moving into new harassment activities. | |||
| I've removed two messages from Pierre on my talk page thus far. The first one declared me to be an , the second chided me for removing an "embarrassing question." That's fine; I've got a rollback button and I know how to use it. But now it seems he's going to start wikistalking; undoes my most recent article edit, in which I expanded a substub on an obscure river. Wonder where they found that, huh? I haven't noticed any other changes since then on my watchlist, but it's an annoying new addition to Pierre's usual tricks, and I'm finding I"m on the verge of using certain four-letter Anglo-Saxon words in his general direction. | |||
| There ''has'' to be a way to shut this guy down. It's a specific series of IPs using 84.102.229.* - it's dynamic, which is a pain, but I'm wondering if an abuse report would be the right way to go, if a rangeblock would be too much, or what the deal is. I'd really like to see us find a way to end this activity - it's been going on for ''three years'' now. Any thoughts and options would be appreciated. ] <small>]</small> 18:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::He's removed this report once and leveled personal attacks, and the most recent IP's been blocked. For the record. ] <small>]</small> 22:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, depressing as it seems, I would expect that someone with the tenacity to 'persevere' for three years is beyond being stopped by any technical measures we can take. I don't see that an abuse report would do much: "Oh, you say our customer is editing the encyclopedia that anyone can edit? That sounds right.", would be a fair response from an ISP to something that is not vandalistic or legally problematic. However, a range-block that was anon-only would appear to be a possible attempt - however, whether this palatable depends on 'how dynamic' the range is over a reasonable period, I guess. (Assuming that all his named accounts are long-since blocked, and the IPs can be dealt with as they surface). ] - ] 21:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::If nothing else, I'd appreciate some other admins watchlisting the Rotary International page and its talk page, so I can stop wearing out my protection buttons. ] <small>]</small> 16:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == 2,500,000 articles == | |||
| We passed this milestone about fourty minutes ago. The lucky article, I think, is {{la|Joe Connor}}, written by {{admin|Wizardman}}. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 23:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh well, I ]... ] ] ] 01:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yay! Worked my butt off to hit 2.5M. My estimate came out with ], but your guess is probably better than mine, since I was just throwing article onto Misplaced Pages. ] 02:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I love seeing baseball articles get some (positive) attention on the noticeboards. Great work, Wiz. <b><font color="FF6600">]</font> <sub><font color="black">]</font></sub> <font color="FF6600">is not used to being the voice of reason</font></b> 04:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Good job! Maybe this will get it some attention and get all prettied up like what happened to ]. ]] 05:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Admin AfD nom's == | |||
| {{resolved}} | |||
| On July 22, ] (who claims to be an admin) ] He was asked about the dubious nomination but to the best of my knowledge did not respond. He nominated my article for deletion '''8 minutes''' after it was created. Today, approximately 20 days after his nomination, the article passed GA (it didn't change much since the created version, a slight expansion at most). I has checked his talk page and found other concerning similarities such as . Unhappy editor of wikipedia. — ]] 02:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Based on ], the user is an admin, so it's not a false claim. Haven't looked into the history of this yet. ] 02:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: ] (only if anyone is wondering). ] (]) 02:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Interesting. — ]] 02:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Wow. Any chance that if the number of admins opposing his presence exceeds his total vote count on RfA, he can be desysopped? Not that I would necessarily support that.... — ] ] 02:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As you can probably imagine I'm not amused, but he nominated the article at the same time that I was dealing with the ] FA review (which passed). It was a stressful time trying to get one article to FA and save another from burning. I almost removed the MJ nomination because of the stress the combined articles caused. — ]] 03:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Administrators can make mistakes or oversee certain qualities that makes an article notable, but that doesn't mean that editors should come running to AN every instance of this complaining of administrator abuse when there is none. A mistake most likely occurred -- although I am not going as far as to say that. I've deleted countless articles, garbage and other crap from the 'cyclopedia, and you are always bound to create controversy. Someone will almost always oppose ''their'' special article being wiped, which is why we have ] and a system to contest an AfD or a speedy. With all of the riff-raft that is deleted ''daily'', these issues do occur, but you should have taken this up on his talk page first and outline the case. <small>] | ] | ]</small> 03:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Someone else did take it to his talk page, to my knowledge he did not respond. And this isn't crap, it's an article that 20 days later became a GA article. If it wasn't for his deletion nomination and the fact that there is a backlog at GAN, the article was literally ready for GA within days of creation, if not instantly. — ]] 03:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Can you please link to that? Did you take it to ]? <small>] | ] | ]</small> 03:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What would you like me to link you to specifically? I've got lots of links above. No I did not take it to deletion review, I had an FA nomination on my plate, a death wish on another article and I really didn't fancy going toe to toe with an admin at that moment. — ]] 03:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you could, a link to the discussion on the administrator's talk page. For the latter, well, that was kind of my point in my original post. People tend to take it to AN without using the standardized channels -- DRV, for instance. I'd be happy to restore it if it was deleted as the article certainly is not crap, but it's currently up. My posts are not entirely geared towards you, but it is a trend I have noticed on the various noticeboards. <small>] | ] | ]</small> 03:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::, it's already in my opening paragraph to you guys though (I'm concerned you haven't properly read my post or don't understand it). He didn't respond on his talk page and I can't find a response in the archives of Wacky's talk page. You should really read the actual AfD page. I left quite a wonderful reason for why the article shouldn't be deleted and how it was impossible for him to reach such an assessment '''8 minutes''' after I had uploaded it. It takes more than 8 minutes to read the damn thing. — ]] 03:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :This discussion belongs here. It's not a complaint over an article, its a general problem of an admin confirmed long ago who seems to need a refresher. For another indication of the problem, see for ]-- the admin was notified on his talk page of the deletion review, and did not respond. He has been notified of this discussion, and if we do not get a response either, I wonder what action is most appropriate. ''']''' (]) 04:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agree, I have provided two cases I found (in my intro) and you have just found one. This is serious, how many more potential GA article will he delete before he's forced to deal with the situation and respond to complaints. — ]] 04:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| For background only: Anyone can see that his overall contrib history seems very helpful. Out of about 8000 edits over the past year, he has edited only 2 AfDs, the one noted above, which he started, along with another AfD wherein he made a keep comment for an article which was kept. Second, someone blocked him for 15 minutes about 11 months ago, seemingly to get him to look at his talk page. So he may not be very up to speed on AfD and CSD anymore (or forgotten and/or not kept up with their policies). I don't see a big worrisome trend yet but it's likely helpful that Realist2 has brought this up. Lastly, I have to ask, only in awe at the Wikipedian-historical thrill of it, has anyone ever seen another RfA that passed with only 13 or so supports? ] (]) 04:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The problem here is he doesn't seem to understand AfD's or speedies. He doesn't spend long enough thinking (8 mins and 5 mins from the links I've shown) and doesn't respond. I hope I am being helpful (rather than unhelpful I assume) but someone needs to get him to acknowledge and be less trigger happy. — ]] 04:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Gwen, many of the early RfAs passed with very little comment. ] with 9. ''']''' '']'' 05:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Ha! In the early days before the RfA process was put in place you could become an admin just by asking. There might well be no comment at all. Realist2 is doing us all a big favour by bringing this to our attention. Admins can be forgiven for getting things wrong from time to time but if they don't respond to messages from others it's much more problematic. In my opinion if someone won't respond to requests there's little point in their being an admin. -- ] | ] 05:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, I see no problem here. He was not asked a question about this nomination; ] but did not ask any questions. There's no requirement to respond to comments on one's page. To be honest, Realist2 is probably lucky if Craigy144 isn't keeping up with the latest trends in adminship, or he could just as easily have deleted the article under the special Arbcom enforcement provisions. ] (]) 06:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::He didn't react in any manner to the complaint (even if it was a direct question it seems unlikely he would have answered it looking at other diffs), his nomination reasoning was not inline with AfD reasoning. Controversial and POV isn't a reason to delete, firstly wiki isn't censored and secondly it was neutral anyway. I don't know enough about arbcom enforcement to comment on that. — ]] 06:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] has been removing any reference to the term 'insurrection' in articles connected with the January 6 capitol attack. ] (]) 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''Response:''' Hello all. I didn't realise this issue would come this far. I sincerely apologise I speedied this article when, to be honest, I hadn't actually read through the article properly. I had intended to reply to the request on my talk page but I can only think I put it on the backburner and it slipped my mind. Admittedly, I made a mistake and I was obviously too heavy handed. In all honesty, I'm not familiar with some of the new policies on the 'pedia and this obviously happened as a result of that, when I was monitoring the New Pages list. I intend to follow through with my own "refresher" course to keep myself up to date by having a good read through some policy pages before going through the New Pages again. I was appointed a sysop back in 2004 when we weren't so BIG in those days, so naturally I may be slightly behind with the times (but not ''too'' much). Hopefully this discussion doesn't come down to "out with the old", if a desysop is being intended. Regards, ] (]) 10:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ::::I don't think that's the intended result, but perhaps just taking the time to respond to queries would go a long way to defusing issues like this. –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 11:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Community assuming the block on Crouch, Swale == | |||
| :::::Absolutely, I agree. I'm quite complacent in the "real world" which obviously shows here, but I'll be sure to make more of an effort to reply to queries or comments on my talk page. ] (]) 11:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thanks for the response. Since this is pretty much a non-actionable issue, can we mark this as resolved? <small>] | ] | ]</small> 11:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Agree with the close, but as a side note - I would prefer any number of civil and humble but slightly slow-to-respond admins than a lot of the aggressive, easily-offended and petulant behaviour you find on display in those circles these days. A very graceful response. ] (]) 16:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Apology accepted. — ]] 16:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Crouch, Swale was for multiple accounts in 2011 and this was later upgraded to a ]. In ] they were unblocked by ArbCom with a whole string of conditions. They then become an annual appellant to ArbCom to reduce or eliminate those conditions. In ], Crouch, Swale went to ArbCom asking for a site ban. ArbCom declined. Multiple admins, including me, tried to convince him that a site ban was not a good idea. Admins, including me, told him if he wanted a break we would block him . Ultimately he asked me to block him for a few days, which I did. Yesterday, he was back at ] and after questioning on his talk page basically ] he was willing to harass and otherwise violate policies in order to achieve his ends of getting a site ban. {{u|ToBeFree}} correctly indeffed him for this. It is with no pleasure that I come here asking the community to essentially assume this block and turn it into a site ban. For reasons I don't understand, and am sad to see, this user clearly wanted to be given a forced break from Misplaced Pages. Given the long history with this user, and since there has been no mention of ArbCom choosing to assume the block themselves, I think it would be better for the community to decide if/how/when Couch Swale returns to English Misplaced Pages, rather than individual admins through the normal appeals process. Best, ] (]) 03:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Semi-protected ] == | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. There are too many missing dots here. {{U|Crouch, Swale}}'s editing conditions from the 2017 unblock are listed as: | |||
| ::one account restriction | |||
| ::topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions | |||
| ::prohibition on moving or renaming pages (except within their own userspace) | |||
| ::prohibition on creating new pages, including creating articles on pages where one didn't previously exist (except within their own userspace and talk pages of existing pages in any namespace). | |||
| :That list does not on the face of it suggest a tremendously disruptive editor; and has Crouch, Swale been adhering to these rules? If so, what's the big issue with relaxing the restrictions; has the editor made very deficient appeals? He came to my attention talking kindly and constructively with a problem editor. How did we come to the point where a week or so later, he's demanding a 10-year block? I can't help suspecting a bureaucratic glitch in handling his appeals. What am I missing prior to the threat to be maximally disruptive that makes this editor a candidate for a permaban? ] (]) 04:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Comment:''' I've taken a look myself and they had restrictions lessened in 2022. | |||
| ::They then went to ] with an ultimatum: remove the restrictions or block me for a decade - if you don't, I'll disrupt the site (forgive me for saying this, but it feels like blackmail). | |||
| ::Since the appeal didn't include any evidence (or appeal) it was rejected as insufficient. | |||
| ::I get their frustration, but I'm very concerned that they dialled things straight up to 11 and are willing to cause significant problems for others (including doxxing, see the link) just to get their own way. | |||
| :: Then again, looking at the December appeal, they very clearly want to be banned and have refused every other alternative offered. I don't know what's going on in the background but I'm thinking this is something they should probably have since they're very clear and consistent in their request for a full-on ban - if they don't want to explain why, then should we be pressing for one, especially after so many people have already asked? It could be an addiction (as suggested in the December diff above) in which case they're asking for help and refusing could be causing them harm. I have personal experience in this area and this feels awfully familiar - if they're asking for help then we should give it if we can. ] (]) 04:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Like the header says, per ... Feel free to go back to '''' when you feel it is appropriate. ]]] 04:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Hm, that looks pretty common for a TFA. Oh well, ] <sup>]</sup> 05:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::K, lets give this another try. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * I am not enthusiastic about this, can we not just let them go? --] (]) 13:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == best forum for discussion about a large number of articles which face the same issue == | |||
| *:Likewise. I'm not convinced that the threats were something they had any intention of carrying through with, so I'm not convinced that anything more than the current block is necessary to protect the project nor that there would be any other benefits. | |||
| *:@] Crouch, Swale has made many appeals over the years to get their restrictions loosened and/or removed (look at pretty much every recent ARCA archive covering a January). The basic reason they have not been successful is that they haven't demonstrated an understanding of why the restrictions were imposed in the first place, which multiple people feel is a necessary precursor to being confident the problems won't reoccur - the only problems being a fundamental disconnect between them and basically everybody else about how Misplaced Pages should cover low-level UK administrative geography. Outside of that topic area they are a very good editor who is (normally) a very clear net benefit to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 13:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support the site ban''' that they themself seem to request. The editor appears to be a net negative to the project on account of the volunteer time absorbed by their antics. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' - Something seems really off here. What could Crouch, Swale gain from demanding a site ban and deciding to be a pain in the arse until he gets his way? I wonder if he's going thru some sort of crisis in his normal life and he sees Misplaced Pages as a distraction that exacerbates it, and doesn't realise just how difficult it would be to come back from a full siteban as opposed to an indefinite block. Blocks on request is one thing - you can at least quickly request a return with a convincing unblock request. If he wants to come back from an unban, then he'll have to go thru a community discussion that will very likely reopen old wounds and end with him being told "no" in very clear terms. I would rather give him the option to come back as painlessly as possible as opposed to being sent off on a train to nowhere while workers rip up the tracks behind it. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 17:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *This seems like a bad idea. ToBeFree solved the problem, no need to escalate this further unless C,S escalates. Let's not back someone who is apparently hurting into an unnecessary corner. --] (]) 17:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - If he wants a site-ban, then give'em what he wants. It's that or put up with his wasting the community's time. ] (]) 17:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' as solution in search of a problem. The block that TBF implemented prevents the threatened disruption. Crouch ‘’can’’ be a productive editor when they choose. Let’s not make it harder for them to come back when they’re ready. ] ] 17:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I wasn't sure where to ask this, so please feel free to move it, copy it, or suggest a better place for it! | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I refused to block him as an Arb because I felt he was seeking "suicide by ArbCom." His latest post was somewhere between manipulative and cry for help. If he had put forth a good request to remove his restrictions, I'd have said yes. He seems like someone in crisis, making bad decisions. Perhaps a reason to block them for their own good until they stabilize, but not a reason to community ban them. Crouch is an excellent editor otherwise and has contributed very extensively to niche UK topics. ] <sup>]</sup>] 17:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. I'm torn because I do think that Sandstein and GoodDay have a point; the amount of time and energy he has consumed with this is already a bit disruptive. But the fact is that he's currently blocked, which has ended this; concerns that he could, I don't know, pretend to be reformed to get an admin to let him back in and then cause disruption seems too theoretical to justify action by the community. A community ban wouldn't give them what they want, anyway; it's ''hard'' to appeal, but still quite possible to do so at any time - and honestly the reaction here makes it clear that if this passed, and Crouch later came back to the community saying they've recovered from whatever and now wants to be let back in, we'd probably still grant it, it'd just waste even more community time and effort. --] (]) 18:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:By "oppose", are you opposing the site ban or the regular block? ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 20:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The site-ban, of course. The regular block isn't even being reviewed here, I think - obviously if someone overtly threatens to do those sorts of things and doesn't back down they have to be blocked. --] (]) 21:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@]: Oh, I think I misread the title of this section—I thought "assuming" was "assessing". ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 21:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - the entire motivation of this bizarre campaign seems to be no more than to waste editors' time. Requiring them to appeal to the community will waste even more. They should stay blocked, and legal should be notified about the threats of libel and doxxing. We don't owe them anything. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 18:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Those weren't really threats about libel and doxxing; they were just saying whatever they thought necessary to get blocked. Please let's not sic legal on them. Timesink or not, there's still room in this Trumpified world for a little compassion. ] (]) 20:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I get what you're saying, but it's above our pay grade to determine if the threats carry any legitimacy. ] covers this. If Legal thinks that they're empty threats then so be it, but they're the ones that get paid to make that sort of call, not us lowly editors. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 00:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::It is not above my pay grade to use common sense. But do what you think you need to do. ] (]) 00:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' This whole situation is just weird. I was reading ] for an unrelated reason and looked at the Crouch, Swale thread out of curiosity and it was one of the most perplexing things I've ever seen at WP. I haven't the first clue why they didn't just do what was suggested at AE and provide a justification for a lift of their account restrictions rather than setting an unprecedented ultimatum. Regardless I don't think it should be on the community to give assent to this silliness. ] (]) 21:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - I was someone who came back to Misplaced Pages after being blocked for an extensive period of time. If I was in a situation where I didn’t want to edit anymore, requesting a site ban for myself would be the wrong way to do so. There are better ways to handle these things rather than this. Firstly, there’s nothing wrong with taking a break from Misplaced Pages if you feel it is getting in the way of your life. It can be stressful for editors to tell you things you don’t necessarily want to hear, but there are more important things in life than Misplaced Pages which are in the physical world. I’ve been one of those people. You can also request a self-block on yourself rather than doing every naughty thing you can do to get yourself blocked. Those blocks are harder to get yourself back into the community if you feel you need to. I’d rather do everything right on Misplaced Pages rather than do a bunch of wrong things. In a nutshell, that’s basically how I feel. ] (]) 21:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Meh''' They can't appeal on their talk page, and I can't imagine the small group of admins that does the heavy lifting at ] unblocking them. The only other avenue of appeal is the committee, which seems equally unlikely, so I'm not really seeing much risk here. ] ] 00:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I just hope they are okay. I think the site ban was completely justified, but something seems off here, and if they want to return, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't follow the normal procedures. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 00:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == WMF research on admins == | |||
| I'd like some advice about the best way to setup a discussion on a large number of articles, all of which face the same issue. I've only just dipped my toe into this one, but it seems likely to me that we've got a bit of chaff here, and it might be sensible to merge quite a lot of articles into one - which will of course involve fairly large scale deletion. | |||
| There's a 70 page final report over at ]. Apparently it will be part of something called the ] in February. I recommend people read the report and possibly contribute to the upcoming office hours if they're interested. ] ] 03:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I'm no where near ready to propose deletions though, and would much prefer to solicit others' thoughts, and try to see what the community consensus is in some central place - my guess is that a sort of slightly unusual RfC might work? - The issue at hand is tens (if not hundreds) of articles about what you might call 'micro-genres' - things like ] and ] - many of which may lack rigourous referencing. Before zooming in too far though, it may be handy to have a sort of 'meta' discussion about what approached we should take.. an 'article by article' approach probably won't generate the best results in my view... thoughts most welcome, and I'll start an RfC in a day or two unless advised against it! cheers, ] (]) 06:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello, ], I am interested but busy. Is there a summary to this 70 page paper you could link to? Is this report a result of the questionnaire they sent out last autumn? Thanks for informing us about it. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I admit I haven't read the 70 pages yet either. It's on my ever growing to-do list. I don't think there's a summary that's been released yet (if there ends up being one, it'll probably be at ]). This is indeed about the mass questionnaire/interviews that were going on last year. ] ] 04:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The first 18 pages are a summary of the rest of the document. The good news is that apparently our admin corps is demographically reflective of the wider editor pool in all measured aspects except age. ] (]) 04:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Do we lean older or younger? ] ] 04:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Admins average older than editors and readers. ] (]) 04:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::An addendum: it's not in the summary but there is also a geographic bias (pages 52 and 53), with en.wiki admins more likely to be in North America than editors. ] (]) 04:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi @], hope you don't mind my jumping in! Yes, this report is based partially on the survey we sent out in late autumn of 2024, as well as an interview-based study largely focused on former administrators as well as the collection of new metrics around administrators on Misplaced Pages. The first two sections (Key Results and Recommendations) of the report are our attempt to create a summary of the report as a whole. These two sections are also ] if you would prefer not to download the (chunky) PDF just for that bit. | |||
| ::On a personal note, I'm thrilled to see the reception of the study! ] (]) 14:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I like this line {{tq|1.2.3 The RFA process is routinely characterized by administrators as stressful, opaque, and something to be endured.}} That was my experience! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:], you may want to read pages 47 onwards then. In particular, I found page 50 an interesting elucidation of some factors affecting RfAs. ] (]) 04:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * There's lots of interesting tidbits in there and I do think it's worth a read. For example, some depressing figures on abuse and harassment (pp. 62, 66–68), and the information (pg. 45) that en.wiki has relatively low enthusiasm from non-admins towards becoming admins <small>(although this result may be skewed by en.wiki's relatively lax ''formal'' requirements, which would widen the pool of surveyed editors of lower experience considerably compared to projects with more stringent formal requirements)</small>. However, for those short of time (and perhaps already familiar with the situation on en.wiki), I would encourage a look at comparisons of the unbundling of core admin actions across different projects (pp. 36–38) and the comparison of admin tenures across different projects (pp. 39–40). ] (]) 04:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *It's good to see recommendations 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 and I hope the WMF takes the recommendations seriously. I tried to be clear when I took the survey that I don't think the Foundation takes harassment seriously. They say all the right words, but when it comes down to it, in situations such as the current incessant MAB harassment, I don't see much support at all.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Move page ] == | |||
| :Is there a WikiProject that covers the topic? ] often has discussions about article standards and other issues. --] 06:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Please help me move page ] to ] (currently is a redirect page), because of this airport was . ] (]) 04:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is ]. ''']'''<font color="green">]</font> 07:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}}. For future reference, if you're prevented from moving a page only for technical reasons, you can make a request at ]. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 00:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == File:A Redrawing of the 5K Y.O. Graffito by NewAccount333.jpeg == | |||
| ::And there is ] which is more active. How about using the ] to notify other editors? ''']'''<font color="green">]</font> 07:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::WikiProject Music is probably the best starting point for editors interested in genre discussion. It would certainly be a useful task to try and reference some of those myriad of genres out there. (Once that's done, maybe we can start working on ending some of the endless genre wars with newer bands!) ] <small>]</small> 16:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Can an admin take a look at ]? The most recent version of the file uploaded appears to be a ] request based on the last post added by the uploader to ]. -- ] (]) 04:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Recbon == | |||
| :I've done this, but this isn't really something that needs to go to AN. ] (] | ]) 20:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{user:Recbon}}, a single purpose account, is intentionally misrepresenting consensus about the merging of three articles: ], ], and ]. He has attempted to close a discussion as resolved in supporting a re-split however the RfC further down the talk page overweeningly reaffirms the current status quo. --''']''' (]) 12:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Topic ban appeal from ] == | |||
| :To add a bit, he has also attempted to "enforce" his false consensus by twice reverting one merged article and left a false "only warning" vandalism notice for TheFarix for undoing his disruptive edits. He seems to be an SPA here soley to be disruptive. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 14:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I would like to appeal my two separate but associated topic bans related to XfD, as can be found at ]. My reasons are as follows: | |||
| == Ceedjee deleting History again now on ] == | |||
| # The bans are both over a year old. | |||
| # I am simply not sufficiently interested in this field anymore to engage in the sort of impassioned hostility and unsolicited clerking that got me sanctioned in the first place. | |||
| # The ambiguous nature of the scope of what XfD “boradly construe” has prevented me from doing useful work that no-one had objected to, including discussing redirects/categories and nominating unfree images for deletion. | |||
| # I do not want the negative stigma of an editing restriction on me for something petty I no longer care about. | |||
| For these reasons I believe it is acceptable that my two topic bans be lifted. ] (]) 08:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Note''' Links to discussions . ] 08:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Thank you ] (]) 08:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::@], please provide specific examples of constructive contributions you would have made but could not because of the ban. Please also explain in your own words the reasons for your ban and how, if unbanned, you would change your editing so as not to give rise to the same concerns. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Weak oppose''' pending answer to Sandstein’s question. If there’s no interest in editing in the area, there’s no need to lift the ban as a “stigma” does not strike me as a reason nor does an amount of time having passed. However should DB make the case of good edits they’re prevented from making, that might be a reason. ] ] 17:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I !voted in so I’m an involved weak oppose. I’m not going to continue tpo break formatting to add that, but noting it here. The discussion about how limited the ban should be in that discussion is timely as, as per noted here, the disruption just shifted. ] ] 19:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Involved oppose'''. While topic-banned from XfD here, Dronebogus has merely gone a level up, making a number of nonsensical wiki closure requests and wiki creation oppositions on Meta, persisting even after they were made aware that their idiosyncratic standard for closure was not the standard established by policy. (The last of these is in response to a proposal of mine, which is why I'm calling myself involved. To be clear, the issue isn't that they opposed, but that they knowingly opposed based on a reason disconnected from the actual community-established standard.) I'll grant that they seem to have mostly stopped after ], but there was a lot of disruption to get to that point, disruption that slowed or discouraged actual useful crosswiki work. And look what they're still doing? , which was a major issue here in the past. If this is the kind of behavior we have to look forward to in the event of an unban, then we're definitely better off leaving the ban in place. If anything, Dronebogus has made the case that they should not be editing any Wikimedia wikis. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Sandstein's observation that if Dronebogus doesn't intend to work in XfD then the ban doesn't need to be lifted, and Tamzin's observations about Dronebogus' contribs on other wikis. I'm not convinced by their third bullet, considering that redirects and categories are discussed in an XfD forum, and their original sanction that was limited to MfD had to be expanded four months later to a full XfD ban because they just became disruptive in the broader area. And not wanting to have a sanction on their record is something they ought to have thought of ''before'' being sanctioned. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 18:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' not convinced the pattern of behavior here has changed. ] (] | ]) 18:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I have concerns that while this appeal is ongoing, there is ] at AN/I reagrding Dronebogus where there is evidence of a "my interpreation is the only possible interpretation" mindset as evidenced ] and ]. I feel the EL issue tends towards the same combativeness (or, "impassioned hostitilty" as they call it in the appeal above) demonstrated with their participation in XFD, so I don't believe now is the right time to remove the topic bans.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', in general I don't buy the "Ban isn't needed because I no longer want to edit those topic areas anyways" argument... And in this specific contexts a year doesn't seem like near enough time to figure that out. I also don't buy the negative stigma argument, I've got an IBAN with the sock of a long term abuser which I don't consider to carry any stigma... Because blocks and bans are all about their context. ] (]) 20:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *As regards point 4, I think the stigma is often overplayed on Misplaced Pages. I didn't even realise, despite coming into contact with Dronebogus quite a bit, that they were subject to any editing restrictions, and I'm sure the same goes for many others. As far as point 2 goes, if it doesn't apply any more then I don't see how it matters whether they are banned or not. I haven't thought about points 1 and 3 yet. ] (]) 20:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', based on my just seeing this post, on the talk page of someone else who is thinking about a ban appeal: . My recollection is that Dronebogus supported that other editor's ban, so this wasn't a friendly joke intended to lighten the mood. That Dronebogus would do such a thing while ''this'' appeal is in progress says a lot, none of it good. --] (]) 22:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Involved oppose''' as the editor who proposed the XfD tban. I don't see anything in the OP's request to justify lifting either ban. While the stigma of a tban may be inconvenient, Dronebogus should have taken this inconvenience into consideration before engaging in the behavior that earned these sanctions. ] (]) 01:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Closure request for ITN RfC == | |||
| Please Help! | |||
| --] (]) 15:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :* ] (]) 15:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::WP:AN is not part of the dispute resolution process. ] (]) 15:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] has been sitting there for 3 and a half months, dead and unclosed. Due to its incredible impact, it'd be wise if some admin would finally close this. ] (]) 21:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::He is no '''adding info''', but rather keeps '''deleting it''' --] (]) 15:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] closed == | |||
| An arbitration case ] has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted: | |||
| ::::Articles ], and ] were blocked due to his conducd. --] (]) 15:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am aware of what (you say) he is doing, but the reasons why he is doing it and why you disagree is the what a content dispute is all about - and that is not something that admin boards are for. Also, it takes two parties to make an edit war. ] (]) 15:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Protected the page. Both users had been warned not to do any more reverts there, but both did anyway. I'm tempted to block both, but it feels too much to me like a ]. <font color="green">]</font>] 16:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article. | |||
| == Can't undo vandalism at ] == | |||
| * AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. | |||
| * Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator. | |||
| * Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at ] about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Misplaced Pages by motion. | |||
| * ] and ] are both modified to add as a new second sentence to each: {{tq|Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Misplaced Pages articles, Misplaced Pages discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.}} | |||
| * Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so. | |||
| * The community is encouraged to run a ] aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping. | |||
| * The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE. | |||
| * Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The ] page contains information that may help. | |||
| * Within this topic area, the '''balanced editing restriction''' is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE. {{cot|Details of the balanced editing restriction}} | |||
| :* In a given 30-day period, a user under this restriction is limited to making no more than one-third of their edits in the Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk namespaces to pages that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures. | |||
| :**This will be determined by an edit filter that tracks edits to pages in these namespaces that are extended confirmed protected, or are talk pages of such pages, and are tagged with templates to be designated by the arbitration clerks. Admins are encouraged to apply these templates when protecting a page, and the clerks may use scripts or bots to add these templates to pages where the protection has been correctly ], and may make any necessary changes in the technical implementation of this remedy in the future. | |||
| :**Making an edit in excess of this restriction, as determined at the time the edit is made, should be treated as if it were a topic ban violation. Admins should note that a restricted user effectively cannot violate the terms of this and above clauses until at least 30 days after the sanction has been imposed. | |||
| :* They are topic banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, in all namespaces other than these four (except for their own userspace and user talkspace). | |||
| :* This sanction is not subject to the normal standards of evidence for disruptive editing; it simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive. | |||
| :* Any admin finding a user in violation of this restriction may, at their discretion, impose other contentious topic sanctions. | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| * If a ] or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their ] to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators ] contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning. | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, ] ] 23:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, an IP jumping editor that has vandalised WP:RFPP a few times this week has struck again, . However, it seems to have gone un-noticed due to other edits and it can no longer be undone. Could a sysop please look into this and repair any damage? Thanks '''John Sloan''' (]) 16:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed}}'''<!-- ] (]) 23:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | |||
Latest revision as of 01:23, 24 January 2025
Notices of interest to administrators| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
- For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
- To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
- If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
- Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
- For administrative backlogs add
{{Admin backlog}}to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. - Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
- If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use
{{RfC closure review}}
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussionOpen tasks
Centralized discussion- Prohibiting the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects
- Refining the administrator elections process
- Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
| Administrators' (archives, search) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 | 358 |
| 359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 | 365 | 366 | 367 | 368 |
| Incidents (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 | 1165 | 1166 | 1167 |
| 1168 | 1169 | 1170 | 1171 | 1172 | 1173 | 1174 | 1175 | 1176 | 1177 |
| Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 | 481 |
| 482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 | 491 |
| Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
| 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 | 337 |
| 338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | 345 | 346 | 347 |
| Other links | |||||||||
| V | Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 36 | 36 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 20 | 22 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 80 | 80 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 9 |
- 11 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 13 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 4 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 3 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 67 sockpuppet investigations
- 8 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 2 Fully protected edit requests
- 1 Candidates for history merging
- 2 requests for RD1 redaction
- 103 elapsed requested moves
- 2 Pages at move review
- 23 requested closures
- 34 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 22 Copyright problems
Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request
NO CONSENSUS This has been open for more than a month, much longer than most ban appeals, and it is basically deadlocked, both in numbers and valid arguments. This is therefore closed as not having consensus, which defaults to the block remaining in place. Beeblebrox 21:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following is copied from User talk:Sander.v.Ginkel#Unblock_request on behalf of Sander.v.Ginkel:
I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: User:SportsOlympic and User:MFriedman (note that the two other accounts –- User:Dilliedillie and User:Vaintrain -- at Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Sander.v.Ginkel was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me.
Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (User:Tamzin, User:Xoak, User:Ingenuity) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see User:SportsOlympic). I have created over 900 pages (see here), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance simple:Annie van de Blankevoort, simple:1928 Belgium–Netherlands women's athletics competition, simple:Julia Beelaerts van Blokland, simple:Esther Bekkers-Lopes Cardozo or the event simple:Water polo at the 1922 Women's Olympiad that is barely mentioned at the English 1922 Women's Olympiad. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see here and here when I forgot to log in.
However, as I have learned from it, I will never use multiple accounts anymore and adding controversial content without doing a proper fact-check. I will always listen to users, be constructive and be friendly. I will make sure you will not regret giving me my account back. I would like to work under the account user:SportsOlympic.
Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support unbanning and unblocking per WP:SO. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Quoting my SPI comment in 2022:
That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock, which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ECR violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of block evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as preventative of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-OFFER unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is banned, and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like Draft:Krupets.) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here. ... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an OFFER unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.
- Support per above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse one account proviso. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive#18 April 2024. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would Support with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of WP:LOUTSOCK. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they seem to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. The Kip 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. X (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. This has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, this has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. Fram (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support User seems to have recognized what he did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. JayCubby 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Weak Support, the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Completely support an unblock; see my comment here when his IP was blocked in April. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see clear evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like this may well be on notable competitions, but with content like
On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.
, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the most recent en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC) - Currently oppose; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ Lindsay 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ahri Boy: Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ahri Boy: Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "Next as working for magazines he also contributed to book"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Come on – it's been nearly seven years since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think saying that
I will never use multiple accounts anymore
and that he wants tomake constructive content
would indicate thatthe purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.
BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. Ahri Boy (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think saying that
- But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And he admits that he was
too focused on quantity, rather than quality
, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused onmass-creating non-notable stubs
. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And he admits that he was
- S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to start over. Frank Anchor 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. KatoKungLee (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Fram and PMC. —Compassionate727 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Question: Is SvG the same person as Slowking4? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by Dirk Beetstra. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose basically per JoelleJay, particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get WP:AUTOPATROLLED without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). FOARP (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since WP:NSPORT was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.
Support. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- @Moscow Connection: Your comments are as valid as anyone else's, if you explain your reasoning,
but please note that this is a discussion, not a straight vote, so just saying "support" doesn't tell us much.It has been pointed out to that they did do that, I guess the break threw me off. Beeblebrox 21:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Moscow Connection: Your comments are as valid as anyone else's, if you explain your reasoning,
- Conditional support unblock (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use WP:AFC for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support I can't repeat what Beaniefan11 say enough: "Come on – it's been nearly seven years since the ban – why can't we give another chance? And he admits that he was
too focused on quantity, rather than quality
, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused onmass-creating non-notable stubs
." This should assuage any doubt in the mind of the reviewing administrator. Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC) - Oppose Claims of "It's been seven years!" fall on deaf ears when you find out he's been socking all along and as recently as a year ago. Fram and PMC have good points as well. Show some restraint and understanding of your block and WP:SO is yours. Buffs (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support with a little WP:ROPE and conditions suggested by Joseph2302. Yeah, given the timeframe, I'd say having to submit their creations to AFC for the time being is a sufficient middle way for the yes and no camps. ミラP@Miraclepine 00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - Large-scale sockpuppetry is very harmful, and was continuing for years after the ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Lardlegwarmers block appeal
Essentially unanimous consensus to not unblock. RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Lardlegwarmers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I blocked Lardlegwarmers yesterday for one week for a violation of their community topic ban from COVID-19. This was about this edit, although I subsequently noticed this one as well. LLW has asked me to copy their appeal here. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement from Lardlegwarmers
I have only been very active editing Misplaced Pages for about one month, even though my account is older. I was blocked for pushing a minority POV in the talk page for Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory, which I understand. For context, this issue wouldn't have even come up at ANI except that there was this very old account making borderline uncivil comments constantly, and I took them to ANI myself and it boomeranged. One thing that I learned from that experience is that Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement, and that I am probably not going to be the one to fix it. Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed; my edits were in good faith and I was really just attempting to talk it out with the other editors who did not agree with me. But I understand that the norm in this space is to walk away if there isn't any uptake of my ideas or take it to dispute resolution instead of continuing to try to convince people. The current ban is for making a comment on an AE thread, not a Covid-19 article. I was on the page for a totally unrelated reason and noticed that a user I recognized from the Covid thread was being discussed. My comment was mostly about user behavior and reflecting on the underlying dispute itself, not Covid-19. Also, on my user page I quoted Larry Sanger discussing his view on Misplaced Pages's approach to Covid-19 , which I'd assumed was permitted because it's my own user page and it's really a comment about the state of Misplaced Pages as a whole. The admin who blocked me, @Tamzin, blanked it from my user page. If the community won't let me keep that quote on my user page, then fine, we'll leave it removed, but I wish they would have just asked me to remove it and described why instead of editing my user page. A block for this stuff seems harsh. Thanks.
References
Statement from Tamzin
Excerpting my comment on their talkpage:-- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)Usually we only warn someone on their first topic ban violation. However, in your case, the fact that both violations occurred within hours of the ban being imposed, and that they were belligerent rants treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground, made me judge that a short block would more clearly communicate just how far you are from what is considered acceptable conduct. Even if you didn't understand that the ban applied outside articles, you should have understood that the community found your editing about COVID disruptive, which should have been reason enough to not make those edits.
Discussion among uninvolved editors
- This is clearly a topic ban violation - and it came less than a day after it was imposed. Even if assuming in good faith that they didn't know it was a topic ban violation, their unblock request shows not only that they don't understand what they did wrong, but they attempt to justify it with statements such as
Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed
which is borderline a personal attack (veiled insult that others weren't being grownups);which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement
which is confirming they still don't understand why they were topic banned nor why they were blocked for violating it; and quoting Larry Sanger's fringe theory promoting comments on their userpage after their topic ban. To summarize, I have no confidence that the user understands what they did wrong, and I would go so far as to say the user attempting to skirt the edges of their topic ban and supporting another user trying to promote fringe theories on Misplaced Pages merits an indefinite community ban. TLDR: Oppose unblock and ultimately would support indefinite ban due to the flagrant violation, lack of understanding, and no belief that after the 7 days is up they will not go straight back to trying to right what they percieve as a great wrong. I won't be the one to propose that, however. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC) - I don't see how an unblock is possible when Lardlegwarmers clearly still doesn't understand what a broadly construed topic ban means. To be clear, there's no need to ask the "community" whether you can keep your topic ban violation. The only hope for you to be able to obey it is if you are able to decide yourself, especially after you've been told by an admin. While we do try to educate instead of just blocking, the "community" isn't here to help you understand the limits of your topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Should clarify that despite what I said above, I'd weakly oppose extending the topic
banblock to indefinite at this time. While I'm not hopeful Lardlegwarmers is going to be able to obey it given what they've said, I think it's fine to give them rope after thebanblock expires and apply normal escalating blocks. Since we're already here, perhaps this will somehow help them understand that yes the community requires you to apply it broadly on anything to do with COVID-19 throughout Misplaced Pages. They should consider this very short rope though and notably the next time they feel they need to ask the community whether they're violating their topic ban when they are, it might be the last time. Nil Einne (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- Sorry mixed up ban and block above twice, now fixed. Nil Einne (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Should clarify that despite what I said above, I'd weakly oppose extending the topic
- Oppose unblock as the user looks to have no intention of following Misplaced Pages guidelines with their request. It is only a week and will give a change to think about how to change. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock. It truly takes some chutzpah to cite a Signpost piece authored by the admin who blocked you to support the proposition that you're being railroaded. Weak support for an indef because that's what Lardlegwarmers seems to be speedrunning. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock. The topic ban was on the topic of COVID-19, broadly construed, not the topic of COVID-19 directly in articlespace. And the topic ban was violated, not just within less than a day, but within three hours of it being imposed. On top of that the unblock request could be a case study for WP:NOTTHEM. I won't call for an indef yet, but when the block expires Lardlegwarmers should bear in mind that any further violations of the topic ban will be their last. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- No unblock - Basically per Lardlegwarmers: they don't appear to understand why they've been blocked. An indefinite block seems very likely in this editor's future and we certainly should consider cutting out the middle-man and just skipping to it, but I'd like to give them at least some chance here to understand why they were blocked. FOARP (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock - While I usually support giving editors WP:ROPE to demonstrate improvement, this case warrants a longer wait. The user acknowledges pushing a minority POV and failing to disengage per WP:DISPUTE norms, but their justification suggests a lack of understanding or acceptance of policies like WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NOTHERE. Their off-topic comment in an AE thread, despite knowing the sensitivity of such spaces, and the policy-violating content on their user page, further reflect ongoing disruption. I recommend they take time to reflect and gain a better grasp of Misplaced Pages's collaborative culture before requesting an unblock again. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 11:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock. I agree that absent change from this user an indefinite block is likely. For their benefit, if you're the subject of a topic ban, broadly construed, about COVID-19, you need to be editing in an entirely different topic area. Think of something that you're interested in--television shows, football, English gardens, science fiction books? Take a week and think on it. Mackensen (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock. What is there left to say? This conduct feels like appellant's purpose is use Misplaced Pages as a battleground and to soapbox their views rather than to build the encyclopedia-- to remake Misplaced Pages as they think it should be. My feeling is that a week won't be nearly enough. The railroad comment is appallingly full of not understanding that their conduct is not acceptable in a collaborative project. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- PS: What Tamzin said in her statement above. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whilst I don't believe user will be able to change their approach, I feel an indef would be premature for now. We should give them a chance to mend their ways. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- PS: What Tamzin said in her statement above. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- An account that exists only to push a particular POV across several articles is topic banned, violates that topic ban immediately, and posts a battlegroundy unblock request that thoroughly misses the point. Whoever closes this should be considering indef, not an unblock. — Rhododendrites \\ 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock this specific response
Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement
is indicative of their viewpoints and why they're not ready to contribute. They continue,my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed
. These demonstrate that they still do not get it, and rather project their self-perspective is that they are actually a victim of people who are abusing the rules against them. . I proffer that this is going to be a consistent problem until they acknowledge that they were violating policy. Zero indication that they know how to positively contribute, just perhaps a vague inference that they'll avoid getting in trouble -- because -- we'll I'm not entirely sure they've communicated what they will do differently, but rather simply say thata block for this stuff seems harsh.
TiggerJay (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- Notwithstanding the harsh situation I presented above, to be clear I oppose indef for now. A new user should have the opportunity to overcome early (while significant) setbacks, which is what TBANs are designed to encourage. I am encouraged by things like YFNS corrective behavior in a prior AN discussion, and can only be hopeful and AGF that might apply to LLW here. We need more passionate, subject matter experts, as contributors to this project, but they absolutely must contribute positively and following established PGs. TiggerJay (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock and support an indef. I am pretty confident in saying that this is where we will be heading after this block ends. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock, clear violations of the topic ban. Don't oppose indef, but I'd like to at least give him the chance to figure out exactly what we expect going forward. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support block, oppose unblock, oppose indef - this is a topic-banned newbie's first violation, in the heat of the moment after the restriction was imposed. Tamzin's block was the appropriate response. The unblock request is wholly inadequate, but jumping straight to indef for this sort of violation is a pretty extreme overreach. If they go back to violating their sanction after this block expires, then let's talk community ban, but they should be given the opportunity to edit constructively while respecting the restriction. Ivanvector (/Edits) 16:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock, oppose indef...however... I am sympathetic to their point of view and their general "right" (we don't really have rights here on WP) to post their opinion on a subject, even one as contentious as COVID-19. I think the blanking of the user page is a step too far. We shouldn't be in the business of deleting negative opinions about Misplaced Pages; while the statement was in reference to COVID-19, it doesn't mention it within the claim and is more a critique of Misplaced Pages at large and mass media than its relation to COVID. I would let the statement on their user page stand/restore it. Larry Sanger's statement is not a fringe theory, it is a reasonable opinion. There were loads of statements/claims about COVID/its origin/mandates/treatment/vaccines that, despite their widespread implementations and presentation as "the science", later turned out to be misleading or untested conjecture (examples: no studies on masking effectiveness with a large population vs the coronavirus, 6 foot spacing, lying to the American public about wearing masks because health care professionals needed them more, lab leak theory, military connections to the Wuhan Institute, US funding of WI, etc). HOWEVER, civil discourse is essential. That means that discussions about COVID were fraught with battlegrounds and bludgeoning. As such, we have additional restrictions for COVID discussions and other contentious topics and LLW needs to follow them. LLW did not do so and has shown a consistent flaunting of these restrictions and a weeklong block is a reasonable start. In summary, the quote isn't unreasonable to leave on their user page (give them that latitude), but a weeklong block for the other behavior should stand. Buffs (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- They added two comments to their userpage. Both were critical of Misplaced Pages. One was also critical of Anthony Fauci and other aspects of the US government's COVID response. I removed the latter. It doesn't matter whether Sanger's opinion is fringe or not; what matters is that he was talking about COVID. I would be quite the hypocrite to remove something from someone's userpage just for criticizing Misplaced Pages, as I have a fair bit of that on my own userpage. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's some pretty big overlap there in criticism of Fauci and how it is handled on Misplaced Pages. Again, I don't feel THAT is a significant violation of COVID editing restrictions (beyond the fact that they did it despite such an editing restriction). Anyone can completely skip over it if they wish. @Tamzin: playing devil's advocate for a moment, what if I published the same thing on my user page? Would it be ok? Would it be ok if I posted it on LLW's user page (as long as LLW was ok with it, of course)? I realize we're getting in the weeds of a "what-if..." but if so, what's the substantive difference between me putting it on a user page and LLW doing the same? Buffs (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you posted it to your userpage, it would be fine (although not that constructive), because you are not topic-banned from COVID. If you posted it to their userpage, that would be WP:PROXYING for a banned editor, since I'd struggle to believe you have an independent reason to think that particular quote belongs on that particular page. If you really want to fight the removal from the userpage, feel free to create a subsection here, but I stand by the removal. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not fighting the removal per se. Just wondering where the boundaries are and if it's wise to have such a boundary. Buffs (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The boundary is WP:TBAN. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 19:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not fighting the removal per se. Just wondering where the boundaries are and if it's wise to have such a boundary. Buffs (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Buffs: In the realm of hypothetical I would presume that if that quote had been on LLW user page for a long time, in a sea of content, pre-existing AN, then it might even still be up today. However, on the other hand, to post that after the TBAN was imposed is nothing other than what can be seen as abject defiance to the ban. But beyond that, it simply violates plain language of the ban, as it applies to
all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic
, so I proffer that Tamzin is clearly in the right here. To your charged statement about if you were to post the same thing to your user page, prior to your statement here and presuming you were not under a TBAN, it would not be questioned one iota. However, as a response to this discussion, it could be construed (but not technically violating) the principles of WP:PROXYING and I would caution against it. Moreover, you reinstating it on LLW talk page would be a far closer in the proximity of violating PROXYING. TiggerJay (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- The fact that the comment only came after the topic ban is key here. I'm fairly sure I've seen several cases where there's something on an editor's user page which is covered by a topic ban but which no one has said or done anything about because it was there from before the topic ban. In fact I'm fairly sure I even remember a case where someone asked specifically if they could modify or remove something on their user page which related to their talk page which was technically under the topic ban (probably gensex). I think this was allowed especially since it related to their personal life rather than some comment on something, although they were told just this once is best. There might have even been a case where an editor wanted to do some more editing or formatting of something under their topic ban and was either denied or told only this once. IIRC, there was also an editor who was happy to be able to finally change someone on their userpage covered by their topic ban once it was lifted. A topic ban is a topic ban. I'd note that if someone makes an extremely constructive edit to an article that is not covered by WP:BANEX we still treat this as a topic ban violation, although it's something much more beneficial for the project than an editor being able to repost random ramblings about Misplaced Pages they want to share. Nil Einne (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you posted it to your userpage, it would be fine (although not that constructive), because you are not topic-banned from COVID. If you posted it to their userpage, that would be WP:PROXYING for a banned editor, since I'd struggle to believe you have an independent reason to think that particular quote belongs on that particular page. If you really want to fight the removal from the userpage, feel free to create a subsection here, but I stand by the removal. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's some pretty big overlap there in criticism of Fauci and how it is handled on Misplaced Pages. Again, I don't feel THAT is a significant violation of COVID editing restrictions (beyond the fact that they did it despite such an editing restriction). Anyone can completely skip over it if they wish. @Tamzin: playing devil's advocate for a moment, what if I published the same thing on my user page? Would it be ok? Would it be ok if I posted it on LLW's user page (as long as LLW was ok with it, of course)? I realize we're getting in the weeds of a "what-if..." but if so, what's the substantive difference between me putting it on a user page and LLW doing the same? Buffs (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- They added two comments to their userpage. Both were critical of Misplaced Pages. One was also critical of Anthony Fauci and other aspects of the US government's COVID response. I removed the latter. It doesn't matter whether Sanger's opinion is fringe or not; what matters is that he was talking about COVID. I would be quite the hypocrite to remove something from someone's userpage just for criticizing Misplaced Pages, as I have a fair bit of that on my own userpage. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock, oppose indef - The topic ban violation was clear cut. Let's hope Lardlegwarmers will read a bit about how to avoid topic ban violations, or else indef block is not too far for them. Lorstaking (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock, extend block indefinitely - Lardle should try to demonstrate good behavior on another wiki for six months before asking for a SO. Let's hope that this user should handle contentious topics carefully in the future. Ahri Boy (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock but no reason to indef, a block has already been imposed. If the user continues to violate the TBAN, than a longer block might be warranted. JayCubby 02:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Comments from involved editors
- Going to open a new subsection here since I've made comments to Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory two weeks ago. I wish I could say I was surprised that this ended in tears but that would be untrue (though I did have some hopes the comment a month ago indicating they were aware pro-fringe POV-pushing was sactionable was a signal they were intending to modify their behaviour). As bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez points out, making thinly veiled attacks is not exactly the type of thing looked favourably upon in an unblock request. Nor is making polemical statements on one's user page, whether within the scope of the ban or not, likely to convince the community of one's inclination and ability to be a productive editor. Lardlegwarmers, if you do really want to return to editing, especially if you want to appeal your topic ban in 6 months or a year, I would strongly advise reading Misplaced Pages:Guide to appealing blocks and following the advice there, especially WP:NOTTHEM. Complaining about Hob's conduct won't help you here, because the block (and it's a rather short one) and ban are about you, not Hob. Given your comment that
apparently two wrongs make a right
, I had hoped that you were already also considering your own behaviour, but I would like to make it very clear: taking the role of one of the "wrongs" to address someone else's "borderline uncivil" behaviour is not itself considered acceptable behaviour. Whether Hob crosses the line is on them, but what you do is entirely on you. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC) - As I was involved in the discussion to topic ban LLW I think I count as an involved editor. With that said I would discourage an early lifting of this block, which seems appropriate considering that LLW's response to the topic ban was to immediately violate the topic ban. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, perhaps LLW wasn't aware of this, but people who aren't uninvolved administrators aren't generally supposed to put comments into the "results" section of an AE filing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was there.. Three thousand ye-- No. More like one, two days ago. I seriously believe Lard Leg Warmers is one of two situations: 1: WP:CIR and unable to understand the concepts of medical science as if they were a Facebook mother invested in "essential oils" and "holistic medicine" rather than trusting medical and scientific experts; 2: WP:NOTHERE and simply f
**king with us for no good reason and leading us around, and around, and around, and around, and around the bend because they get a rise out of it. Either way, my advice: don't get led around the bend, advise indef block for either WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE. BarntToust 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- BarntToust, those kinds of personal assumptions about their character are unnecessary to this discussion. Instead of speculation on who they are elsewhere, let's just focus on their behavior on Misplaced Pages. Liz 06:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lardlegwarmers' statement clearly shows that they have learned little from the sanction. They should demonstrate such before there is any lifting. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Ban appeal from Rathfelder
- Rathfelder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Community banned in November 2022 for sockpuppetry, vote-stacking and undisclosed COI writing of a BLP attack page
- Appeal in January 2023 declined by the community
- Second appeal in October 2023 not submitted for review by the community for not complying with WP:GAB
Rathfelder has submitted the following ban appeal on their talk page and asked me to copy it here:
I realise that what I did was wrong - more wrong than I thought it was at the time. The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur. I accept that I was wrong to create sockpuppets and I apologise. I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that. I did that really because I was trying to defend the work I had done for the Socialist Health Association for the previous 20 years. I did a lot of edits on that page, but they were, until the last few, about the history of the organisation, mostly adding to its list of distinguished members - largely before I was involved with it, and mostly before I was born. They were not at all controversial. I was unfairly sacked and my opponents started using Misplaced Pages against me. The row got into the media. I accept that I should not have done that. I should have resisted the temptation to use Misplaced Pages in the dispute.
I have spent 2 years working on Simple English and Wikimedia. I have not set up any sockpuppets or edited anything where I had conflicts. I plan to continue with Wikimedia, as there is plenty there to keep me busy, but I would like to be able, in particular, to add pictures to articles - now I have found my way round the enormous Wikimedia resource. I also sometimes come across articles in English[REDACTED] which need amendment.
Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Conditional support - If there's been no socking during the ban. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- In response to this, I ran some basic checks. There's no evidence of socking that I can see in the currently available data. RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you permitted to say what time range the available data covers? The default is only 90 days isn't it? Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, the data available to me was for the past 90 days. RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you permitted to say what time range the available data covers? The default is only 90 days isn't it? Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- In response to this, I ran some basic checks. There's no evidence of socking that I can see in the currently available data. RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Question during the January 2024 unblock request Rathfelder said they would be willing to accept a restriction on editing articles related to BLPs or healthcare orgs. Are they still willing to accept those edit restrictions if they are un-banned? Furthermore, in January 2024 there was, at the time, no evidence of any further socking. Can we confirm that good behaviour has continued? Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support They have been a very productive contributor at the Simple English Misplaced Pages, and it has definitely been long enough for the standard offer. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- To opposers: Would a TBAN from BLPs solve the issues you mention? I understand why some may be hesitant to unban, but they have been a very productive contributor on other wikis. I think that they would be a productive contributor if we simply give them a second chance. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose as disingenuous. The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur: obviously it's reassuring to hear this, but there is no acceptance of personal responsibility. "The circumstances made me do it" is not a defence, or explanation. Likewise, I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that does not do the facts justice. Rathfelder literally socked in order to be able to call a real life opponent a "swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist",
in wikivoicewith a misattributed op-ed quote. Difficult to imagine an editor of >half a million edits not knowing attribution requirements for BLPs. In fact, on investigation, they obviously do, as the adding of a {{BLP sources}} template indicates. If there's a Holy Trinity of wrong doing of things that damage the project the most, it's socking,vote stacking and deliberate BlP violations. These things are most dangerous to the project: they erode the trust between editors and the integrity of the consensus-driven decision making process and put WP at risk of at least public embarrassment if not a lawsuit. All of which Rathfelder did. All of which this appeal seems to attempt to explain away by "circumstances". I'm the first to offer rope when deserved, but such a glossing ban appeal, combined with it all happening only a couple of years ago, sets off more alarm bells than the Great Fire of London. There's no need for groveling, just an indication of self-knowledge and actual change. Serial (speculates here) 12:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)- I haven't yet looked into this enough to express an opinion, but I would point out that the "swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist" quote was attributed in text to The Times, so was not in wikivoice. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for drawing my attention; I've clarified my comment. Serial (speculates here) 16:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't yet looked into this enough to express an opinion, but I would point out that the "swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist" quote was attributed in text to The Times, so was not in wikivoice. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose insufficient contrition and reflection on their frankly very serious misconduct. As Serial has said, they created an a attack page with very serious BLP vios using sockpuppets, you can't just handwave that away. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - My opinion is that editing pages to attack one's real life opponents isn't something you can just come back from, especially when you abusively socked and votestacked in addition. Please stick to editing other Wikis. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 15:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support I don't often choose to comment on unblock requests but every day I come across past productive work done by Rathfelder when I'm working with categories which is how I'm familiar with their immense contributions to this project. They are responsible for a sizeable percentage of our category creation and have over a half million edits credited to this account. If it has been over a year since their last appeal (check), they haven't been socking (check), they have been productive on other Wikimedia projects (check) and they acknowledge their mistakes (check), then I believe they should be given another chance. It sounds like this was a specific incident in their life that happened several years ago that is unlikely to be repeated. Remember, indefinite is not infinite. And if you reject this appeal, I'm just wondering what exactly are you expecting to see in a future request that would lead you to accept it? Or is this indefinite block actually a forever block? Liz 18:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Serial Number 54129 points to the quote from the piece by Sarah Baxter as the most damning part of his evidence, but Baxter was deputy editor of The Times when she wrote the article, so it was reasonable to say that that newspaper said that. It may, of course, not be the best way to word things but we don't ban people for that. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, I point to far more tahn just that: I point to a refusal to adhere to neutrality in preference for an entire section reading like a hit piece; there were no redeeming features presented, or alternative interpretations suggested. Instead, a Jewish guy was literally called an antisemite, on Misplaced Pages, for Rathfelder's own ends. The quote from Baxter was merely an example, but the whole section was of that ilk. Correct, we don't ban people for poor expression. We do ban people for deliberately flaunting fundamental policy and attacking living people. It is also insufficient that they have done good work in the past, per Liz; it's not mitigating. Ironically their is a current arbcom case in which some of the most knowledgeable editors in the field are getting topic banned due to behavioral issues. The same principal applies here. Serial (speculates here) 20:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - The attack page, undisclosed COI, and sockpuppetry were serious offenses. Sometimes it takes a long time to regain trust. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support; willing to allow this editor another chance, hoping they'll understand that the community's tolerance is pretty much gone for any future problems. Rathfelder, if this is successful, when you're finding articles in English[REDACTED] which need amendment, I'd advise making it your default setting to open a talk section before making edits if there's any possibility the edit could be objectionable to anyone. Valereee (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. The arguments to maintain the ban seem to be mostly "He did some really bad stuff". I agree that he did. Personal attacks are bad. Socking is bad. Using[REDACTED] to prosecute real-life battles is bad. But I'm concerned about statements such as Hemiauchenia's "insufficient contrition and reflection" (although they are certainly entitled to express that opinion). We're not looking for self-flagilation here, nor are we looking for great works of literature as apologies. Our criteria for re-entry into the community isn't "Has never done anything really bad". It's "Understands what they did that was bad and has given credible assurances that it won't happen again", and I think we have those. Robert McClenon says "Sometimes it takes a long time to regain trust". Which is true, but this has been a bit over two years. That's a long time in my book. And it's not like they've gone away for two years and come back out of the blue; they've been contributing productively on other projects, so we have tangible evidence that they're capable of producing good work. RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- People implicitly understand that Jytdog will probably never be unbanned from Misplaced Pages because his act of phoning up a fellow user he was in conflict with was a severe and inexcusable breach of decorum. I think that Rathfelder's breach was on par with that of Jytdogs. People using their position on Misplaced Pages to write attack pages of living people is a huge violation of Misplaced Pages's standards. It's not just some minor misconduct like youthful vandalism or minor socking where someone can just brush it off as "whoopsie, my bad" and be relatively easily unblocked. Stuff like this brings the whole encyclopedia into disrepute. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- If I’m not unmistaken User:Jytdog was banned by ArbCom, not by the community, and was also a self-admitted serial offender. And yes their apology does come across as “whoopsie, my bad”. And they haven’t edited constructively anywhere else as a counterpoint to their destructive editing here. I personally would never support letting them return, but that’s because their situation (at least to me) seemed like it was a case of a charismatic unblockable actually getting a well-earned block. This current situation seems like someone making a single terrible decision and realizing how terrible it was. Just compare their block logs— Jyt was blocked multiple times indefinitely by arbcom; this user only had a single 48 hour block before getting banned despite being here longer. Dronebogus (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- People implicitly understand that Jytdog will probably never be unbanned from Misplaced Pages because his act of phoning up a fellow user he was in conflict with was a severe and inexcusable breach of decorum. I think that Rathfelder's breach was on par with that of Jytdogs. People using their position on Misplaced Pages to write attack pages of living people is a huge violation of Misplaced Pages's standards. It's not just some minor misconduct like youthful vandalism or minor socking where someone can just brush it off as "whoopsie, my bad" and be relatively easily unblocked. Stuff like this brings the whole encyclopedia into disrepute. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support I find RoySmith's articulation much more convincing. We don't need to have a concept of unforgivable sins here. And this applies to everyone. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Pppeery-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Liz and Roysmith. While Rathfelder's misconduct was quite severe, it was an anomaly in a long, active, and productive editing career here; and his activity at Simple as continued that pattern. Unlike Serial, I do see understanding and regret, which they are *amplifying* rather than *replacing* with the assurance that the circumstances under which the misconduct arose are unlikely to repeat. So - worth another go, I think. No opinion whether a TBAN of some sort should be imposed; if I were Rathfelder, I would stay away from BLPs for some time anyway. Martinp (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Justice on WP is supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Once years, plural, have passed I think it’s reasonable to assume genuine remorse. There’s no such thing as a permanent lifetime ban on Misplaced Pages, even if some bad actors who have well and truly exhausted the community’s patience have received a de facto one. This is a feature, not a bug. Dronebogus (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak Support per RoySmith. It's a short rope, don't abuse it. Buffs (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Appealing April 4 2024, indefinite WP:CUP ban and indefinite 1-nomination GAN limit
Consensus to lift this ban will not develop. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At User_talk:TonyTheTiger#Topic_bans, I was instructed by closer User:Ingenuity that I could appeal these in a year and it has been 9.5 months. I am appealing because the CUP entry deadline is traditionally January 31. See Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/2020 signups through Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/2024 signups. This year the Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/2025 signups verbiage says "The competition will begin on 1 January 2025 and signups will continue throughout the year". I am just noticing the new language as I am putting this appeal in. Nonetheless, I am requesting time off for good behavior on the ban.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The utter cluelessness of this appeal is more than enough reason not to do this. I was going to write more but decided that coaching you on how to be less clueless is not in the project's best interest. You've been here long enough that you should be able to see for yourself how terrible this appeal is. Beeblebrox 19:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose and recommend we disallow any further appeals for another year. I'm concerned otherwise we'll just be back here in April. --Yamla (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose for now It's pretty clear that most people in that discussion were supporting an indef ban from the Cup, not an 8-month ban. This appeal doesn't address people's concerns with Tony's editing relating to the Cup, so should be denied. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The original discussion wasn't linked, it can be found here. At that place it is very clear that
here is almost unanimous support for an indefinite ban on participation in the WikiCup
, so, no, this appeal should not be passed. It is, honestly, astonishing that TonyTheTiger has been here very nearly two decades but hasn't taken on board the way the community works ~ Lindsay 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC) - Oppose for no rational that they understand why they were banned or what even led to their ban, and rather simply a sentiment of "I really want to participate". Please understand that your ban was indefinite, so the one year appeal opportunity is your potential opportunity "time off for good behavior". TiggerJay (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Appealing early on the basis that you won't be able to sign up to do the thing you were banned from doing is certainly a unique take. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Requesting info
Steve Quinn is
trouted for bringing this to AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello. I have come across several image files and the U.S. Gov. PD licensing seems to be incorrect. Four of these images and possibly another one could be copyright violations - if I can figure out how to find this type of information on their websites. However, since I am unable to find that information at this moment, I am wondering which group of Misplaced Pages editors work on this sort of thing so that maybe I can get some help with this. I will post the files here for information purposes. Also, there may be more copyright violations by this particular editor who seems to have a propensity for downloading image files. Below are the files:
- File:AL-Cattlemen-2022-approved-passenger-768x376.jpg
- File:AL-Ducks-Unlimited-2022-768x370.jpg
- File:AmateurRadAZ.jpg
- File:AppalachianTN.jpg
- File:Acplate.jpg
Further comment: The above TN file - File:AppalachianTN.jpg - is covered by the TN.GOV "linking policy" and can be found here. So this Misplaced Pages image file is still not licensed appropriately, although I have no idea what the correct Misplaced Pages licensing would be.
I will notify the editor who downloaded these files that I have opened a discussion here. Well, now that I have taken it this far, the editor in question is: Brian.S.W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). However, the above image files might be too stale to be considered for any action. I leave that up to the Admins. If you look on their talk page, they have previously been blocked for copyright violations. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- As you can see they've already been tagged for a deletion discussion yesterday, so there is no need to have a difference notice board also working on it. TiggerJay (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Please Help Me!
Hi there, I'm Arav200 and I'm not a new at english Misplaced Pages, Previously I'm editing from Bhairava7 but due to my old account (Bhairava7) and it's attached gmail are protected from 2 Factor Authication, so, I'm unable to access my account,Please help me and If administrator transfer userright from my old account to Arav200 then It 'll be helpful for me otherwise after my old account permission will be removed due to after Inactive and I create this account through WP:ACC due to Skipcptcha restrictions.Happy editing Aarav200 (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed to Bhairava7. --Yamla (talk) 12:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I was a bit surprised about the English, but it is similar to previous edits from the old account ( ). I have noted the connection on the two accounts' user pages, but I'd like to try requesting 2FA removal before giving up and transferring the permissions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bhairava7 / Aarav200, please contact ca
wikimedia.org from the e-mail address you have used for the Bhairava7 account. Please describe the problem and request the removal of two-factor authentication from your account. See meta:Help:Two-factor_authentication#Recovering_from_a_lost_or_broken_authentication_device for details. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bhairava7 / Aarav200, please contact ca
- I didn't able to access my also gmail (who attached from old account) due to 2:FA protection,then I was created new account with new gmail for re-contribution on Misplaced Pages. :(Happy editing Aarav200 (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please try the following steps to regain access to your Gmail account: https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7299973 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know if it is much useful but I can verify that he is indeed Bhairava7 as I contacted him over at discord personally. The AP (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was emailed about this. Given Yamla's CheckUser result, I don't think that there is any reasonable doubt that it is the same person operating both accounts. While they may be able to recover the account from T&S, I feel like it is a bit unnecessary to force them to go through that route as it is ultimately their choice whether they want to recover the account or create another one (even if I personally have a bias for recovering). I was going to transfer the permissions over, but saw this thread, so didn't follow through with it. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
@ToBeFree and Sdrqaz:,I also tried as per the link given by ToBeFree but I am not able to recover or access my Gmail... It would be better if I give up the desire to contribute to Misplaced Pages... I am also trying my best... If both are recovered then it will be good... Please forgive me but I will take full care that such mistake does not happen again in future... If possible, please transfer the rights of my old mentioned account to my new account because I've feel more stress at this time.Happy editing Aarav200 (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will transfer them over, given that it has been unsuccessful. I also think that this route is kinder. If T&S disables 2FA on your old account and you would like to go back to using it, please let me know. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
BAG nomination
Hi! I have nominated myself for BAG membership. Your comments would be appreciated on the nomination page. Thanks! – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I need help from an admin - Urgent
I'm not sure about oranges from Jaffa, but there's a pack of blocks from Misplaced Pages here. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear Misplaced Pages Team,
I need an urgent help concerning a page and information about my project, I'd appreciate if a[REDACTED] admin can contact me to help.
Many thanks, Mohammed Mohamugha1 (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's not enough information here for anyone to do anything. Please tell us what the problem is and what help you need. You probably want to read WP:COI prior to doing anything further, though, just in case you've been violating our guidelines around conflicts of interest. --Yamla (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- What's the issue? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- This account probably needs blocking. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Relevant article:
- An Orange from Jaffa (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- OP possibly using multiple accounts:
- Mohamugha1 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- MohammedAlmughanni (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- DMacks (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- MohammedAlmughanni blocked as a sock. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Khabib Nurmagomedov French page modified by 92.184.106.82 to edit origin as Algerian
fr.wiki is thataway. → - The Bushranger One ping only 21:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Modifications history shows the following IP 92.184.106.82 made numerous edits to Khabib Nurmagomedov's French[REDACTED] page to include false information around his nationality, background and place of birth among other edits.This IP needs to be blocked and banned from editing. Lebronzejames999 (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- You need to contact the French Misplaced Pages. This is en.wikipedia.org and we only have say over what happens here on the English WIkipedia. --Yamla (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
EncycloDeterminate unblocked
The Arbitration Committee has resolved that:
Following an appeal, the Arbitration Committee repeals the Oversight block of EncycloDeterminate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as it is no longer necessary.
For the Arbitration Committee, theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § EncycloDeterminate unblocked
Permission request
| WP:LTA. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
No. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I am User:CFA's legitimate alt account for WP:AWB editing at high volume. Please add extended confirmed to my account. Thank you CFA (AWB) (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
|
Proposed community ban of Marginataen
COMMUNITY BAN IMPOSED This clearly fall sunder theexcept in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hourscondition of WP:CBAN. Accordingly, Marginataen is, by the consensus of the Misplaced Pages community, banned from en.wiki. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Marginataen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been indefblocked twice for various issues over the years (and is subject to a long-term block on the wiki of their native language), and two days after their last unblock, they were blocked for a week for mass-changes to date formats without consensus, as discussed at ANI. Well they've gone back to more unwarranted mass-date format changes like this; their last hundred edits at the time of writing are a good sampler. Despite being explicitly told that English variety/date formats are set per article, not per topic, they have continued to use topic similarity as a justification for their mass-editing; I was going to send them my own warning about this but the discovery of this message tipped me over into submitting a ban request.
They clearly have extreme "I didn't hear that" problems with their editing pattern; also the idea of a non-native speaker of English trying to police/standardise the use of English variety templates on Misplaced Pages does not sit well with me. I have undone many of their most recent edits, some of which introduced Manual of Style violations of their own. Furthermore, in the light of this AN discussion (that wasn't actionable) about their interest in right-wing topics, perhaps their creation of the spin-off article Post-2012 legal history of Anders Breivik might need to be looked into. In short, I'm not sure what benefit is being gained by this user's continued presence on this project. Graham87 (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Will abstain as I hope no one will require sanctions and I am pretty clearly involved again despite hoping I wouldn't have to be, but just wanted to make clear on my own edits that if I made any errors on the sweep-up, please let me know and I'll fix them. Thanks.) Remsense ‥ 论 06:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Doing the exact thing that get that them blocked after being unblocked. I’ll also add that they unilaterally changed articles into British spellings with no explanation or discussion given either. Northern Moonlight 06:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- 20 more edits after the AN notice. Northern Moonlight 18:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support pretty clear repeat violations of previous block reasons. Doing enough of this to be disruptive and unproductive, not listening to feedback or starting appropriate discussions. seefooddiet (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Might considering a RFC on Meta to globally ban Marginataen in the future. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Repeatedly making disruptive edits even after having been blocked several times and promising to mend their ways. Økonom (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Per proposal. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Don't waste the community's time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: It might be a good idea to block the known sockpuppets of Marginataen that are not already blocked: Tamborg, Bubfernr, and LatteDK. There may be others that I have missed. HappyBeachDreams (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support.
I'm not sure how to deal with this. I guess Marginataen is honestly trying to contribute and collaborate, but...Case in point regarding "I didn't hear that": Remsense recently asked Marginataen to stop mass-tagging articles. Three hours later, Marginataen responded: "Yes, I'll stop mass adding templates". And yet another hour later, Marginataen added these templates to two more articles. It seems that Marginataen didn't understand what Remsense said. P.S.: ...and Marginataen keeps going. Hopeless. Block. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)- As a purely stopgap measure, I've blocked Marginataen from mainspace for a week to encourage them to respond here. Any admin should feel free to unblock without asking me, if the block becomes no longer necessary. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 20:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Gotta play by the rules. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. The continuous disruption far outweighs the minimal content contribution. Brandon (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support a ban - I don't think that the user is being consciously disruptive. I think that this is largely a competence problem and that the user doesn't understand what they are being told. We only have so much patience for users who can't understand what they are told to do. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support a ban. No reason to suspect the behavior will stop as a result of a lesser measure. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
User:TWC DC1
Warned, then sockblocked. (non-admin closure) JJPMaster (she/they) 21:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I recommend issuing a warning to User:TWC DC1, as their actions appear to be gaming the system. Despite previous warnings, they have continued this behavior. --SimmeD (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.G7 request by a blocked account
G7'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can an admin take a look at this? It appears to be a "db-author" request for Draft:Francesca Martí. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Qualifies for G7. Deleted by me. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Sapo.pt
Could an admin undelete that redirect? Thanks Nobody (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Proxy question
I recently enabled the IP Info widget and have seen a number of IPs that are flagged as proxies (e.g., (Redacted)). Would IPs being flagged with this tool warrant them being blocked? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- You can report IPs that you suspect of being proxies at WP:OP. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Voorts my question is more that if i see that info in the widget when blocking an IP, is it safe to block it as a proxy? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think so because I don't think it's 100% accurate. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: Yes, the tool is saying there "In the last x days, at least one person connecting on this IP has been using proxy software y", which is definitely evidence toward an NOP block, but not enough on its own. Also, my understanding of foundation:Legal:Wikimedia IP Information Tool Policy § Use and disclosure of IP information is that you can't publicly say that the tool says a specific IP is a proxy except "as reasonably required in use of the tool", which I would read as allowing you to say that a block was partly based on IP Info without going into further detail, but probably not allowing you to post an example IP and say "the tool says this is a proxy". Out of an abundance of caution I've redacted+revdelled the example you gave above; if I'm misunderstanding the policy, no objection to being reverted. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 21:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a reason to treat the IP with more suspicion and investigate further but it's not good enough on its own for a block. I think revdel is a bit of an overreaction personally. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think revdel is an over-reaction too, except ... that seems to be exactly what the "rules" for use of the tool say. This should probably be ironed out somewhere. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't even see the reason for redacting, let alone revdel. People can talk about IP addresses, especially in the context of proxies and especially when they aren't connected to an individual user / account. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Over on WP:OP we openly talk about IPs and proxies, so it doesn't make sense that we couldn't here IMO
- Thank you all for the input. Much appreciated EvergreenFir (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's nothing about talking about IPs in general. Obviously saying that an IP is a proxy is fine. It's specifically about saying that IP Info says an IP is a proxy. That's proprietary information from Spur that the WMF licenses on the condition of not disseminating. I also would like more clarity on the scope of that rule, but at least the plain-text reading says we can't attribute information to the tool. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 05:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you for clarifying. Much appreciated EvergreenFir (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's nothing about talking about IPs in general. Obviously saying that an IP is a proxy is fine. It's specifically about saying that IP Info says an IP is a proxy. That's proprietary information from Spur that the WMF licenses on the condition of not disseminating. I also would like more clarity on the scope of that rule, but at least the plain-text reading says we can't attribute information to the tool. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 05:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't even see the reason for redacting, let alone revdel. People can talk about IP addresses, especially in the context of proxies and especially when they aren't connected to an individual user / account. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think revdel is an over-reaction too, except ... that seems to be exactly what the "rules" for use of the tool say. This should probably be ironed out somewhere. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a reason to treat the IP with more suspicion and investigate further but it's not good enough on its own for a block. I think revdel is a bit of an overreaction personally. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: Yes, the tool is saying there "In the last x days, at least one person connecting on this IP has been using proxy software y", which is definitely evidence toward an NOP block, but not enough on its own. Also, my understanding of foundation:Legal:Wikimedia IP Information Tool Policy § Use and disclosure of IP information is that you can't publicly say that the tool says a specific IP is a proxy except "as reasonably required in use of the tool", which I would read as allowing you to say that a block was partly based on IP Info without going into further detail, but probably not allowing you to post an example IP and say "the tool says this is a proxy". Out of an abundance of caution I've redacted+revdelled the example you gave above; if I'm misunderstanding the policy, no objection to being reverted. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 21:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think so because I don't think it's 100% accurate. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Voorts my question is more that if i see that info in the widget when blocking an IP, is it safe to block it as a proxy? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Undeletion + XML export request
Please undelete pre-December 2007 revisions of Drum set tuning, use Special:Export, and email me the contents of the XML file you get, per b:WB:UT. JJPMaster (she/they) 04:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've undeleted the history. You can do the export process yourself then. Since it was just a dated PROD and it looks like there were prior copyvio concerns but the copyright holder eventually provided permission, there's no reason the history can't also be available here. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Help desk/Archive 19
Stray page deleted (non-admin closure) Mlkj (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Perhaps someone could take a look at Misplaced Pages talk:Help desk/Archive 19? It looks like the page was created back in 2008, perhaps by mistake, and has just been "existing" ever since then. The Help Desk archive is currently at 14 pages but eventually it will reach 19; so, at some point, this is going to need to be dealt with. I'm not sure whether the page needs only to be blanked or should be deleted, but the latter will obviously need to be done by an administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Done I've deleted it (G2, "test page" seemed close enough). - The Bushranger One ping only 07:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you The Bushranger. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
WP:BLPN closures
2601AC47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Deb Matthews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Ministry of Education (Ontario) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2 sections Deb Matthews and Ministry of Education (Ontario)(MoE) were closed by User:2601AC47. The closing user participated in the MoE discussion. I find the MoE closing discussion summary inaccurate and disrespectful. The Deb Matthews closing summary cites the MoE one. I would like a more respectful summary of the discussions.
I have discussed with the user on User talk:2601AC47#Closures_on_WP:BLPN. The user refused to change the summaries. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would say something similar in a more polite but firm way: go look for sources and add then instead of insisting on deleting the table. You are fighting a losing battle. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just so it's clear, are you supporting a change to the closure summaries or opposing it or neutral? Legend of 14 (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm saying that you should withdraw this request and get back to editing. I agree 2601 was rude but that doesn't change the fact that they are correct that you were wrong to try to remove material from both articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I decline your request to withdraw. WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL makes it clear that I can ask for disrespectful comments to be removed. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, you can ask, but nobody is going to override this inconsequential close of a discussion where many editors told you that you were wrong. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not asking for the closes to be overturned, I just asked for the summaries to be changed. Legend of 14 (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, you can ask, but nobody is going to override this inconsequential close of a discussion where many editors told you that you were wrong. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I decline your request to withdraw. WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL makes it clear that I can ask for disrespectful comments to be removed. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm saying that you should withdraw this request and get back to editing. I agree 2601 was rude but that doesn't change the fact that they are correct that you were wrong to try to remove material from both articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just so it's clear, are you supporting a change to the closure summaries or opposing it or neutral? Legend of 14 (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- So much for cooperation... 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Snarky remarks really aren't helpful. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- May be I should have more specifically mentioned crying wolf (metaphorically, if there's ever confusion). But moreover, Legend's concerns pertain to the articles that was being edited on (mostly pertaining to Ontario-based agencies), which Legend appeared to ingratiatingly remove some "uncited" information from. I reverted some of them, and as a BLPN watcher, took note of this in trying to explain to them that there are guidelines, especially on citing sources and the MoS. So far, I've not really seen that (prove me wrong). Ultimately, I could suggest to Legend that this is their own responsibility, but alas, thinks that I and some others are at fault here. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 20:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you should probably recalibrate how you communicate with other editors. You come across as sometimes rude and dismissive in that discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm thinking 2601AC47 is coming off a little rude and dismissive in THIS discussion as well. BusterD (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, they are. But Legend of 14 is coming across as a Wikilawyer rather than a collaborative editor in all of the noticeboard discussions that they have started in the last week or two. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- They also seem to have a very skewed viewpoint of WP:CIVIL . - The Bushranger One ping only 21:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know what Legend's background is, but if someone said something like this to me in a professional setting, I'd think they were being rude and unprofessional. It's unfortunate that we've normalized people being jerks on wiki and whenever someone comes to complain about it, the response is usually "well, that's not really that uncivil" or "well, they were being a pain in the ass, so it's justified". voorts (talk/contributions) 21:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wasn't your response for me to withdraw this discussion? Seeking clarity. Legend of 14 (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I did, because your report was about changing a summary of a discussion in which the outcome would remain the same. Several editors have told you to stop removing uncited, non-controversial material from articles, so you should stop doing that instead of starting an AN discussion about the impolite close of the discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have stopped doing that. I respect consensus. I can both ask for the summaries to be respectful and not remove uncited material for which consensus has found to be non-controversial. Legend of 14 (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Now, to hopefully not add on to the pile that this may become, I would try finding consensus in a similar way for what you're editing with regards to the pages of the government agencies. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 22:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have stopped doing that. I respect consensus. I can both ask for the summaries to be respectful and not remove uncited material for which consensus has found to be non-controversial. Legend of 14 (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know what Legend's background is, but if someone said something like this to me in a professional setting, I'd think they were being rude and unprofessional. It's unfortunate that we've normalized people being jerks on wiki and whenever someone comes to complain about it, the response is usually "well, that's not really that uncivil" or "well, they were being a pain in the ass, so it's justified". voorts (talk/contributions) 21:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- True, Phil, for a relatively new editor, Legend of 14 has brought more cases to noticeboards than some editors do over years spent editing on the project. If this becomes habitual, this approach to getting things done ones way can backfire on an editor. Noticeboards are a place to go to after basic discussion has failed to come to a resolution, not for the kind of disagreements we all face on a regular basis. You don't want to spend more time talking about editing than actually editing. And, for goodness' sake, don't file a complaint over how this complaint is being handled. No need to come to my User talk page to claim I'm being disrespectful, too. Liz 21:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you have concerns about me resorting to notice boards, perhaps talk to Adam Bishop who removed 2 discussions from article talk pages, which is why I resorted to WP:BLPN for those articles. For my 5 additions to WP:BLPN on Jan. 17, I truly believed I had no where else to go. Also, so we're clear, can you please clarify if you believe user talk pages are an appropriate place to raise concerns about uncivil conduct like name calling? Legend of 14 (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've made clear at BLPN my issue with your approach here, but I do see your point that you followed the normal instructions only to have two talkpage threads removed. I don't really see why they were removed. @Adam Bishop can you explain? -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 06:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seemed like an obvious troll to me, being disruptive and making ridiculous claims just to annoy everyone. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've made clear at BLPN my issue with your approach here, but I do see your point that you followed the normal instructions only to have two talkpage threads removed. I don't really see why they were removed. @Adam Bishop can you explain? -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 06:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Liz this just seems to be par for the course. While Legend make some really good minor positive contributions, they seem to only be here to edit per WP:BIT. As soon as there is some sort of conflict, they have demonstrated that they cannot manage consensus building . Many editors have tried to engage with Legend in good-faith to guide and correct them, but they are very easily offended, resort to novel wiki-lawyering arguments, and thing escalate from there. In good faith I believe they are trying to navigate the system, but keep hitting a wall for various reasons, and thing escalate quickly because of how they choose to handle the confrontation. I believe a mentor for them would be a great route for them, otherwise I am very concerned we're going to continue to see far more heat than light from this contributor. TiggerJay (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that has been my experience. I thought that I was trying to guide and correct this editor, but the response was to accuse me of calling them names. If someone with more patience than I have wants to mentor Legend of 14 then that could be the approach to take, but it would depend on them being willing to listen to advice. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Let's talk about your approach to handling disputes and consensus building.
- Leaving condescending and other disrespectful comments on my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270062605 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270076126 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270086734 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270370468.
- Ignoring my requests to not post on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270362323 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270370468
- Linking an essay section about routinely banning other editors from my talk page, when I haven't done that https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Tiggerjay&diff=prev&oldid=1270500629
- Shaming me for challenging your AfD https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Deb_Hutton_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=1270475022
- Legend of 14 (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- To me, characterizing this statement as "shaming me for challenging your AfD" supports Tiggerjay's summary above. The other diffs show civil attempts to help you understand the culture on Misplaced Pages. Schazjmd (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is disappointing that the culture is talking down to editors for not being on Misplaced Pages for over a decade and daring to share an opinion, posting repetitive talk page notices for literally no reason, and replying to a request to stop posting on a talk page with a snarky comment. Thank you for clarifying that editors do not deserve equal treatment, and that merit of arguments can be dismissed based on the age of the editor making them. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- At this point I'm just going to leave, because has been made clear by this discussion and other thread, I am not going to be treated with respect. I'm not wanted here, so I'm leaving. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you're aware, per Misplaced Pages:Retiring § Pending sanctions, just because you claim to retire does not mean this discussion will necessarily close. Also since you have claimed to have retired previously, please be aware that if you return you will still need to edit in accordance with policies and guidelines, especially as it related to handling disputes. TiggerJay (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- You have been treated with respect, but you have shown very little in return. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Consensus disagrees: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1176#User:Earl_Andrew Legend of 14 (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Consensus? The closing statement sums up consensus, and it certainly doesn't disagree. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Consensus disagrees: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1176#User:Earl_Andrew Legend of 14 (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a relatively new editor for 1 year with only 5400+ edits compared to the other fellows here, I have not once been blocked or had a significant conflict with a more experienced editor than me. At some point, if the community comes to scrutinize the editing and mistakes that you've made, you'll have to recognize that the problem is with you, not the culture. Tarlby 04:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- You have a conflict with me and I've been editing since 2021. Your statement is inaccurate. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note that I said "experienced", not "older". Tarlby 16:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- What purposes does this have other than to be inflammatory? I'm not going to kowtow to you and other editors just because you've decided they're more experienced. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given this response, I'd say the consensus is correct that the problem here is you, Legend. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- As has been offered to you multiple times Legend, please consider reviewing WP:1AM. You might find it helpful. TiggerJay (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- What purposes does this have other than to be inflammatory? I'm not going to kowtow to you and other editors just because you've decided they're more experienced. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note that I said "experienced", not "older". Tarlby 16:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- You have a conflict with me and I've been editing since 2021. Your statement is inaccurate. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- At this point I'm just going to leave, because has been made clear by this discussion and other thread, I am not going to be treated with respect. I'm not wanted here, so I'm leaving. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is disappointing that the culture is talking down to editors for not being on Misplaced Pages for over a decade and daring to share an opinion, posting repetitive talk page notices for literally no reason, and replying to a request to stop posting on a talk page with a snarky comment. Thank you for clarifying that editors do not deserve equal treatment, and that merit of arguments can be dismissed based on the age of the editor making them. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- To me, characterizing this statement as "shaming me for challenging your AfD" supports Tiggerjay's summary above. The other diffs show civil attempts to help you understand the culture on Misplaced Pages. Schazjmd (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you have concerns about me resorting to notice boards, perhaps talk to Adam Bishop who removed 2 discussions from article talk pages, which is why I resorted to WP:BLPN for those articles. For my 5 additions to WP:BLPN on Jan. 17, I truly believed I had no where else to go. Also, so we're clear, can you please clarify if you believe user talk pages are an appropriate place to raise concerns about uncivil conduct like name calling? Legend of 14 (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- They also seem to have a very skewed viewpoint of WP:CIVIL . - The Bushranger One ping only 21:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, they are. But Legend of 14 is coming across as a Wikilawyer rather than a collaborative editor in all of the noticeboard discussions that they have started in the last week or two. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- May be I should have more specifically mentioned crying wolf (metaphorically, if there's ever confusion). But moreover, Legend's concerns pertain to the articles that was being edited on (mostly pertaining to Ontario-based agencies), which Legend appeared to ingratiatingly remove some "uncited" information from. I reverted some of them, and as a BLPN watcher, took note of this in trying to explain to them that there are guidelines, especially on citing sources and the MoS. So far, I've not really seen that (prove me wrong). Ultimately, I could suggest to Legend that this is their own responsibility, but alas, thinks that I and some others are at fault here. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 20:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Snarky remarks really aren't helpful. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Too much to read. Is this about the wording of the closing statement? GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- And about Legend and I over that. Looks like Legend's had enough, anyway (I wish them well elsewhere). 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 16:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- They tried that stunt 5 days ago. If they're going to engage in a pattern of making disruptive edits and then retiring when anyone (read: everyone) criticizes them, someone should probably just indef. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. This user has an established habit of walking away from a conversation, only to come back a day or two later and continue the same sort of disruption. Shall we extend another inch of rope? I wouldn't be against giving a
secondthirdn-th time chance, but perhaps the next controversy should be a swift block? Or has the community already had enough? TiggerJay (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- @Tamzin -- I know this will astonish you, but... surprise, surprise, they could only retire for almost exactly 24 hours. TiggerJay (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. This user has an established habit of walking away from a conversation, only to come back a day or two later and continue the same sort of disruption. Shall we extend another inch of rope? I wouldn't be against giving a
- They tried that stunt 5 days ago. If they're going to engage in a pattern of making disruptive edits and then retiring when anyone (read: everyone) criticizes them, someone should probably just indef. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- And about Legend and I over that. Looks like Legend's had enough, anyway (I wish them well elsewhere). 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 16:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree with blocking this editor when they actually haven't violated any policy that I'm aware of. I actually don't want them to leave and think they could be a constructive editor if they would spend less time policing other editors and spend more time improving articles, and avoid the drama boards.
- We can enforce guidelines about civility, Legend of 14, but I don't think the "respect" you expect to receive can be found anywhere on the Internet. People are blunt and sometimes grumpy. And those of us who have been here a long time have been called all sorts of names, disputes can bring out some nasty behavior, this is not personal to you. I just think that expecting to be respected here, on Misplaced Pages, just comes over time with proving that you are a consistently productive contributor. It can take years to earn other editors' trust and respect and, if you make a colossal mistake, it can also disappear. I just think that you have an overly sensitive gauge of other people's respect for you and if you want to contribute to this project, it has to be because you like to edit, whether or not other people respect you in the way you seem to understand "respect". Remember, this is not utopia, it's just a website on the internet. Liz 04:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I check back and I'm facing sanctions. I wasn't planning on making any more edits, but I guess I should. The allegations are too vague for me to defend myself. There's no policy being cited or diffs, so I have no idea what's being alleged.
- My decision to stop editing is rooted in the fact that I cannot avoid challenges to my edits, and I cannot avoid being dismissed based on either unrelated grievances when I stand up for myself and my edits.
- Timeline of how this ended up here:
- Jan 15 I make edits to 5 articles related to content about living people
- Jan 16 I get reverted 5 times by Adam Bishop. I go to 2 article talk pages to discuss the reverts and Bishop's talk page.
- Jan 17 I get reverted on the 2 article talk pages by Bishop. I go to BLPN as Bishop is stopping me from using talk pages. 2 of my discussions get closed by 2601AC47.
- Jan 21 I ask 2601AC47 to change the summaries. My request is denied.
- I've been reverted 9 times by 2601AC47. They did not explain why for 3 reverts https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:2601AC47&diff=prev&oldid=1270067565 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:2601AC47&diff=next&oldid=1270067565. My thread got closed because of "Not helpful of the editor in question". User talk:2601AC47
- An article I made got nominated for deletion. My reasons for why the article should stay gets dismissed because the user has a list of grievances against me https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Deb_Hutton_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=1270475022.
- I got criticized on my talk page for daring to challenge a more "experienced editor". https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270062605
- I face repeated complaints for trying uphold a civil environment on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270076126 User talk:Legend of 14#Preferred Pronouns User talk:Tiggerjay#January 2025
- I get challenged, and then when I defend myself I get dismissed for uncivil reasons or ignored, over and over again. This is not an environment where I can edit, where I face endless criticism for valid decisions (like those on my talk pages), can get randomly reverted for no given reason at any time, and get threatened with sanctions if I keep standing up in the face of the uncivil comments. But, there's always a reason why nothing should be done about the uncivil behaviour. My work can just be undone, I can't defend myself or my edits, and the message of shut up or get sanctioned has been very prevalent. That's why I said I'm not wanted here and why I'm done editing. It has become clear to me that no outcome here leads to this being an environment which isn't having a negative impact on me. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- You may have overlooked what I wrote yesterday to you. Either way, I'm sure that we've tried hard not to be
uncivil
. - But really: With all due respect to you (what little you've left me with), I hope one day you can let this go and begin the path to becoming a better person. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 17:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Who's we? I wasn't aware that you were authorized to speak on behalf of other editors. Please share who you are representing. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- 2601AC47 simply read the discussion and said what he thinks about it. It's clear that "we" simply means all of the editors with whom you are arguing, rather than anyone they are representing. Anyway, it seems you were not telling the truth when you said "I'm done editing". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I only came back because sanctions were proposed against me. As soon as the threat of sanctions is gone, I'll leave again. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- At this rate, unless you have something to prove yourself here or you actually take into consideration what we've told you for the last 8 days and get working in peace, those
sanctions
may include a block from Misplaced Pages, which is possible given the circumstances and, as that policy states as of now, can be enforced toencourage a more productive, congenial editing style
. If you believe that block that may come will be unjustified (and I doubt that), you can usually request an unblock and explain your perspective as you should. Otherwise, again, I wish you well and hope you'll understand that you're not being targeted (although you should be aware that we're serious about it); (struggles to think of a closing sentence) farewell, Legend. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 19:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC) - But nobody on Misplaced Pages can take away your life, liberty or money; the most severe sanction they can impose is to stop you editing one web site, which you want to do anyway. What is the point of continuing to post to this discussion? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- At this rate, unless you have something to prove yourself here or you actually take into consideration what we've told you for the last 8 days and get working in peace, those
- I only came back because sanctions were proposed against me. As soon as the threat of sanctions is gone, I'll leave again. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- 2601AC47 simply read the discussion and said what he thinks about it. It's clear that "we" simply means all of the editors with whom you are arguing, rather than anyone they are representing. Anyway, it seems you were not telling the truth when you said "I'm done editing". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Who's we? I wasn't aware that you were authorized to speak on behalf of other editors. Please share who you are representing. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Regarding
there's always a reason why nothing should be done about the uncivil behavior
is almost always because nobody else sees how you're being treated as uncivil, even after you've presented your best evidence of such claims. TYour perceptions of other people is causing you undue stress that is of your own doing. However, if this is truly causing anegative impact
on you, I have to ask WHY are you still coming back here? If anyone feels stressed by contributing to a volunteer project, they should simply take a Wikibreak, and not just say it, but literally turn off all notifications, logout, and set some sort of calendar reminder for some point in the future before you even look at a Misplaced Pages page. This should be your happy place, not a stress inducer. TiggerJay (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)- I mean I agree people were being rude at BLPN and people on wiki are often needlessly antagonistic. The issue is that because that's the case, what would get someone fired in a professional environment is treated as not a big deal here. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- You may have overlooked what I wrote yesterday to you. Either way, I'm sure that we've tried hard not to be
@Legend of 14: recommend you walk away from the topic area-in-question, if you're not retiring. From what I'm seeing, rightly or wrongly the other editors are growing frustrated with you. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposal: WP:CIR block for Legend of 14
Competence in working on a collaborative project includes being able to listen and take in what other people are telling you. Legend of 14 does not seem to be able to do that. Since they have already expressed an intention to retire, it should not be a hardship to them if they are unable to edit due to a community ban. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support As proposer. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The statement is false and unsubstantiated. I have listened. People didn't want me removing uncited election results, I stopped removing election results. People didn't want me removing uncited WP:BLP content from Ministry of Education (Ontario) I listened. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support a short-term block to prevent further disruption and to further assist them with their claimed retirement. They continue to be disruptive to the project, and their tenacious argumentative approach here demonstrates this extremely clearly. While I previously supported giving a second chance (see above), their complete inability to drop the stick and cannot even make up their mind about retirement, other than a veiled threat about leaving. They have shown a failure of CIR when it comes to consensus building, largely because they presume bad faith and assume people are being uncivil. Without the ability to demonstrate the ability to build consensus and presume good faith, they should not be permitted to continue to disrupt the project. And of course, I am tired of their aspirations being cast against me, and others, without merit. They assert that those who disagree with their accusations are also in collusion against them. The number of experienced editors who are speaking against this editor seems to be a clear WP:1AM situation. TiggerJay (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- If this is still going on support I remember the Ministry of Education (Ontario) discussion - which I was pretty involved in - and the whole thing was quite silly. Lo14 was insistent on uncited start and end dates for education ministers in Ontario being an urgent BLP issue but, rather than finding sources for those start and end dates for four ministers under the current government, kept deleting the content and getting into long arguments about the urgency. I think, at one point, I mentioned that they'd spent longer arguing about the problem than it would have taken to properly fix it. I'll be honest that I kind of tuned out after that. But it's been long enough that if Lo14 is still insisting on their course of action then, yeah, it's time for a short block. Not an indef. Just something to give them perspective that not everything is a life or death emergency - even for BLPs. Simonm223 (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not. Legend of 14 (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I have read this entire discussion and the two BLPN noticeboard ones referenced and previously at least one other AN or ANI discussion; i believe Legend is teetering close to a block, but i do not support it nor, most definitely, a ban. But, Legend of 14, i do urge you to take a few hours away, overnight or a day, and then reread what has been written by way of advice and try to see it that way. I'm not sure if you have had (or have) a mentor, but finding an experienced editor who is willing to answer a few questions and give a little advice on your plans and potential actions would probably be a very good thing to consider and do ~ Lindsay 20:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- You might want to also have a look at their un-redacted talk page and also their constant bad faith and casting aspirations of other editors, as recently as today. TiggerJay (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yup, thanks; i'd already read the talk page and taken a good look at some of the contributions. I may well tend toward the naïve, but i am not seeing someone who is not competent so much as a new (under 1k edits) and possibly younger editor who is enthusiastic and yet has not worked out some of the the way we work here; that's why i suggest a mentor above ~ Lindsay 21:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was simply pointing out the pre-redacted state if you happened to only read the current talk page, they removed over 8k bytes from their talk page, which further adds context and shows conflict skills. I agree that they sound "younger" especially by their approach and rejection to experience, but their actual age has little to do with their ability to contribute, however, emotional maturity is something that does weigh into the ability to manage conflict. TiggerJay (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yup, thanks; i'd already read the talk page and taken a good look at some of the contributions. I may well tend toward the naïve, but i am not seeing someone who is not competent so much as a new (under 1k edits) and possibly younger editor who is enthusiastic and yet has not worked out some of the the way we work here; that's why i suggest a mentor above ~ Lindsay 21:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- You might want to also have a look at their un-redacted talk page and also their constant bad faith and casting aspirations of other editors, as recently as today. TiggerJay (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a huge overreaction. Can an involved admin please close this thread so everyone can get on with editing instead of fanning the flames of this inconsequential dispute? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
How do we handle Israel Palestine new articles created by non ECP editors nowadays?
For example, Hussein al-Khalil. In theory I think this could be deleted via WP:G5 for violating WP:ARBECR. But is that what we do? Or do we look the other way if the article is OK? Should we just protect it ECP and call it a day?
Hmm, actually this is an article about a Hezbollah member, not a Hamas member. So does this even fall under the umbrella of Israel Palestine? Thanks in advance for the advice. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. If it was (for example) a Hamas member, different admins appear to take different routes. Such articles should be deleted per ARBECR, but if it was a completely neutral well written article whose very existence wasn't a contentious one, I'd be tempted to let it slide. YMMV. Black Kite (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- It might fall under WP:CTOP/A-I. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hezbollah is a belligerent in the Arab–Israeli conflict, so, probably. However, per WP:ARBECR ¶ A2,
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
-- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 23:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)- As long as the article is acceptable, this is what WP:IAR is for. Notify the creator about the ECR restrictions, template the article talk page, and call it good. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given that they were specifically told not to do this when they created another Hezzbollah-related article in November, and were advised of CTOP at the same time, this seems like a deliberate breach. Beeblebrox 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- In that case, it should probably be nuked. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Administrators are never required to use their tools; no ignoring of rules is needed to simply not take action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given that they were specifically told not to do this when they created another Hezzbollah-related article in November, and were advised of CTOP at the same time, this seems like a deliberate breach. Beeblebrox 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- As long as the article is acceptable, this is what WP:IAR is for. Notify the creator about the ECR restrictions, template the article talk page, and call it good. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hezbollah is a belligerent in the Arab–Israeli conflict, so, probably. However, per WP:ARBECR ¶ A2,
- It might fall under WP:CTOP/A-I. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't agree that that article is OK, it doesn't seem notable and uses several peacock terms. I would support deletion. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete ASAP and don't look back. Re: "does this even fall under the umbrella of Israel Palestine" An article about a leader of Hezzbolah? Seriously? Yes. Buffs (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete and block BasselHarfouch site-wide for continued violations. --Yamla (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Archive bots
This is not an issue that requires administrative attention. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is there a way to have a bot archive articles on a page for you? I vaguely recall such a feature.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger. Maybe you are thinking of meta:InternetArchiveBot#Using the bot? –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Note of caution on attacks on Misplaced Pages's neutrality.
We know to keep an eye out for "neturality police" IPs/new editors. Speculation on anything more should be left to the WMF per WP:NOTFORUM (and, indeed, WP:BEANS). - The Bushranger One ping only 01:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As observed here, Musk and others now in positions with Trump's admin are calling out Misplaced Pages's "lack of neutrality". At best they are current only calling for trying to defund it, but given a the craziness of the last 48hrs alone, I would not be surprised to see new or IP editors with strong conservative ideals trying to "fix" the neutrality problem. Nothing we haven't seen before but now that these people have a megaphone to state this, the quantity could become elevated. — Masem (t) 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do they mean anything by "defund" other than calling for people to stop donating (and haha, good luck with that one, these attacks seem to have resulted in the opposite)? Can Elon and Trump actually try and freeze the Foundation's assets or anything like that? Silverseren 00:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Likely not within a legal framework that exists right now... but they could, for example, pressure Congress to pass a new law, or they could attempt to eliminate the safe harbor protections that the WMF (among other organizations) are given from copyright violations, which would allow people to sue for copyvios being displayed at all, no matter how quickly they're removed. And even if they don't try to make it sound legal, they could always just throw another executive order at the wall and see if it sticks - possibly as part of a "burst" like he did within the first 24 hours of his term. This strategy isn't anything new - trying to overload organizations'/lawyers' capabilities to sue to block those orders, and the courts' ability to handle those suits, during which time they can do what they want. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is a proposed bill going around that would allow non profits to be stripped of that status should they be considered a terrorist org or support terrorism. While what we do is clearly not that, in this new administration, anything goes. However all that is a WMF problem and I assume they are ready to fight.
My caution here is that we might see new and IP see these calls as dogwhistles to attack WP in other ways, which we as admin and involved editors can take a ton against. — Masem (t) 00:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- If the US decides to strip WMF's status then, a total and global outrage might happen. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
they could attempt to eliminate the safe harbor protections that the WMF (among other organizations) are given from copyright violations
Elon Musk definitely doesn't want to be liable every time someone posts a copyright violating image on Twitter, so I doubt that will happen. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- I'd say that we probably shouldn't give them ideas for how to attack us. Contrary to what some believe, these are very public noticeboards that are readable to anyone on the Internet. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is a proposed bill going around that would allow non profits to be stripped of that status should they be considered a terrorist org or support terrorism. While what we do is clearly not that, in this new administration, anything goes. However all that is a WMF problem and I assume they are ready to fight.
- Likely not within a legal framework that exists right now... but they could, for example, pressure Congress to pass a new law, or they could attempt to eliminate the safe harbor protections that the WMF (among other organizations) are given from copyright violations, which would allow people to sue for copyvios being displayed at all, no matter how quickly they're removed. And even if they don't try to make it sound legal, they could always just throw another executive order at the wall and see if it sticks - possibly as part of a "burst" like he did within the first 24 hours of his term. This strategy isn't anything new - trying to overload organizations'/lawyers' capabilities to sue to block those orders, and the courts' ability to handle those suits, during which time they can do what they want. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Legal threat
Blocked. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Apparently my legal team can expect a letter, as announced on User talk:Jack at BTCGPU. I'm obviously involved, haha, so perhaps someone else can assess and do what they think is right. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Disruptive editor
WP:BOOMERANG. Level 2 warning issued. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:The Green Star Collector has been removing any reference to the term 'insurrection' in articles connected with the January 6 capitol attack. FactsheetPete (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Community assuming the block on Crouch, Swale
Crouch, Swale was blocked for multiple accounts in 2011 and this was later upgraded to a site ban. In 2017 they were unblocked by ArbCom with a whole string of conditions. They then become an annual appellant to ArbCom to reduce or eliminate those conditions. In December, Crouch, Swale went to ArbCom asking for a site ban. ArbCom declined. Multiple admins, including me, tried to convince him that a site ban was not a good idea. Admins, including me, told him if he wanted a break we would block him . Ultimately he asked me to block him for a few days, which I did. Yesterday, he was back at ArbCom and after questioning on his talk page basically said he was willing to harass and otherwise violate policies in order to achieve his ends of getting a site ban. ToBeFree correctly indeffed him for this. It is with no pleasure that I come here asking the community to essentially assume this block and turn it into a site ban. For reasons I don't understand, and am sad to see, this user clearly wanted to be given a forced break from Misplaced Pages. Given the long history with this user, and since there has been no mention of ArbCom choosing to assume the block themselves, I think it would be better for the community to decide if/how/when Couch Swale returns to English Misplaced Pages, rather than individual admins through the normal appeals process. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. There are too many missing dots here. Crouch, Swale's editing conditions from the 2017 unblock are listed as:
- one account restriction
- topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions
- prohibition on moving or renaming pages (except within their own userspace)
- prohibition on creating new pages, including creating articles on pages where one didn't previously exist (except within their own userspace and talk pages of existing pages in any namespace).
- That list does not on the face of it suggest a tremendously disruptive editor; and has Crouch, Swale been adhering to these rules? If so, what's the big issue with relaxing the restrictions; has the editor made very deficient appeals? He came to my attention talking kindly and constructively with a problem editor. How did we come to the point where a week or so later, he's demanding a 10-year block? I can't help suspecting a bureaucratic glitch in handling his appeals. What am I missing prior to the threat to be maximally disruptive that makes this editor a candidate for a permaban? Yngvadottir (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: I've taken a look myself and they had restrictions lessened in 2022.
- They then went to appeal with an ultimatum: remove the restrictions or block me for a decade - if you don't, I'll disrupt the site (forgive me for saying this, but it feels like blackmail).
- Since the appeal didn't include any evidence (or appeal) it was rejected as insufficient.
- I get their frustration, but I'm very concerned that they dialled things straight up to 11 and are willing to cause significant problems for others (including doxxing, see the link) just to get their own way.
- Then again, looking at the December appeal, they very clearly want to be banned and have refused every other alternative offered. I don't know what's going on in the background but I'm thinking this is something they should probably have since they're very clear and consistent in their request for a full-on ban - if they don't want to explain why, then should we be pressing for one, especially after so many people have already asked? It could be an addiction (as suggested in the December diff above) in which case they're asking for help and refusing could be causing them harm. I have personal experience in this area and this feels awfully familiar - if they're asking for help then we should give it if we can. Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am not enthusiastic about this, can we not just let them go? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Likewise. I'm not convinced that the threats were something they had any intention of carrying through with, so I'm not convinced that anything more than the current block is necessary to protect the project nor that there would be any other benefits.
- @Blue-Sonnet Crouch, Swale has made many appeals over the years to get their restrictions loosened and/or removed (look at pretty much every recent ARCA archive covering a January). The basic reason they have not been successful is that they haven't demonstrated an understanding of why the restrictions were imposed in the first place, which multiple people feel is a necessary precursor to being confident the problems won't reoccur - the only problems being a fundamental disconnect between them and basically everybody else about how Misplaced Pages should cover low-level UK administrative geography. Outside of that topic area they are a very good editor who is (normally) a very clear net benefit to Misplaced Pages. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support the site ban that they themself seem to request. The editor appears to be a net negative to the project on account of the volunteer time absorbed by their antics. Sandstein 17:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - Something seems really off here. What could Crouch, Swale gain from demanding a site ban and deciding to be a pain in the arse until he gets his way? I wonder if he's going thru some sort of crisis in his normal life and he sees Misplaced Pages as a distraction that exacerbates it, and doesn't realise just how difficult it would be to come back from a full siteban as opposed to an indefinite block. Blocks on request is one thing - you can at least quickly request a return with a convincing unblock request. If he wants to come back from an unban, then he'll have to go thru a community discussion that will very likely reopen old wounds and end with him being told "no" in very clear terms. I would rather give him the option to come back as painlessly as possible as opposed to being sent off on a train to nowhere while workers rip up the tracks behind it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 17:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems like a bad idea. ToBeFree solved the problem, no need to escalate this further unless C,S escalates. Let's not back someone who is apparently hurting into an unnecessary corner. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - If he wants a site-ban, then give'em what he wants. It's that or put up with his wasting the community's time. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose as solution in search of a problem. The block that TBF implemented prevents the threatened disruption. Crouch ‘’can’’ be a productive editor when they choose. Let’s not make it harder for them to come back when they’re ready. Star Mississippi 17:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I refused to block him as an Arb because I felt he was seeking "suicide by ArbCom." His latest post was somewhere between manipulative and cry for help. If he had put forth a good request to remove his restrictions, I'd have said yes. He seems like someone in crisis, making bad decisions. Perhaps a reason to block them for their own good until they stabilize, but not a reason to community ban them. Crouch is an excellent editor otherwise and has contributed very extensively to niche UK topics. CaptainEek ⚓ 17:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm torn because I do think that Sandstein and GoodDay have a point; the amount of time and energy he has consumed with this is already a bit disruptive. But the fact is that he's currently blocked, which has ended this; concerns that he could, I don't know, pretend to be reformed to get an admin to let him back in and then cause disruption seems too theoretical to justify action by the community. A community ban wouldn't give them what they want, anyway; it's hard to appeal, but still quite possible to do so at any time - and honestly the reaction here makes it clear that if this passed, and Crouch later came back to the community saying they've recovered from whatever and now wants to be let back in, we'd probably still grant it, it'd just waste even more community time and effort. --Aquillion (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- The site-ban, of course. The regular block isn't even being reviewed here, I think - obviously if someone overtly threatens to do those sorts of things and doesn't back down they have to be blocked. --Aquillion (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - the entire motivation of this bizarre campaign seems to be no more than to waste editors' time. Requiring them to appeal to the community will waste even more. They should stay blocked, and legal should be notified about the threats of libel and doxxing. We don't owe them anything. Ivanvector (/Edits) 18:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Those weren't really threats about libel and doxxing; they were just saying whatever they thought necessary to get blocked. Please let's not sic legal on them. Timesink or not, there's still room in this Trumpified world for a little compassion. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I get what you're saying, but it's above our pay grade to determine if the threats carry any legitimacy. WP:EMERGENCY covers this. If Legal thinks that they're empty threats then so be it, but they're the ones that get paid to make that sort of call, not us lowly editors. Ivanvector (/Edits) 00:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is not above my pay grade to use common sense. But do what you think you need to do. Floquenbeam (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I get what you're saying, but it's above our pay grade to determine if the threats carry any legitimacy. WP:EMERGENCY covers this. If Legal thinks that they're empty threats then so be it, but they're the ones that get paid to make that sort of call, not us lowly editors. Ivanvector (/Edits) 00:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Those weren't really threats about libel and doxxing; they were just saying whatever they thought necessary to get blocked. Please let's not sic legal on them. Timesink or not, there's still room in this Trumpified world for a little compassion. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose This whole situation is just weird. I was reading WP:AE for an unrelated reason and looked at the Crouch, Swale thread out of curiosity and it was one of the most perplexing things I've ever seen at WP. I haven't the first clue why they didn't just do what was suggested at AE and provide a justification for a lift of their account restrictions rather than setting an unprecedented ultimatum. Regardless I don't think it should be on the community to give assent to this silliness. Simonm223 (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - I was someone who came back to Misplaced Pages after being blocked for an extensive period of time. If I was in a situation where I didn’t want to edit anymore, requesting a site ban for myself would be the wrong way to do so. There are better ways to handle these things rather than this. Firstly, there’s nothing wrong with taking a break from Misplaced Pages if you feel it is getting in the way of your life. It can be stressful for editors to tell you things you don’t necessarily want to hear, but there are more important things in life than Misplaced Pages which are in the physical world. I’ve been one of those people. You can also request a self-block on yourself rather than doing every naughty thing you can do to get yourself blocked. Those blocks are harder to get yourself back into the community if you feel you need to. I’d rather do everything right on Misplaced Pages rather than do a bunch of wrong things. In a nutshell, that’s basically how I feel. Interstellarity (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Meh They can't appeal on their talk page, and I can't imagine the small group of admins that does the heavy lifting at UTRS unblocking them. The only other avenue of appeal is the committee, which seems equally unlikely, so I'm not really seeing much risk here. Beeblebrox 00:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I just hope they are okay. I think the site ban was completely justified, but something seems off here, and if they want to return, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't follow the normal procedures. SportingFlyer T·C 00:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
WMF research on admins
There's a 70 page final report over at c:File:(Final Report) Administrator recruitment, retention, & attrition (SDS1.2.2).pdf. Apparently it will be part of something called the mw:Wikimedia Research/Showcase in February. I recommend people read the report and possibly contribute to the upcoming office hours if they're interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, Clovermoss, I am interested but busy. Is there a summary to this 70 page paper you could link to? Is this report a result of the questionnaire they sent out last autumn? Thanks for informing us about it. Liz 03:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I admit I haven't read the 70 pages yet either. It's on my ever growing to-do list. I don't think there's a summary that's been released yet (if there ends up being one, it'll probably be at m:Research:Misplaced Pages Administrator Recruitment, Retention, and Attrition#Results). This is indeed about the mass questionnaire/interviews that were going on last year. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- The first 18 pages are a summary of the rest of the document. The good news is that apparently our admin corps is demographically reflective of the wider editor pool in all measured aspects except age. CMD (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do we lean older or younger? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Admins average older than editors and readers. CMD (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- An addendum: it's not in the summary but there is also a geographic bias (pages 52 and 53), with en.wiki admins more likely to be in North America than editors. CMD (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Admins average older than editors and readers. CMD (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do we lean older or younger? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Liz, hope you don't mind my jumping in! Yes, this report is based partially on the survey we sent out in late autumn of 2024, as well as an interview-based study largely focused on former administrators as well as the collection of new metrics around administrators on Misplaced Pages. The first two sections (Key Results and Recommendations) of the report are our attempt to create a summary of the report as a whole. These two sections are also available on Meta-Wiki if you would prefer not to download the (chunky) PDF just for that bit.
- On a personal note, I'm thrilled to see the reception of the study! CLo (WMF) (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I like this line
1.2.3 The RFA process is routinely characterized by administrators as stressful, opaque, and something to be endured.
That was my experience! Liz 04:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)- Liz, you may want to read pages 47 onwards then. In particular, I found page 50 an interesting elucidation of some factors affecting RfAs. CMD (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's lots of interesting tidbits in there and I do think it's worth a read. For example, some depressing figures on abuse and harassment (pp. 62, 66–68), and the information (pg. 45) that en.wiki has relatively low enthusiasm from non-admins towards becoming admins (although this result may be skewed by en.wiki's relatively lax formal requirements, which would widen the pool of surveyed editors of lower experience considerably compared to projects with more stringent formal requirements). However, for those short of time (and perhaps already familiar with the situation on en.wiki), I would encourage a look at comparisons of the unbundling of core admin actions across different projects (pp. 36–38) and the comparison of admin tenures across different projects (pp. 39–40). CMD (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's good to see recommendations 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 and I hope the WMF takes the recommendations seriously. I tried to be clear when I took the survey that I don't think the Foundation takes harassment seriously. They say all the right words, but when it comes down to it, in situations such as the current incessant MAB harassment, I don't see much support at all.-- Ponyo 17:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Move page Lien Khuong Airport
Please help me move page Lien Khuong Airport to Lien Khuong International Airport (currently is a redirect page), because of this airport was changed name (and upgraded) to an international airport since June 2024. Pk.over (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Done. For future reference, if you're prevented from moving a page only for technical reasons, you can make a request at WP:RMTR. Ivanvector (/Edits) 00:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
File:A Redrawing of the 5K Y.O. Graffito by NewAccount333.jpeg
Can an admin take a look at File:A Redrawing of the 5K Y.O. Graffito by NewAccount333.jpeg? The most recent version of the file uploaded appears to be a WP:G7 request based on the last post added by the uploader to Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2025 January 22#File:A Redrawing of the 5K Y.O. Graffito by NewAccount333.jpeg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've done this, but this isn't really something that needs to go to AN. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Topic ban appeal from User:Dronebogus
I would like to appeal my two separate but associated topic bans related to XfD, as can be found at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions. My reasons are as follows:
- The bans are both over a year old.
- I am simply not sufficiently interested in this field anymore to engage in the sort of impassioned hostility and unsolicited clerking that got me sanctioned in the first place.
- The ambiguous nature of the scope of what XfD “boradly construe” has prevented me from doing useful work that no-one had objected to, including discussing redirects/categories and nominating unfree images for deletion.
- I do not want the negative stigma of an editing restriction on me for something petty I no longer care about.
For these reasons I believe it is acceptable that my two topic bans be lifted. Dronebogus (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note Links to discussions . Black Kite (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you Dronebogus (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus, please provide specific examples of constructive contributions you would have made but could not because of the ban. Please also explain in your own words the reasons for your ban and how, if unbanned, you would change your editing so as not to give rise to the same concerns. Sandstein 17:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you Dronebogus (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak oppose pending answer to Sandstein’s question. If there’s no interest in editing in the area, there’s no need to lift the ban as a “stigma” does not strike me as a reason nor does an amount of time having passed. However should DB make the case of good edits they’re prevented from making, that might be a reason. Star Mississippi 17:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I !voted in this discussion so I’m an involved weak oppose. I’m not going to continue tpo break formatting to add that, but noting it here. The discussion about how limited the ban should be in that discussion is timely as, as per noted here, the disruption just shifted. Star Mississippi 19:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Involved oppose. While topic-banned from XfD here, Dronebogus has merely gone a level up, making a number of nonsensical wiki closure requests and wiki creation oppositions on Meta, persisting even after they were made aware that their idiosyncratic standard for closure was not the standard established by policy. (The last of these is in response to a proposal of mine, which is why I'm calling myself involved. To be clear, the issue isn't that they opposed, but that they knowingly opposed based on a reason disconnected from the actual community-established standard.) I'll grant that they seem to have mostly stopped after an RfC unanimously went against them, but there was a lot of disruption to get to that point, disruption that slowed or discouraged actual useful crosswiki work. And look what they're still doing? Removing comments critical of them in discussions, which was a major issue here in the past. If this is the kind of behavior we have to look forward to in the event of an unban, then we're definitely better off leaving the ban in place. If anything, Dronebogus has made the case that they should not be editing any Wikimedia wikis. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Sandstein's observation that if Dronebogus doesn't intend to work in XfD then the ban doesn't need to be lifted, and Tamzin's observations about Dronebogus' contribs on other wikis. I'm not convinced by their third bullet, considering that redirects and categories are discussed in an XfD forum, and their original sanction that was limited to MfD had to be expanded four months later to a full XfD ban because they just became disruptive in the broader area. And not wanting to have a sanction on their record is something they ought to have thought of before being sanctioned. Ivanvector (/Edits) 18:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose not convinced the pattern of behavior here has changed. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I have concerns that while this appeal is ongoing, there is an open thread at AN/I reagrding Dronebogus where there is evidence of a "my interpreation is the only possible interpretation" mindset as evidenced here and here. I feel the EL issue tends towards the same combativeness (or, "impassioned hostitilty" as they call it in the appeal above) demonstrated with their participation in XFD, so I don't believe now is the right time to remove the topic bans.-- Ponyo 18:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, in general I don't buy the "Ban isn't needed because I no longer want to edit those topic areas anyways" argument... And in this specific contexts a year doesn't seem like near enough time to figure that out. I also don't buy the negative stigma argument, I've got an IBAN with the sock of a long term abuser which I don't consider to carry any stigma... Because blocks and bans are all about their context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- As regards point 4, I think the stigma is often overplayed on Misplaced Pages. I didn't even realise, despite coming into contact with Dronebogus quite a bit, that they were subject to any editing restrictions, and I'm sure the same goes for many others. As far as point 2 goes, if it doesn't apply any more then I don't see how it matters whether they are banned or not. I haven't thought about points 1 and 3 yet. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, based on my just seeing this post, on the talk page of someone else who is thinking about a ban appeal: . My recollection is that Dronebogus supported that other editor's ban, so this wasn't a friendly joke intended to lighten the mood. That Dronebogus would do such a thing while this appeal is in progress says a lot, none of it good. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Involved oppose as the editor who proposed the XfD tban. I don't see anything in the OP's request to justify lifting either ban. While the stigma of a tban may be inconvenient, Dronebogus should have taken this inconvenience into consideration before engaging in the behavior that earned these sanctions. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Closure request for ITN RfC
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments has been sitting there for 3 and a half months, dead and unclosed. Due to its incredible impact, it'd be wise if some admin would finally close this. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed
An arbitration case Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
- AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
- Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
- Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at WP:ARCA about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Misplaced Pages by motion.
- WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (discretionary) and WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) are both modified to add as a new second sentence to each:
Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Misplaced Pages articles, Misplaced Pages discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
- Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
- The community is encouraged to run a Request for Comment aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
- The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
- Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The digital security resources page contains information that may help.
- Within this topic area, the balanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.
| Details of the balanced editing restriction |
|---|
|
- If a sockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their existing authority to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators may remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.
For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed