Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 18:25, 8 September 2008 editJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,107 edits →Please review this block: resolved← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 01:23, 24 January 2025 edit undoVoorts (talk | contribs)Administrators21,243 edits →WP:BLPN closures: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply
(1,000 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 = 400K
			|maxarchivesize = 700K
	|counter = 167
			|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>
			==Open tasks==
	== warning template for Hurricane Gustav ==
			<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 ==
	During Hurricane Katrina, Misplaced Pages had this warning template on the top of the page
			{{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 is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}:
			{{tqb|I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: ] and ] (note that the two other accounts –- ] and ] -- at ] was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me.
			Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (], ], ]) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at ]). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see ]). I have created over 900 pages (see ]), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance ], ], ], ] or the event ] that is barely mentioned at the English ]. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see ] and ].
	<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': ''Residents of areas affected by Hurricane Katrina are advised to seek advice and information from local authorities through television and radio. Information on Misplaced Pages may not be current or applicable to your area. '''Do not decide whether to leave your house, shelter, or vehicle based on Misplaced Pages information.'''
	</div>
			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 ].}}
	I placed one on the page for ] but someone removed it. I think it should be there and want an admin's opinion on the issue. It may be against the rules but I think the rules should be allowed to be bent in an emergency situation. The page on Katrina had the warning up for days with no objections. One can see so in the edit history--] (]) 03:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
			] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Misplaced Pages isn't the place for medical advice, and I think in the same vein we shouldn't serve as a PSA system. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 03:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
			:'''Support unbanning and unblocking''' per ]. ] (]/]) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	::(ec) I agree. But that's ''the whole point of the template.'' So what's the objection?] (]) 03:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
			* Quoting my SPI comment ]: {{tq2|I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of ''block'' evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as ] of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-] unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is ''banned'', and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like ].) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here.&nbsp;... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an ] unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.}}That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at ], which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ] violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per above.] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Endorse one account proviso. ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: ]. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would '''Support''' with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of ]. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they ''seem'' to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. ] (]) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. ] (]) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' User seems to have recognized what he <!-- before someone complains about my use of the gender-neutral he, this user is male per what they've configured settings to be --> did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. ''']]''' 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*<s>'''Weak Support''', the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. ] (]) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</s>
			:*'''Oppose''', I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. ] (]) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Support'''. Completely support an unblock; see my comment ] when his IP was blocked in April. ] (]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see ''clear'' evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like may well be on notable competitions, but with content like {{tq|On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.}}, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. ] (]) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Currently '''oppose'''; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. ] (]) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:{{yo|Ahri Boy }} Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. ] (]) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. ] (]) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "]"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. ] (]) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. ] (]) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::See . ] (]) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. &spades;]&spades; ] 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). ] (]) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. ] (]) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:: I think saying that {{tq|I will never use multiple accounts anymore}} and that he wants to {{tq|make constructive content}} would indicate that {{tq|the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.}} ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. ] (]) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... ] (]) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:: And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}. ] (]) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to ]. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''] ]'''</span> 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''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;">—]&nbsp;<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 ==
	Then how come it was allowed during Katrina?--] (]) 03:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop
			| result = Essentially unanimous consensus to not unblock. ] ] 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
			* {{userlinks|Lardlegwarmers}}
	:Cause we made a mistake in allowing it. We have this... http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer ] (]) 03:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
			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">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:And this... http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Risk_disclaimer ] (]) 03:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
			=== Statement from Lardlegwarmers ===
	::I think it should be up there. ] (]) 03:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
			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.
	(copied from ], who just reverted my re-addition of the box....)
			{{talk reflist}}
	:::On principle? How about the one that your opinion isn't the only one that matters Lar? I especially like your comment on my talk page. - ] ] 05:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
			=== 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">&#91;]]</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 &#124; ] &#124; ] 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. &mdash; <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.}} ]&thinsp;] 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. ]&thinsp;] 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">&#91;]]</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">&#91;]]</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">&#91;]]</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. ]&thinsp;] 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 ===
			* 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 won't revert you, Crazy.. but I do think that it's worth having that box up there for a while. I certainly wouldn't worry about the Manual of Style in this context, because I think it's appropriate to bend the rules a little once in a while for strong reasons.... and our article is the second result in Google, so could well get quite a lot of traffic. Follow your conscience... :-) ] (]) 03:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)<small>this has been mentioned on ] too, so I'll copy this note across there as well....</small>
	::: :o) I think it should ''not'' be up there. :) :) Speaking of which, we have an applicable content guideline... ]! :) ] (]) 03:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Um, no. I see it now:
			* {{userlinks|Rathfelder}}
	<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': "Those contemplating ] are advised to seek advice and information from true medical professionals through their websites and in-person visists. Information on Misplaced Pages may not be current or applicable to your procedure. '''Do not decide whether or not to get liposuction or other cosmetic surgeries based on Misplaced Pages Information".
			* ] for sockpuppetry, vote-stacking and undisclosed COI writing of a BLP attack page
	</div>
			* ] declined by the community
	:Yeah, let's not. - ] ] 03:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
			* ] not submitted for review by the community for not complying with ]
	::um.. Auburn... you're comparing a liposuction disclaimer with a note about a very dangerous Hurricane. I see a difference. ] (]) 03:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::PrivateMusens, you are ignoring the content guideline I cited above. ] (]) 03:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Lipo is a very dangerous elective surgery (1 death per 5000?). In all seriousness, it was just an example of what some may see as equally valid, but most will see as showing how equally unnecessary such warnings are. - ] ] 03:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::I agree; part of the point of removing these things is that even at the most narrow scope there's a lot of articles that can be argued to be life or death.--] (]) 10:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Or worse:
	<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': "Those considering a conversion to ] are advised to seek advice and information from a trusted spiritual adviser. Information on Misplaced Pages may not be current or applicable to your personal circumstances. '''Do not decide whether or not to change your religion based on Misplaced Pages Information".
	</div>
	::: -- <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 03:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
			Rathfelder has submitted the following ban appeal on their talk page and asked me to copy it here:
	(ec) How about a reminder of/reference to the disclaimers added to {{tl|HurricaneWarning}}? <span style="font-family: Verdana">]</span> 03:49, 1 September 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>
	:That still seems pretty ridiculous, I am sure that those affected are ''very aware'' of the storms in this date and age. - ] 03:50, 1 September 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)
	::Well I'll be... the risk disclaimer is already linked from {{tl|HurricaneWarning}}. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]</span> 04:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
			*'''Conditional support''' - If there's been no socking ''during'' the ban. ] (]) 17:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	And another...
			*: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)
			*:::Yes, the data available to me was for the past 90 days. ] ] 16:41, 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? ] (]) 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': "Those considering a ] are advised to seek advice and information from a licensed practioner. Statistics on Misplaced Pages may not be current. '''Do not decide whether or not to change your smoking habits based on Misplaced Pages Information".
			*'''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)
	</div>
			*: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)
	] (]) 03:55, 1 September 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)
	:Not weighing in on the opinion at hand, but I think the main concern is that a shows it's Misplaced Pages page as the 3rd result. It seems that users are just concerned that someone may stumble upon the article and may take the information as fact, which could be true or false. I have a feeling that the concerned users are just wanting to make sure that the poor souls who are having to leave their homes, their jobs, their lives, and who could possibly get injured or killed understand that we are not a reporting service and that our content should not be mistaken for advice. This is an extraordinary case that is not easily comparable to other issues, beliefs, or surgeries. I respectfully ask that editors stop making parody templates of the above template and please be respectful so as to not mock the original poster of the template. Obviously s/he had the best of intentions and the joking and comedy over a very serious matter is of very poor taste. Can we please get to the issue at hand and seriously discuss whether the template should be placed or not? Thank you.<span style="white-space:nowrap"><font face="Harlow Solid Italic">] ''(] ♦ ]) @ ''</font></span>'' 03:58, 1 September 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)
	::Nobody is making light of "the poor souls who are having to leave their homes...". The template should not exist, and we've shown why through the use of examples. - ] ] 04:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
			*::Thanks for drawing my attention; I've clarified my comment. ] ] 16:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	::It is not parody. It is contrast and comparison. Additionally, I don't think anyone will decide evacuation on this article, the PSA/EAS is the responsibility of local city/state and federal authority. ''We'' are building an encyclopedia, let us not lose sight of that. ] (]) 04:02, 1 September 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)
	:::In any case, why add it it now? Gustav already hit Cuba quite hard and no one seemed to care. Because its entering the United States? What about ]? Its clear that all the commotion its because of the actual state that its going to hit, because I don't see such a haste when they go over Florida. Some users are being influenced by memories of Hurricane Katrina's destructive pass. Sorry it that seems harsh, but I call a spade a spade. - ] 04:05, 1 September 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)
	::::(ecX3) Guys! All I am asking is that you just talk about it without being ] and take the request made by the original poster as a serious request. Just be respectful of the situation. All I am asking is for comments like Caribbean's, which address the issue at hand without mocking the template.<span style="white-space:nowrap"><font face="Harlow Solid Italic">] ''(] ♦ ]) @ ''</font></span>'' 04:08, 1 September 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)
	:::::<small>]. - ] ] 04:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)</small>
			*'''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)
	::::::<small> Thiz iz seriouz buzinnezz. </small> ] (]) 04:13, 1 September 2008 (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)
	::::(e/c)And why only hurricanes? Do we do this for other events? Floods, tornadoes, blizzards, forest fires, riots, wars, chemical spills? At what point is a disaster significant enough to merit a warning? <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 04:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Off topic: Am I the only one irritated by edit conflicts? The software really should resolve this automagically. :) ] (]) 04:15, 1 September 2008 (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)
	::::::(ec)In any case, I personally do not believe the template should belong. I understand the reasons for adding it, but making this a special case just doesn't make sense to me. I have a feeling that the template would just be an eye-sore, and it could be argued that this is just systematic bias. Why don't we add templates like this to every big event? I think that the encyclopedia is fine with just reporting the information in an encyclopedic manner, and we should just let our disclaimers do the disclaiming. And yes I am hating the conflicts (especially the one I just had with your comment ;)<span style="white-space:nowrap"><font face="Harlow Solid Italic">] ''(] ♦ ]) @ ''</font></span>'' 04:17, 1 September 2008 (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)
	Why not use one of our other "current" templates, that already warn of such things? -- ] 04:17, 1 September 2008 (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 {{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)
	:Because we have ] that should generally be used. ] (]) 04:19, 1 September 2008 (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)
	::You seem to be confused. The current templates are article issue templates, not disclaimer templates. -- ] 04:20, 1 September 2008 (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)
	:::Oh no, I am very clear. I am very clear that the pink boxes in this section of AN are in fact... ''disclaimers''. Even if in the loosest form, they intend to warn and caveat. Don't ]. ] (]) 04:27, 1 September 2008 (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)
	::::Just to be crystal clear, I think Ned is referring to the {{tl|current}} templates. - ] ] 04:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' ] (]) 20:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::Oops. ] (]) 04:37, 1 September 2008 (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 ==
	<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': ''Editors of articles such as ] are advised to seek advice and information from ArbCom before placing a template such as this. Information in Misplaced Pages: space may not be current or applicable to your ArbCom's current mood. '''Do not decide whether to place a template on the article based on Misplaced Pages policies.'''
			{{atopr
	</div>
			| result = Consensus to lift this ban will not develop. ] (]/]) 22:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	] --] 04:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
			}}
	<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': There are hundreds of stupid arguments on AIV, and this is one of them.'''
	</div>
	Word. --]] 04:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	: LOL. Particularly when this was the shape of {{tl|HurricaneWarning}}, a template that survived TFD several times, until . ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 04:44, 1 September 2008 (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)
	Since we're churning out silly disclaimer templates, how about one for ]:
	<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': Those considering using Misplaced Pages are advised to seek advice and information from a trusted reliable source. Information on Misplaced Pages may not be current or applicable to your personal circumstances. '''Do not decide whether or not to use Misplaced Pages based on Misplaced Pages information.'''
	</div>
	It just had to be said. ] 10:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Perhaps it would be easier for Misplaced Pages to consider a help page about its own articles and making decisions based on one's trust in their accuracy. That's a question for the offices, most likely.] (]) 07:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
	===prelude to edit war===
	You lot are debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and thus miss the actual point. The style guide matters not, the general principle against disclaimers matters not. They're good ideas, but blanket prohibitions are bad. This is a situation where we may well be getting a large influx of readers who have no idea what WP really is about, and haven't the time or energy to go to the bottom of a page, and then realise they should read a general disclaimer to see if maybe there is something there they ought to read. IAR and add the damn warning template, and stop standing on formality about whether it's in accordance with general principles about not having disclaimers. Misplaced Pages does not exist in a vacuum. ++]: ]/] 05:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	: What he said. ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 05:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	:IAR only works when it improves the pedia. I would posit that it does not, so IAR is not applicable. ] (]) 05:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	::]: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it." So, how does this help improve or maintain Misplaced Pages? It doesn't. We don't add such templates to articles, and this doesn't deserve an exception. - ] ] 05:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Don't be ridiculous. Don't stand on rules. And don't revert me for the sake of some principle. ++]: ]/] 05:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::echo Lar. ] (]) 05:18, 1 September 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)
	:::::I don't particularly like the idea of it being there, either, but I think this is one of the cases where we can and should ignore the rules. People have the capacity for '''incredible''' stupidity. While I'm generally against the idea of keeping this like this around, not everyone is intelligent enough to realize that at any given point in time, Misplaced Pages could be hosting information that could result in some bad things if people were dumb enough to use it as a guide for emergency procedures, and that's really not something I want to think about. Remember that Misplaced Pages does exist in the real world. <font color="629632">]</font> <sup><font color="7733ff">]</font></sup> 05:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
			:'''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)
	::::: I would posit that it does improve the pedia, by sending away the users who really need the info to the proper place, hence making us be a more reliable source of info. That said, please don't edit war over this. This is an extremely unstable article, and hence protections are inappropriate here; I'll be handing out blocks instead of simply elevating the protection level of the page. ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 05:22, 1 September 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)
	::::::echo Lar. ]. Do what you feel is right. --] 05:27, 1 September 2008 (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)
	:::::::Indeed, Lar makes an excellent point above. Putting that up there, is simply the right thing to do. ]] 07:15, 1 September 2008 (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". ]&thinsp;] 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. &spades;]&spades; ] 21:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			==Requesting info==
	: So you're worried about people who run around the Internet randomly trusting sites, and you think they should be warned away from Misplaced Pages so they find some blog to trust? You can't honestly say that you're helping people who can't be trusted to use the Internet wisely by warning them away from an updated fairly reliable source.--] (]) 11:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
			{{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)
	:Just so we note, this box violates some of our principles, UNDUE and NPOV. Also, the guideline is a good guideline, this is not what we do (PSA/EAS). ] (]) 05:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	::A guiding principle is "do no harm" and people relying on this article for decisions on evacuation can clearly lead to real harm. The disclaimer should be on the page. Apparently it is presently unprotected so that IP editors and newbies can have their way with it. An Ip editor changed the windspeed in the info box from the correct 115 mph to 390 mph, and it stayed that way for 26 minutes until I restored the correct information. The disclaimer should remain on the article. It is about a pending natural disaster affecting millions of people and tens of billions of dollars property damage, and if a vandal can introduce incorrect information, or if stale or incorrect information is in the article, it could lead people to take actions affecting their safety adversely. And the article should once again be semiprotected, because sufficient established and registered users are working on it that newbies and IP editors are not needed to keep it up to date while the storm is a few hours from landfall. Let the IPs back in when it is a historical matter in a day or so. ] (]) 05:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	::: I have repeatedly stated on that talk page that protection would be extremely inappropriate in this case, but like I said above, I agree with the inclusion of the box. ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 05:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Well I semi'ed it but feel free to undo that, I won't consider that any sort of wheeling. ++]: ]/] 05:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::We have principles, we strive to be an accurate academic institution. This type of thing should no go into our articles, for neutrality, and other reasons as echoed by me above. Incidentally, why are anons not permitted to edit that article? Please undo the prot. ] (]) 05:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Question, how does this violate undue or npov? I don't see it but I might be missing something ;) ] (]) 05:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::. ] (]) 05:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::As I said, the only reason that all this argument is going on its because Gustav will hit New Orleans, which received a lot of destruction with Katrina. The decision to add it is directly influenced by the psychological effect of the horrible events seen three years ago. If that wasn't the case a template would have been added when it passed over Cuba, which by the way has also been heavily affected by tropical cyclones in the last years. - ] 05:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::Perhaps you're right. And perhaps it should have been added earlier. Better late than never. (and I'll say that I don't necessarily have a lot of confidence in the governments of the area and their ability to have learned from Katrina, but I digress). ++]: ]/] 06:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::So we if we didn't do something in the past (rightly or wrongly), we can't do it going forward? I know that's not what you're saying but that's the practical effect. Shouldn't we decide if something's a good idea and then work out the application afterwards? Anyway, it seems like a good application of IAR, and it's been worked out so it's all good. ] (]) 06:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	It's a good principle. But sometimes exceptions are needed. This is one of those times. The harm to the encyclopedia from having this disclaimer for a day or 3 is slight. The harm if someone got hurt and it got into the media is immense. No brainer. All principles have exceptions. That's the real world. Deal. ++]: ]/] 05:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I'll compromise here. Lets make sure the template goes away after the disaster subsides. ] (]) 05:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	:: Back when it used to be a proper template, that was always the case. ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 05:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::NVS, 4 days from now (or whatever the right time is, it should be short, I agree) I'll baleet it out of there myself... This is a temporary thing only. ++]: ]/] 05:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	:The other option would be not to pretend to be posting "Current storm information" as if Wiki was providing the latest and greatest. Maybe Wiki shouldn't be a newspaper or public notice system? --] (]) 05:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	:: Which is not going to happen unless you intend to kill ] and break ]. Misplaced Pages has been ''lauded'' previously over our hurricane coverage, and even cited in government tropical cyclone coverage, so I don't think we're interested in changing that any time soon. ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 05:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::I myself find it interesting that there has only been interest in putting up this template as the storm hits the United States. I guess the human beings in Cuba, Haiti, Dominican, etc. just aren't as important? Perhaps the current hurricane template should have a link to the risk disclaimer, but putting up this red template only when a disaster happens to the USA looks very unpretty. &mdash;] <small>(] ])</small> 06:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::: Well, there is the perhaps relevant fact that Cuba, the Dominican Republic etc. are Spanish -speaking countries, Haiti is French-speaking, and we are the English Misplaced Pages. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]<sup>'''(] / ])</sup>'''</span> 06:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::But Jamaica and the Caymans are English-speaking. Eleven deaths have been reported so far in Jamaica. -- ] (]) 11:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Quite true. Perhaps the notice should be affixed to the article on Hanna now, as it seems to be aimed at the Bahamas. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]<sup>'''(] / ])</sup>'''</span> 19:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::: There's no ulterior motives here. We used to have it last year; only this year it got edited/redirected to the bland current version (which was being used, by the way), {{tl|current tropical cyclone}} due to the ambox change. As people remembered Katrina, they remembered how the red box, and asked for it back. ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 06:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Perhaps {{tl|current tropical cyclone}} should itself have a link to the risk disclaimer- maybe even highlighted in red. That way anybody in the path of a storm would be warned not to use Misplaced Pages for life-safety decisions and we wouldn't be in the position of having to judge when the people affected are "important" enough to warrant a red warning banner.&mdash;] <small>(] ])</small> 06:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::That box does include such a link, but we Americans are now in danger so it much be enormous and clearly visible. - ] ] 06:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::So... by that interpretation you're saying that we Americans are too dumb to heed the regular disclaimer used for the rest of the world? &mdash;] <small>(] ])</small> 06:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::Not to be making light of things, but speaking as an American myself, I'd say better safe than sorry to your question. That can be read many ways, I know. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 06:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::I do feel it's important for people to be reminded not to base life-safety decisions on our data, however things should be the same if the disaster hits Mexico or New Zealand as if it hits the United States. This red banner is a ], the proper course is to make the standard current disaster template a bit clearer about our standard disclaimers. &mdash;] <small>(] ])</small> 06:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::I agree, I'm not opposing this because of any guidelines, I'm opposing it because of the precedent it sets. Nobody bothered to respond to my question above, so I'll ask it again down here. And why only hurricanes? Do we do this for other events? Floods, tornadoes, blizzards, forest fires, riots, wars, chemical spills? At what point is a disaster significant enough to merit a warning? Do we put one up after an earthquake warning people there might be a tsunami? Why wait until there's a tornado warning, by then it may be too late, do we put up a warning for every severe thunderstorm watch? What strength of hurricane warrants a template? Do we put one up for a Category 1? A tropical depression? I normally agree with Lar, but I'm disappointed to see him simply dismissing all the opposition as based on formalities. <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 14:56, 1 September 2008 (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. ]&thinsp;] 21:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	(outdent)... I'm sorry if it seems like I was simply dismissing opposition, if I acted brusquely and more forcefully than I normally would. But I came to this discussion and what I saw was a lot of ''tomfoolery''. Sorry, but that's what it looked like to me, despite those pointing out that the stuff being shown was shown to bring forth counterexamples... sure, maybe they were, but they were also ''funny''. That to me suggests this matter wasn't being taken seriously. So I acted. That's what we are supposed to do, after all. Know when deliberation is needed, and know when quick action is needed, and know how to tell the difference. The subsequent discussion seems to show that the consensus, or at least a majority of voices, was in the end, OK with this temporary measure. (and it should be temporary!)
			{{abot}}
			== Please Help Me! ==
	Now, I think our general rule against specific disclaimers is good. But I think maybe for anything that is worthy of a "current event" tagging, we need a more '''bold''' pointer to that disclaimer, right at the top of the article, where it is seen by everyone visiting, rather than buried in fine print towards the bottom (It is on the very bottom line of the page, in small print, after other stirring reads like the Privacy Policy and the About Misplaced Pages prose... how many people coming to a site when they're in a hurry are going to read that??? NOT MANY.) So I think after this tempest in a teacup about this specific box blows over <small>(sorry!)</small>, we need to revisit the design of the current events box. Even if it just points to our general disclaimer, it's good to have that pointer ''at the top'' for current events. Tornadoes, fires, bridge collapses, earthquakes, hurricanes, wars, you name it. Anyone using Misplaced Pages for their first source for advice about hangnail cures is a fool. And the buried disclaimer is fine for them, they have time to regret their foolishness. But people in emergency situations, with not much time? They need a more clear reminder NOT TO TRUST this source for life and death info. What if the vandal who set the speed to 300+ mph for 20 min last night had set it to 15 mph and people made decisions based on that? Do you all standing on policy actually want that on your conscience? I don't. So let's work together to get that box changed while still hewing to our spirit.
			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)
	I apologise to anyone I gave offense to last night. It was not my intent, and I'm sorry. But I felt this was important enough to override some of the norms I usually go by. Heck I even reverted something... once. That's pretty shocking behaviour for me! ++]: ]/] 17:05, 1 September 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)
	:''"...sure, maybe they were, but they were also ''funny''. That to me suggests this matter wasn't being taken seriously."'' - skip on a bit - ''"So I think after this tempest in a teacup about this specific box blows over <small>(sorry!)</small>..."''. I hope that my point is clear enough. ]] 09:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
			== BAG nomination ==
	===Actual disaster warning box===
	<-- Whats the actual "live disaster" template? I didn't know we had one? <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 06:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	:{{tl|Current disaster}}&mdash;] <small>(] ])</small> 07:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Heck, this is all silly then. Just to mock it up quick I flipped that to be the speedy type graphically instead of the notice type, and changed the image, to make this:
			Hi! I have nominated myself for ] membership. Your comments would be appreciated on the ]. Thanks! – ] <small>(])</small> 14:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	<center>{{Current disaster}}
	<BR></center>
	::Isn't that better? <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 07:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
			== I need help from an admin - Urgent ==
	:::Much better, thank you. Anyone object to its use on the article now? &mdash;] <small>(] ])</small> 07:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
			{{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.
	<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': ''Editors considering ] are advised to seek advice and information from medical professionals and/or horticulturalists prior to attempting to do so. Information on Misplaced Pages may not be applicable to your nostrils or the type of beans you may have in your pantry. '''Do not decide whether or not to shove foodstuffs in your bodily orifices based on Misplaced Pages information.''' ''
	</div>
	Had to be said... <b><font color="FF6600">]</font> <sub><font color="black">]</font></sub> <font color="FF6600">is geared up for football season</font></b> 08:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Now you tell me... ] (]) 08:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Um... you may wish to link ], unless you enjoy resolving ]/] issues (I know I do!) ] (]) 10:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
			Many thanks,
	What do you think of this? http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Current_tropical_cyclone&oldid=236230043 {{Current disaster|name={{{1}}}|event={{{2|tropical cyclone}}}|notes={{red|'''Do not decide whether to leave your house, shelter, or vehicle based on Misplaced Pages information.'''}}|red=yes}}
	--] (]) 13:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)		Mohammed ] (]) 17:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I like it. Looks pretty similar to what ] puts on severe weather outbreak articles (and I'm blanking on the template name there). ] (]) 12:08, 6 September 2008 (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 ==
	<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': ''Editors seeking '''medical advice''' on Misplaced Pages are advised to remember the old saying,<br> '''"He who doctors himself has a fool for a patient."'''''</div>
			{{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:
	] <sup>'']''</sup> 03:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
			{{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 ==
	: '''Note:''' ] ], <small>]</small> 16:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
			{{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…'' ]&thinsp;] 04:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	* This issue has been brought up at village pum p before (by me), and the overwhelming consensus is that disclaimer templates are not to be used. Medical advice, emergency evacuation advice, legal advice, etc. should be quickly removed from any article, and all article content should be clearly attributed to a third-party source. So we just do not need a template that says our advice may be wrong,,, we just don;t give advice. We say "The Governor said on Thursday: Get out now", and we do not need to say "Warning today might not be thursday, and that governor may not be your governor..." The general disclaimer covers us legally, and responsible editing (refraining from giving advice, attribution to third parties) covers us morally. Just ] to tags and templates. <font face="century gothic" color="#eeff00">''']''' </font><small>] ¤ ]</small> 16:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
			::@] here is another CFA imposter for you. Cheers! ]&thinsp;] 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 ==
	== Still at it? ==
			{{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)
	See , regarding a user who was blocked for Incivility and wilful disruption, and then unblocked with a promise to behave. Several of his edits since the unblock have been problematic, as discussed above. The following series of edits are disturbing in that regard: , adds ref to WP article. Another user leaves him a explaining that Misplaced Pages articles cannot be used as sources for other Misplaced Pages articles. , restores removal of inappropriate source. , restores again, with the edit summary "oh yes I can."
			:{{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">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 06:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	Now, while I ''think'' this user wants to contribute usefully, I also think that he's been given an awful lot of slack, and I'm wondering whether it may be time for another block. ] (]) 21:45, 2 September 2008 (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. ] 06:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:1 week block, and a suggestion they re-examine the way in which they are interacting with other contributors. As usual, I am not so wedded to my actions to need notifying that they may be overturned - but I would hope any unblocking admin ensures they understand that a resumption of the previous mannerisms will not be tolerated. ] (]) 22:05, 2 September 2008 (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. &spades;]&spades; ] 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">&#91;]]</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 ==
	So the record's complete, we have two edits from this morning illustrating a similar attitude. Specifically, after being asked not to, he's re-adding links to myspace and imdb that's the same ''name'' as the article's subject but different ''people'', and to a mirror page. ] (]/]) 22:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop
	:Sometimes I think he is trying to contribute usefully and is simply incompetent; at other times I think he's being intentionally disruptive. His behavior at ] has been exceedingly bizarre from first to last—especially when he started readding the MySpace link after admitting in the ] that he was mistaken in identifying the article's subject with two other women. And it's hard to know what to think about (note the article's topic). ] (]) 04:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
			| result = Warned, then sockblocked. <small>(])</small> ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 21:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Oh, and does anyone other than me find his (after some messing about in his user space) kind of suspicious? ] (]) 04:20, 3 September 2008 (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)
	::Note his unblock request reason: "The reason I find it difficult to be civil is because of the fact I have aspergers. I recommend you read the article on it." This screams troll. As an aside, on his talk page he claims to occasionally use , but he has only used it once, and not since the block. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find he's got a bunch of socks either. ] (]) 16:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== G7 request by a blocked account ==
	: Aspergers my Irish Ass!! Aspergers Syndrome is a high functioning form of Autism where the person who has it cannot understand word play, speak in literal terms only and usually are not capable of lying.
			{{atop|1=G7'd. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	I'm thinking '''troll''' here.
			Can an admin take a look at ]? It appears to be a "]" request for ]. -- ] (]) 01:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	<span style="font-family:Gill Sans MT">]]</span> 11:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
	::...er, Kosh? You might want to do a bit more research on ] before making that sort of claim. (I speak from personal experience; I've been recently diagnosed with it, and I love wordplay and am an accomplished liar when it comes to convincing the boss to give me a day off.) More accurately, it's something related to autism that may or may not be a form of high-functioning autism (the jury's still out on that one), and is characterized by severe difficulty with social interactions.
	::That said, it still sounds pretty troll-ish to me; I've yet to encounter an HFA or Asperger's person who simply uses it as an excuse for being uncivil to people instead of warning that they just may not be very good at civility. ] (]) 12:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			:Qualifies for G7. Deleted by me. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 02:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Long-standing attack articles ==
			{{abot}}
			== Sapo.pt ==
	*{{la|Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (commentator)}}
			*{{articlelinks|Sapo.pt}}
	*{{la|Criticism of George W. Bush}}
			Could an admin undelete that redirect? Thanks ] (]) 08:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	*{{la|Criticism of Hugo Chávez}}
			:{{done}} ] <sub>]</sub> 08:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	*{{la|Criticism of Noam Chomsky}}
	*{{la|Criticism of Sylvia Browne}}
	*{{la|Criticism of Tony Blair}}
	*{{la|Criticism of Traian Băsescu}}
	*{{la|Criticism of Vladimir Putin}}
			== Proxy question ==
	Just pretend I'm stupid and explain to me really slowly why the articles listed above don't fall under criterion ] for speedy deletion. At first I thought, "Surely ''criticism'' is being used in the sense of ''analysis and commentary''". But no, these really are just lists of negative stuff that people have said about these people. Needless to say, there are no matching ''Praise for ...'' or ''Agreement with ...'' articles.
			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)
	The only thing stopping me deleting these is that I have enough sense to know what a storm this would create but, after thinking about it for the past couple of weeks, this increasingly seems a cowardly excuse. ] (]) 14:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
			:You can report IPs that you suspect of being proxies at ]. ] (]/]) 21:00, 20 January 2025 (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">&#91;]]</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.}} ] &#124; ] 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">&#91;]]</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 ==
	:That's not a "cowardly excuse", it's a recognition of the nature of the project. If you did something that you '''''know''''' is going to be disruptive, without taking steps to minimize the disruption by obtaining a consensus for the action, that's tantamount to being disruptive yourself. I think you did the right thing by holding off and posting your request here. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]<sup>'''(] / ])</sup>'''</span> 14:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
	*(ec)Because criticism of these figures in mainstream sources is widespread and of encyclopedic concern. Also, because treating that criticism appropriately requires (sometimes) that we split out a section from the main article. An "attack page" is a page that serves only to defame the subject. In this case, these pages serve to give a tertiary look at criticism which already exists. They do have the added unpleasant outcome of being harder to maintain NPOV than the main articles (partly because they don't see the same amount of traffic and partly because their "baseline" POV is a little slanted). But they should certainly not be speedied. ] (]) 14:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I would be fine with, for example, ] or somesuch. The trouble is that most of the above receive a good deal of equally verifiable praise in equally reliable sources yet this is barely represented - making our coverage of these people unbalanced. ] (]) 14:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::The reason they are not called ''Commentary'' rather than criticism is that the NPOV tendency would be to "balance" the negative criticism with positive adulation... which is frequently even less analytically based than the negative stuff (and far less common, which ironically leads to a bias upon sources if they are presented "equally"). While positive criticism can be appropriately placed within an article with ''criticism'' in the title, the nature of the beast dictates that most content will be negative. ] (]) 15:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::We also have {{la|Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt}}, {{la|Criticism of Ellen White}}, {{la|Criticism of Jesus}} and {{la|Criticism of Muhammad}}. Criticism in a sense includes positive criticism, so it's possible to include them as well. <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">]]</span></strong> 15:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I realize we also have those articles but I singled out the ones for living people, for obvious reasons. Also, you are correct that "Criticism" can include positive criticism - but in the articles in question it patently does not. For example, this is the lede for ]:
	::::::''Criticism of '''Tony Blair''' includes accusations of dishonesty, authoritarianism, and subservience in his relationship with U.S. President George W. Bush. Tony Blair has faced particularly severe condemnation for British involvement in the Iraq War, earning him the disparaging moniker of "Bush's Poodle."''
	:::::] (]) 16:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Preface the above with ''"Negative"'', and tag ''"Positive criticism includes..."'' with a couple of examples from the main body would result in a NPOV and comprehensive lede (why do we spell it like that?) Ho, you should have seen the barrage of negative criticism that socialist Prime Ministers used to get - often from fractions within their own party! ] (]) 16:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::{Sidebar) The spelling "lede" for the leading sentence, paragraph or section is a journalistic invention designed to differentiate it from "lead", as in the hot lead used to make type. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]<sup>'''(] / ])</sup>'''</span> 18:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
	::These are all public figures. The normal BLP policies cover this. Public figures can't sue for slander. If the comments/criticisms are not original research, but are cited from reliable and verifiable sources, and there are no personal attacks, the articles should remain. We have to remember that criticisms of Bill Clinton and criticism of Barack Obama are fair game also. As long as we allow fair, cited, verifiable content for any public figure, regardless of their political affiliation, we are being Neutral. For instance the following would be allowable, "Bill Clinton was impeached by the Senate on December 19th, 1998 for among other things, perjuring himself when he denied having "sexual relations" with White House intern Monica Lewinsky." What should not be allowed would be things like "Bill Clinton Will Remain the Worst President Ever" Clearly no one like to hear people criticism a political figure that they have supported. But essential to the political process is free speech that allows our system to correct for problems. Political speech is the highest and most respected form of free speech. ] (]) 18:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
	::: Public figures can sue for defamation, and most of these are forks to deal with bloated criticism sections into which every single tine adverse comment is obsessively added by those who have an agenda against the subjects. ] does not get shelved for public figures. Having them renamed to "discussion" or some such title, which is less readily misunderstood by those who fail to see the difference between critique and censorious criticism, would be a good idea I feel. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
	::: Right, BLP does not get shelved, which is why I said the BLP has a policy for public figures. We should apply it, and adapt it as needed. I personally don't see the difference between calling the article "criticism of..." and "discussion of...". The content would be critical in nature, and allowed if it is cited, verifiable and from a reliable source, and not allowed otherwise. If it is criticism, let's call it that. By allowing people who are extremely critical to have a place to put it (but still following ]), it gives a safety valve that should keep some of that out of the primary article. ] (]) 23:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
	A "Criticism" article must still remain NPOV and balanced, within its narrow topic. I've preferred the less negative term "Controversy." And then what is notably but controversially asserted about the topic is reported, neutrally, and with attempts to balance it with ''specific'' fact or assertions. For example, if a critical comment was that a figure had allegedly embezzled funds, court or other findings or public commentary on that specific point would be apposited with it, so that the reader may make a judgment. Such a format may consist of a list of criticisms, since that is a convenient way to organize it; it's important to find consensus among those who criticise and those who support as to what is really out there in reliable source. Because criticism is sometimes directly verifiable and usable, if from a notable source or recognized expert, sometimes blogs and other sources normally rejected can be used, subject to the policy of ]; often this would be where the "positive" material would come from. --] (]) 14:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Pardon my ignorance but these pages seem to be large POV forks. People got sick of being denied the privillage of posting negative POV information on the standard BLP's and have simply created articles under the guise of notable media reaction.. when in fact if it was notable enough it should stand on it's own two feet in the namesake's main article. --] (]) 04:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::"Criticism of" articles are inherently POV. It's almost as if we're including an implicit comment in the intros of these articles that says "The following is a list of negative things people have said about this subject". These articles make no more sense than an article called ]. While important criticisms do have their place, creating separate "for" or "against" articles is antithetical to our goal of creating an NPOV encyclopedia. Perhaps if we decide opinions/commentary should have their own article (that is an entirely different debate), they should all be united in something like ]. Or perhaps use "criticism" in a more general way, as in the way the term is used in the phrase "art criticism" in that it includes general independent commentary in addition to any positive/negative comments. Not everything is black-and-white, but this is the kind of thinking that this type of article structure encourages. It is absurd to me that we have this type of structure here when it should be clear to anyone that this is so blatantly against one of our core policies. Did I miss the memo that says we're supposed to overlook this POV nonsense? ] (]) 05:10, 7 September 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)
	== Newyorkbrad checkuser access ==
			: 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 ==
	Arbitrator {{user|Newyorkbrad}} has requested and been approved for Checkuser access. This is in order to allow him to more fully review Committee cases, and does not impact on the current Checkuser appointment process.
			{{atop | result = Stray page deleted <small>(])</small> ] (]) 14:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC) }}
	]&nbsp;<sup><span style="font-style:italic">(]&nbsp;|&nbsp;])</span></sup> 01:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
			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)
	:I thought all arbs had CU privileges? -- ] <sup>]</sup> 12:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
	::It is given on request, some arbs opt not to request it. NYB had not requested it until now. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 12:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)		:{{done}} I've deleted it (G2, "test page" seemed close enough). - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Ok, thanks for the clarification :) -- ] <sup>]</sup> 12:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)		::Thank you {{u|The Bushranger}}. -- ] (]) 08:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	::::All arbitrators automatically receive Oversight access, but not Checkuser. I had not previously requested Checkuser because I don't have the technical background needed to do sophisticated checking. However, I've decided that access to the database and the checkusers' mailing list will be helpful to me in connection with arbitration cases and related matters. I thank my colleagues on the committee for their approval of my having this access. ] (]) 15:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Just a ''minor'' correction. As with the case of CheckUser, the oversight access is ''not'' automatic. -- ] / <small>]</small> 17:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			== ] closures ==
	== Automatic AFD closing script ==
			{{Userlinks|2601AC47}} {{Pagelinks|Deb Matthews}} {{Pagelinks|Ministry of Education (Ontario)}}
	As I noted ], I've been working on an automatic AFD closer script. Instructions and usage notes are at ]. Direct any bugs/feature requests/comments to my talk page. <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 02:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Yeays!! This ''rocks'' most seriously. Add a "relist" button and you have made me (and, I'm guessing a lot of other editors) happy! &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 02:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Wicked awesome. Once you get the relist function working I can start using it to clean up the notorious backlog. :) ] (]) 03:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
			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.
	A day late and a dollar short, at the request of ], I just updated the old ] to support non-admin closure. -- ] (]) 07:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
	:] is absolutely incredible - many thanks to {{user|Mr.Z-man}}. Someone should buy him a round of ]s. ''']''' (]) 08:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
	::In lieu of that I've given him a barnstar. ] (]) 10:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Omai, I'm utterly impressed, good work —— ] • ] 11:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Holy... that's awesome! Second the barnstar - excellent work! ] <small>]</small> 16:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
			I have discussed with the user on ]. The user refused to change the summaries. ] (]) 19:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	I '''LOVE''' it. So much easier to use than the old one, and works like a gem in FF3 on my Mac. <font face="Verdana"><font color="Blue">]</font></font> 05:26, 6 September 2008 (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. ] (]/]) 19:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Relisting added - you may need to ] of the script to get the newest version. <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 17:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			::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">&#91;]]</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. ]&thinsp;] 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. ]&nbsp;] 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 ]. ]&thinsp;] 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. ]&thinsp;] 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">&#91;]]</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? ]&thinsp;] 18:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::@] -- I know this will astonish you, but... surprise, surprise, they could only retire for almost exactly 24 hours. ]&thinsp;] 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. ]&thinsp;] 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===
	== {{template|Support}} {{template|Oppose}} ==
			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)
	Hi, Is there any reason not to have templates for ]&nbsp;'''Support''' and ]&nbsp;'''Oppose'''? I really struggle to accept the 'server load' argument that seemed to dominate the ]. Regards, ] 12:56, 5 September 2008 (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 ] situation. ]&thinsp;] 20:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	:They have them on lots of other projects. I'm sure someone will soon complain about voting, but I don't see the harm unless someone can prove there is a technical science/server reason not to. They were deleted by an ancient and probably not valid consensus from 3+ years ago: I'd say its overdue for review. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 13:07, 5 September 2008 (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 was a valid consensus at the time. But I suspect that attitudes have changed. I should probably be taking this to ] but I just thought I'd solicit some opinions here first. Thanks, ] 13:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::One of the main reasons was because it encourages the notion that we're voting on issues, when we're really trying to develop a consensus. ] (]) 13:27, 5 September 2008 (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. ]&thinsp;] 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. ]&thinsp;] 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? ==
			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?
	Please explain how these might enhance debates and discussions on wikipedia? You ask "is there any reason not to have..?" can I ask "is there any reason to have.."". This is a genuine and not a polemical question.--] (]) 13:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
			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)
	:::(ec) Consistency with other wikis; it's annoying to type {{template|support}} and have to change it to '''support'''. Also ease of vote counting. There are decisions made here that look like votes but aren't (AFD, for eg). But there are things that genuinely are votes. Maybe a compromise would be to have the templates there, minus the symbols. Personally, I like the added colour, but I understand that there are people who don't. Regards, ] 13:37, 5 September 2008 (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. ] 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 ] ¶&nbsp;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">&#91;]]</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)
	Presumably, looking over a discussion with those templates makes it easier to read, especially if we don't split into support and oppose sections. &mdash; ''']'''&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;'']'' 13:31, 5 September 2008 (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)
	:"Easier to read"? Methinks, you mean "easier to count". Can't see how it helps me read the actual discussion.--] (]) 13:34, 5 September 2008 (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. ] (]) 18:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Delete''' and block {{np|BasselHarfouch}} site-wide for continued violations. --] (]) 19:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Also easier to read selectively. Suppose one is closing an ], has made a decision, and wants to be sure that all the opposing arguments have been dealt with. Symbols make that easier to do. Cheers, ] 14:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
			== Archive bots ==
	Fun to have, but ultimately detrimental. We have enough knee-jerk supports and opposes breaking our processes without providing a set of templates to encourage more. ➨ <font color="red">❝''']'''❞</font> ] 13:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop
	:Agree with Redvers. Don't see a benefit for it (just my opinion). -- ]<sup>]</sup> 13:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
			| result = This is not an issue that requires administrative attention. ] (]/]) 23:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
			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)
	Er - do the little plus and minus symbols really impact how people participate? I see plenty of '''Support''' and '''Oppose''' comments without detailed rationales, is there is any reason to think we'd see a storm of such comments if we enable the templates? ]] 13:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
			:{{u|TonyTheTiger}}. Maybe you are thinking of ]? –] <small>(])</small> 09:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::If people from other projects are having issues I probably wouldn't be opposed to a template being created that consists of:
			{{abot}}
	<pre>
	'''Support'''
	</pre>
	:::that wouldn't change much from what people do anyway. –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 13:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
			== Note of caution on attacks on Misplaced Pages's neutrality. ==
	*I have to say I like the look of them and the general idea behind them but, I think they may actually make things harder to read/understand if abbused in the same manner as <nowiki>'''support'''/'''oppose'''/'''keep'''/'''delete'''/'''don't delete'''</nowiki>/etc are at the moment. ] (]) 14:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
			{{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)}}
	::There was a DRV not too long ago for them, and consensus there was still pretty clearly that we don't want them (but that they're kosher in userspace, so feel free to steal my versions at ], ], and ]). I'll go dig up the link. <font color="green">]</font>] 15:25, 5 September 2008 (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&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
	::Link is ]. Cheers. <font color="green">]</font>] 15:32, 5 September 2008 (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? ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	::: If someone with templatre Clue can code it so that there is an argument |''reason'', and if it's missing then the !vote is not bolded and a comment "(no rationale is given for this comment)" then I think it would add some value. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:27, 5 September 2008 (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 &#124; ] &#124; ] 00:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::: Try ]. For eg:
			:::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&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 00:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
	::::* <nowiki>{{User:Ben Aveling/support}}</nowiki> gives {{User:Ben Aveling/support}}
			::::If the US decides to strip WMF's status then, a total and global outrage might happen. ] (]) 00:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::* <nowiki>{{User:Ben Aveling/support|Reason being...}}</nowiki> gives {{User:Ben Aveling/support|Reason being...}}.
			:::{{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)
	:::: The equivalent templates for Oppose, Neutral and Question can be created once the inevitable bugs are worked out. Regards, ] 06:34, 7 September 2008 (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 ==
	:::::No further comments? I guess that means that there is consensus that templates without icons, as per the example, would be OK? Absent further comments or objections, I'll take this to DRV tomorrow. Thanks, ] 09:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
			{{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)
	== ] ==
			{{abot}}
			== Disruptive editor ==
	] continues with disruptive behavior and edition war in ] and other topics. It is the same in Portuguese Misplaced Pages.
			{{atop
			| result = ]. Level 2 warning issued. ] (]/]) 00:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	Take a look.
			}}
	--] (]) 00:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	----
	] insists in disruptive behavior and edition war in ] article.
	He does not want that tags placed in the text or to provide reliable sources to controversial facts.
	The same ] has a long history of disruptive behavior in Portuguese Misplaced Pages. He is not fit to group work, is renowned for insulting everyone that has a different opinion and does not seem to have a good knowledge of any field that he pretends to contribute.
	--] (]) 01:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Bizarre block ==
	{{discussion top}}'''Resolved'''. Looks like just a mistake based on a simple misunderstanding or misinterpretation of ] processes, there's no crisis or ongoing problem, closing thread. ] <small>]</small> 05:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	*Note: Please don't inform the stewards of this thread. They've heard already, thanks. ] (]) 01:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	On the basis of this 'warning': ]
	:Please do not leave messages on the talk pages of IP addresses. Many IP addresses are public computers used by many people, and a warning against vandolism is pointless as it will never be read by the vandal. Moreover, all you accomplish is to create a new talk page for a user who does not really exist. I know you meant well but it was a mistake, just do not do it again. ] | ] 00:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	i.e. THEN WHO WAS PHONE was warning IP vandals, ] blocked THEN WHO WAS PHONE for 15 minutes. This seems completely bizarre to me. ] (]) 01:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::This is bizarre, and seems to go entirely against common sense. Every IP vandal had to make their first edit at one time or another, and putting a warning on their talk page helps to establish the record of their activity (and warnings) in case it is needed in the future. What policy does this go against, exactly? <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]<sup>'''(] / ])</sup>'''</span> 01:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Agreed. Blocking is completely inappropriate for the perfectly normal process of issuing warnings to IP vandals; if we don't issue warnings, we shouldn't block. Bizarre. --]] 01:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:This is an entirely improper block, and Slrubenstein should resign his adminship. How else is any IP who repeatedly commits vandalism supposed to get through the warning tree before they can be listed at ]? There are so many things I want to say in outrage that I've redacted here. Gaaaahhhh. <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 01:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:A very unhelpful and disruptive block. The notion that an editor could be blocked for leaving warnings on IP talk pages is unsettling. Moreover, many IP editors ''do'' read their talk pages and answer notes left on them. ] (]) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	Slrubenstein just placed the same warning at ]. <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 01:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:And to ]. <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 01:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	*I feel like every week I say "that's the worst block I've ever seen", but wow. Awful. Anybody mind if I note in his block log that the previous block was not supported by policy? - ] ] 01:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Please do, I had the same thought. ] (]) 01:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Done. Unfortunately, somebody needs to counsel Slrubenstein. See the message he/she left on my talk page. Wow. - ] ] 01:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	'''Comment''' - I have engaged ] via talk page, and several have piled on, and of course there is this thread. Let's try to keep the discourse to policy and away from statements which can cause tempers to flare quickly. We've had enough wheel-warring for one week (at least), and that's coming from someone old enough to remember what "wheel" originally was - like my age has anything to do with it :-)
	I think we can mostly agree that the warnings regarding editors who place warnings IP vandal talk pages are not in keeping with common practice, and that blocking an editor who does so is even ''less'' in keeping with common practice. We've alerted the admin in question...let's see what happens from here. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">]&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;]</span></small> 01:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Agree. <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">]]</span></strong> 01:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Fine by me. I have to agree this was a bad play. I warn IPs all the time, because if they're vandalizing *right now* then they get the message and hopefully stop. That's how I was taught to do it, and that's really the right way to do it. ] <small>]</small> 01:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	I think a block and emergency desysoping should be considered - I can't believe any admin would do something like this, which suggests the account may have been compromised or the admin is acting in bad faith. --] (]) 01:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I thought of that, and I'm sure we're not the first to think of it. However, this is a long-time editor whose granting of admin rights doesn't even appear in the user rights log, and there isn't really anything unusual to be seen in the pattern of contributions of this editor. I'm certain there are a dozen people watching very closely; we can request more drastic steps when necessary - but I don't think that is required now. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">]&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;]</span></small> 01:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	*Another problem seems to be that Slrubenstein is targeting and deleting IP talk pages where {{user|THEN WHO WAS PHONE?}} has left warnings. That's not good. - ] ] 01:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	I left a link to this discussion on Slrubenstein's Talk page, but instead of responding here, he's only dealing with people on his Talk page. His most recent edit on this subject: indicates that he has no interest in actually stopping this bizarre behavior. <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 01:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Oh, my god. In that case, this seems to be a either a compromised account or worse. Should I put in an emergency desysop request on Meta? (actually, where do you do that?) ]]] 01:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	(ec)It would appear {{admin|Slrubenstein}} either has an incredibly bad misunderstanding of official policy in regards to ], or this account has been hijacked. Either way, the safety of the project looks to be in danger and we should move accordingly. --] (]) 01:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I agree that it's possible the account is compromised. Either way, this kind of violation of policy/common sense from somebody with admin tools calls for desysoping. ]<sup>]</sup>] 01:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:You think this block is bad? See ]. Outrageous. ] (]) 01:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Heh, then contact a CU to see if it's compromised. But it may very well be a misunderstanding. Don't go summon the dragon yet. <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">]]</span></strong> 01:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::The account has not been compromised, it's just an admin with a poor understanding of policy (to put it mildly). Back in February, Slrubenstein delete several talk pages where an editor left warnings for IP users. Tonight, he/she deleted another 10, where {{user|THEN WHO WAS PHONE?}} left warnings. - ] ] 01:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:: In any case, bureaucrats can't remove sysop access. ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 01:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	(cross posted from user page)
	'''Please, folks''' - calm down. Slrubenstein has been engaged, and please note that none of the behavior in question has occurred since it was . We are poking at a sore wound right now, and that is '''not''' going to help. If Slrubenstein begins taking actions again that are against policy, we can deal with it then, but there is no point in continuing to discuss it at this point. The behavior has - at least for the moment - stopped. Let's leave it alone for now. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">]&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;]</span></small> 01:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I concur, there is '''no emergency'''. Calm down all. <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">]]</span></strong> 02:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::<s>I'm glad that admins blocking other admins for stupid reasons is so commonplace as for you to retain your composure....</s> (striked since TWWP is not an admin, much to my surprise) --]] 02:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::After I read more about this situation, it really does not appear that his account is compromised. And although I agree this isn't exactly an emergency, I still would support removal of the tools if he really plans to continue these actions as an administrator. ]<sup>]</sup>] 02:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	Rubenstein does have a point regarding the difficulty of meaningfully communicating with shared- and/or dynamic-IP users (not that warning templates are meaningful communication, mind you), However they are obviously not within the going definition of "nonsense pages" and this is a very stupid block, and I can only hope PHONE-guy doesn't take it personally. — ] 02:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Comment'''. This was a bad block, no doubt about it. But let's get one thing straight, while it's come up--Corvus comix and others have stated a couple of times that warning an IP before a block is ''required'': that is not true and never has been. ] means of course that warnings must be given before a block if there's a reasonable chance of a person changing their behavior, but in cases where there is no such chance (such as renewal of a previous pattern of vandalism on a new IP), blocking on sight is not a problem. That doesn't mean that Slrubenstein is ''right'' here, it just means that the extreme opposite point of view is not right either. ] 02:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	Admin ] has been engaged on this subject , , , and elsewhere. What seems ] from Slrubenstein appears . Activity has stopped, and clearly a number of editors below will be watching. It does not appear there is any compromise or need for panic, and if it turns out that such is the case, we can panic ''later''. Otherwise, nothing to see here (anymore). <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">]&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;]</span></small> 02:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	===HOLD ON a second===
	Why are we discussing meta-wikipedia viewpoints when an admin is pulling this shit? Maybe I'm the last person who things that BLOCKS ARE NOT SMALL THINGS. They are HUGE. I've been blocked once and I still regret it 3 years later. Someone tell me I'm freaking crazy, cause I sure feel like it. --]] 02:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Ok, you're freaking crazy. (hey, you asked for it!)Seriously, though, can we cut it out with the over-reactions and the RANDOM CAPS? Things are happening. The wheels of justice grind slow, but they can grind mighty fine. ] (]) 02:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	=== Thread closure ===
	I'll note that there are two editors attempting to mute discussion. I will not revert another closure, but it is disruptive. ] (]) 03:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	I will also note that topics can change in any given thread, however, templates tend to disrupt the normal discussion flow. Off topic (or change-topic) discussion is not a good reason to add these templates. ] (]) 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:If I may, I wasn't concerned about a compromised account, I was concerned because putting a warning on an empty IP talk page is something I do as a matter of course numerous times almost every day, and I don't want to get blocked! I'm glad to see that most folks here seem to agree that this admin's take on it is not normative. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]<sup>'''(] / ])</sup>'''</span> 03:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:For my own part, I reject the characterization of closing the discussion as attempting to mute it. The point of this thread was to discuss the specific warning and block actions of a specific administrator. That issue has been resolved and deserves to be listed as such. If there is subsequent <s>wikidrama</s> debate about what the exact correct procedures are or should be (good luck with that), even if it was sparked by this thread, that doesn't change the fact that it is peripheral and doesn't belong as part of this thread. This one deserves to be closed as resolved simply for the sake of organization. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">]&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;]</span></small> 03:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:The admin in question has agreed to stop these actions, so I think the matter is closed unless he decides to try and change the policy, but that wouldn't happen here anyway. I think this thread can be closed for good now. --] (]) 04:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	{{discussion bottom}}
	=== Response to Chick Bowen's comments in the section above ===
	Please read ]:
	:Important! – your report must follow these three points:
	::1. The edits of the user you are reporting must be considered vandalism.
	::2. Unregistered users must be active now.
	::3. '''The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop'''.
	If I (or anybody else who is not an admin and is reporting vandalism at ]) list a currently-vandalizing user on ], if they have ''not'' been given the sufficient number of warnings, the listing is '''''always''''' removed with no action being taken. <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 02:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:That applies to AIV. In any case, AIV is not a policy page. ] does not specify that warning is necessary. Once again, if there is evidence that a new IP is actually a returning disruptor with a new IP, there is no need for a warning, nor is one routinely given. I'm just describing current practice here--I'm not stating an opinion or, really, anything new. ] 03:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::So how do I get a new IP blocked without going through the warning tree? Post it here or on ANI? You get told "take it to AIV". If I take to AIV without going through the warning tree, the listing gets deleted. Should I admin canvass? <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 03:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::ANI is usually best for the clear-cut stuff--our friends who like to put filthy pictures into prominent articles, that sort of thing. I admit I haven't worked on AIV for quite a long time, but I believe the idea there is that for ordinary schoolboy vandalism the warnings should be gone through. ] 03:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Now I am thoroughly confused. You yourself said above ''Corvus comix and others have stated a couple of times that warning an IP before a block is required: that is not true and never has been''. Now you tell me that I do have to go through the warnings. I think I'll just continue what I've been doing, since to do anything else will just cause me too much frustration when my listings at AIV get removed without the vandals being dealt with. <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 03:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Here is my perspective as an admin who has processed AIV reports nearly every day for the past nine months ... ]'s statement that "efforts should be made to educate the user about our policies and guidelines" meshes nicely with both ] and ]. When it comes to unregistered users, ''if we do not warn them that their vandalism will not be tolerated, how will they ever learn otherwise?'' In my experience, a very large fraction of anonymous users receiving talk page warnings quit vandalizing after their first or second warnings. Since most of these "experimenting" vandals are scared off by the warnings issued by our dedicated vandal patrollers ... Slrubenstein`s idea that only admins should deal with these IP users (and only via blocks!) is laughable at best. As if admins are not already busy enough (to say nothing of the fact that is would idle one of our most powerful anti-vandalism tools: our corps of patrollers)! --] (]) 04:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Let me just add that as far as I am concerned, there is far too much assumption of bad faith on AIV that the people listing vandals are the bad guys, and that the vandals themselves are just misunderstood. <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 03:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I suspect that's true. ] 03:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	: Corvus, that's not quite true. Whilst I'm less likely to block an IP that hasn't been warned completely, if I look at the contribs and see that it's clearly an IP on a vandalism spree and isn't likely to contribute positively any time soon, then I'll block anyway . However, what I won't do is block if an account is insufficiently warned and appears to be a clueless newbie editor or content dispute (in fact sometimes I won't block these even if they have 4ims). I know a number of other admins work like this too.
	:Whilst 90%+ of reporters on AIV are good, there are always people, especially those with semi-automated tools, who are too quick to judge things as vandalism. For example, I have seen reports for people "vandalising" the sandbox, or their own user pages, and once for someone who put "I f*cked up that last edit" in an <i>edit summary</i>. A lot of AIV reports could be prevented by instead of a massive automated boilerplate on their talkpage, just a "Hi there - it's probably a good idea if....". Just my thoughts. <b>]</b> 12:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	Why does Kralizek misrepresent me? She writes, "Slrubenstein`s idea that only admins should deal with these IP users (and only via blocks!) is laughable at best." which not only sounds snide, insulting, and an attempt to bait me, it is just not true., Nowhere have I ever written that onlhy admins should deal with IP users, and only via vlocks. In fact, my position is the opposite. I have stated that when the vandalism is of the juvinile sort, and is a case of one or a few edits ove a very short period of time from a public, shared adress, editors 9any editor) should just revert the vandalism. Please tell me where I said only admins should do this, and only via blocks. If I expressed myself unclearly or incorrectly I will apologize immediately. Otherwise apologize for lying about what I wrote. ] | ] 14:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Bad-faith accusations of me being insulting or lying ring rather hollow as we can all readily see the proof in your edit history:
	**At 19:24 you said to ''THEN WHO WAS PHONE?'', "Please do not leave messages on the talk pages of IP addresses. Many IP addresses are public computers used by many people, and a warning against vandalism is pointless as it will never be read by the vandal. Moreover, all you accomplish is to create a new talk page for a user who does not really exist." Note that you made zero distinction between static, shared, or public IP addresses in your instructions to this editor.
	**Then 56 minutes later, you said on your own talk page, "If it is an obvious case of vandalism, and it is a shared address, an admin can block the address for six or twelve or twenty-four hours without giving a warning."
	:Taken together, it appears that you pretty clearly told a vandal fighter to stop warning IPs and that admins should just block the vandals without ever trying to educate them. I am sorry if this is not what you were meaning, but all we have to go on is the face value of what you wrote, and what you wrote is dangerously out of step with current guidelines, policies, and community consensus. While I have the utmost respect for your long history of contributions to the project, I suspect that your dated understanding of our guidelines and policies means that you would have great difficulty passing a modern RfA. (And for reference, my username is ''Kralize'''c!''''' and I am a "he" - and have the wife and three kids to prove it!) --] (]) 22:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	Thank you for explaining, I appreciate the chance to clear up the misunderstanding. I fear you took two statements out of context. The first statement was indeed a criticism of the creation of new pages for IP addresses. But I did not say that non-admins should not deal with vandals. In fact, I have on several occasions applauded PHONE and others' vigilent reversion of vandalism. That is a way of dealing with vandals that is necessary, tedious, and valuable and I am grateful to any editor who does it, and I certainly do not think that one has to be an admin to do this.
	The second comment was a direct response to another editor who claimed that policy required that one provide a warning before blocking. I quoted the policy that stated that one need not provide a warning before blocking a vandal. That was my only point: that the editor criticizing me was misquoting policy. Note: the issue has to do solely with whether a warning is required prior to a block (and policy explicitly says not always). The issue did ''not'' have to do withe whether only admins can block vandals, or whether all editors can block vandals. I simply did not address this particular issue. Now, Misplaced Pages may have a policy that only admins can block, and if you do not like that policy you can propose to change it. But I di dnot create that policy, and nothing I wrote was a defense of the policy. The conversation at that time was not over whether admins or non-admins could block, it was whether Misplaced Pages policy required a warning. One editor said it did, and I quoted the policy saying it did not.
	I now understand why you misunderstood me and am willing to grant that you did so with good intentions but you were not assuming good faith on my part. In both instances, I did assume good faith - one can assume good faith in another editor and disagree. In one case I explicitly said I knew the editor was acting in good faith but I though what s/he was doing was a mistake. In the second, I simply assume that the editor was acting in good faith when s/he misquoted policy; I did not question his/her intentions, I just asserted that s/he was mistaken and quoted policy.
	So with all due respect, and acknowledging now your intentions were good, you were mistaken to take two different comments I made to two different editors concerning two different matters, and infer by connecting them that I think only admins should deal with vandals.
	You are right that my view about the pointless or even counter-productive creation of new pages by warning IP addresses is out of step with the community. I hope you will acknowledge that once this was clear to me I stopped doing what I was doing. I do this to defer to the will of the community, not because I agree. But i do agree that neither i nor anyone else should revert these warnings unless - if ever - the community consensus changes. I think there is a need for new discussion on how we handle vandalism, especially from IP addresses. I mean just what I said and i am sincere and it in no way means I question the value of the hard work many editors do in reverting vandalism. I hope it is crystal clear to you and everyone else that I appreciate any editor who reverts vandalism, and thank them for their efforts. Is it possible for us to open up discussion on our policies in this regard while assuming good faith on one another's part? I certainly think someone can disagree with me in good faith. ] | ] 23:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Thank you for taking the time to explain your perspective; we all have a much better understanding of your intentions now. Please accept my apologies for being unnecessarily snide, as I see that your intentions were good. --] (]) 23:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	Kralizic, I canot tell you how much this means to me - thank you. I hope everyone else who was active last night understands that I really thought it was clear that my actions were well intended and I deeply regret the grief I caused so many people. I will wait for things to cool down a bit more before inviting a discussion on our vandalism policy, but when I do it is precisely because I do respect and value the views of the community, and respect wiki process enough to think that we can have a frank discussion while assuming good faith on the part of peoploe with whom we disagree. I realize that people may feel it is noit worth discussion, or the discussion may lead us right back to what I know see is the status quo. I have always valued in Misplaced Pages the hope that, however difficult, consensus can be balanced with an open, never-ending discussion about a work that will always be "in process." Anywa, I apologize to you and others if I expressed myself unclearly or inappropriately - I know that at least a few times I was curt and eliptical and I know that didn't help things and I regret that. ] | ] 23:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I may have missed something, but I don't think I have seen either an apology to TWWP for the block, or an understanding that blocking someone for issuing warnings was clearly contrary to policy. ] (]) 23:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I would like a straightforward explanation as well, and a clarification of the policy on warning vandals. This vandalism fighter is chilled to the bone by Slrubenstein's action. I thought I was doing the right thing. This could have been me. '''I''' could have been blocked. This is not minor, despite the premature archive and the "move along nothing to see" attitude shown by many on this thread. I've never been afraid to edit here before now. ] (]) 03:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Slrub has been brought up to speed on current practice and won't be issuing any more "read me" blocks to vandal fighters, and vandal fighters should continue with their good work and continue warning IP users as usual. @Duncan, I believe is what you are looking for. –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 16:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	== {{user|Tree Cannon}} ==
	I posted a report on this user on ], but I also wanted to bring this here because this user's activity is giving me bad vibes.
	{{userlinks|Tree Cannon}} is, from what I can guess based on his user page and contributions, a Japanese user who is unhappy that the English Misplaced Pages has fair-use images and the Japanese Misplaced Pages does not, and think it is . About a month ago, they decided to act like a sort of copyright police for Japanese media and removed fair-use images that were Japanese in origin (, , ). This got him blocked for 72 hours.
	The account remained silent until now, when the user began adding random Japanese and some vandalism to his previous targets (, ). When other editors informed them that their edits were undone, this user began replying entirely in Japanese (, ). One of these replies, , appears to be inflammatory as the text for it translates to: ''It is from the English . Another calling and. Already immediately September 11th, the party of arrogant America and the European person died the multitude. It is very happy important commemoration day. The exemption permitting to that. The which probably will celebrate that day together. Toast!'' Another , this time in English, was added after he was blocked by ] for the previous edits.
	Though he's been blocked for a week, I think the inflammatory nature of some of his user-space edits and the ] way he carries himself when commenting in general should warrant a somewhat longer block. ] <font size="1"> (], ])</font> 04:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:wow. That sounds like some pretty serious rage. Indef block, anybody? <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 04:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::The text of reads, roughly, "I don't know English, but whatever. Soon it'll be September 11, when lots of arrogant Americans and Europeans died. It's a joyous, important anniversary. In deference to that, I'll forgive you. Let's celebrate that day together. Cheers!" ] (]) 04:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Someone needs to refer him/her to ] (] for short). <b><font color="FF6600">]</font> <sub><font color="black">]</font></sub> <font color="FF6600">is geared up for football season</font></b> 04:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::And I thought I'd look at some of the others as well. The edits to (92 above) are just "also known as " and "from a foreign-language DVD version." (93 above) is obviously silly as it's a random Japanese section in an English article. {94 above) is just a question about some edits to Miyazaki Hayao. (95 above) is getting silly. He says that Miyazaki is Japanese, and that he has been familiar with his work since childhood, so the other editor should more or less butt out. ] (]) 05:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::I got a chuckle of out his comment on his user page: ''"I talk in Japanese also to those who cannot understand Japanese."'' So, here's my take on this user. He's obviously got a bee in his bonnet about what he seems to see as theft or unjustified use of images taken from Japanese works. Some of his edits could be seen as constructive, but adding Japanese language sections to English language articles is just silly, and the fact that he's added emoticons to at least one of them suggests that he knows he's being disruptive. Still, he's no worse than some other users we've yet to indefblock, and he's not being unbearably disruptive (yet). His poor English skills (he seems to be using an automatic translator) mean that he'll never be able to contribute very much here anyway. We just need to give him enough rope to hang himself. If he comes back after his block expires and continues to be disruptive, we can simply block him again. ] (]) 05:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Seconded.--] (]) 05:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I'm sorry, I am not comfortable with having an editor here who calls for the celebration of the murders of over 3000 people. <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 05:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I've asked a native speaker to look over his edits and leave him a note. ] (]) 05:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::A block of 7 days for incivility is a slap on the wrist and a tacit agreement that their disgusting comments are somehow acceptable. We should make a stand that any such behavior, celebrating the Holocaust, the Madrid or London bombings, the Dresden bombings, any such activities, is not acceptable. Period. <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 05:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::For what it's worth, we are sorry about Dresden. <small><sub>A sincere personal note, it was my grandfather's only regret in life.</small></sub> ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::I disagree that a 7 day block is a tacit agreement that someone's comments are acceptable. And Misplaced Pages is not in the business of saying what is or is not morally acceptable, just what is or is not acceptable for the encyclopedia. Quite frankly, if he doesn't cause any more ruckus, I don't care what he thinks.--] (]) 05:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::We don't block people for having distasteful opinions. The 7 day incivility block is the appropriate response to his behaviour to this point, most of which hasn't really been that awful. I see no particular reason to come down particularly, disproportionately hard on this user, annoying though he may be. Chances are he'll either get bored and stay away, in which case we don't have to worry about it, or come back and pick up where he left off, in which case we can block him again. ] (]) 05:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::We require people to remove swastikas from their User pages. We block them when they refuse. <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 06:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Has this user refused to remove swastikas from his user page? ] (]) 06:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::: Come on, don't be intentionally dense. Apparently it's ok to celebrate the murders of Americans, but not to celebrate the murders of European Jews. <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 06:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::Don't be unnecessarily sensational. Misplaced Pages isn't Germany or Austria; Holocaust denial is not a crime here. —'''<font face="Comic Sans MS">]]</font>''' 06:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::This conversation is exhausting its usefulness. You don't like it Corvus, complain to Jimbo.--] (]) 06:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	(Undent) I wish our rules permitted me to block every user with distasteful opinions, but they don't. In my opinion, this user has not (yet) done anything that warrants an indef block. I endorse the 7 day block, and support further, longer blocks if he continues the behaviour, or an indefblock if escalated disruption warrants it. ] (]) 06:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	Fine. ] <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 06:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:What does Jimbo have to do with it? He is not a court of appeal for AN... Anyway, personally, I would indef block him since there is no point someone that says they can't speak English having an account on the English Misplaced Pages unless they are involved in some kind of cross-project work which this user doesn't appear to be. Short term blocks are for when we think the user might make useful contributions when they come back, that clearly isn't going to happen here. --] (]) 06:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::See above. ''You don't like it Corvus, complain to Jimbo''. <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 06:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::I know, the question was really intended for Tznkai, but the thread had been unindented, so I didn't want to reindent it! --] (]) 06:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I'm going to have to agree that this user's words have been pretty awful - hate speech, pure and simple, which does nothing but harm our collaborative efforts - and that he shouldn't be permitted to contribute to this project unless we're sure he won't continue his tirades. '''<font color="#ff9900">]</font><font color="#ff6699">]</font>''' 06:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Oh, the drama. As I said above, some of his edits could be seen as constructive. Also, we don't prevent people from editing because their English isn't good. A note in Japanese with English translation has been left on his ], which reminds him that there are rules here which he must follow, including being civil to other editors. In my view, the issue has been resolved for now. ] (]) 06:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::I feel silly for making that suggestion, because I never meant it as such, so much as a way of saying "This is the way things are, you don't like it, too bad." And i agree with Exploding Boy--] (]) 06:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::So in other words, stfu? <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 06:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Let me try it this way. WP is an encylopedia governed by certain policies. One of those is a commitment to neutrality. Another is a commitment to civility. A third is a principle to avoid making gestures, but to concentrate on the encylopedia. None of the policies we have allow us to punish someone just because he said something patently terrible. And finally a 4th is to assume good faith and that everyone has something useful to add, unless they have proven otherwise. That is not just my opinion, that's the way things are (within how I understand them.) I am unwilling to extend the block without further provocation. It seems Exploding boy is also. However, if you really think its a Really Big Deal, your option is, as always, to escalate it to a higher authority, and around here, that's Jimbo. I don't think its a particularly good idea.--] (]) 07:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::I'm not suggesting blocking him just because of his English, I'm suggesting blocking him because he's being disruptive and making it indef because there is little reason not to (cost-benefit analysis and all that). --] (]) 06:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::I am inclined to agree with Corvus Conrnix (and Tango) here, about the severity of the prolem, although with some qualms; ultimately I basically support the current block although I can see some cause to extend it another week. I highly prize the value of free expression of views, ''especially offensive views'', at Misplaced Pages because we need to create an inclusive environment for NPOV to work effectively. So this is my standard. It leads to three question I think in this case: (1) would banning this user drive away editors whose points of view are so different from our own, and so offensive to us, that we actually ''need'' them at Misplaced Pages, to ensure that all notable views are included in the encyclopedia? (2) would the continued presense of this editor drive away other editors who make valuable contributions to the project? Finally, (3), does the ''specific behavior'' in question contribute to the improvement of any article? This in the end is what it is all about: improving articles. Now, from what i have read, my poiints 1 and 2 do not really apply here or cancel each other out, though I wonder if anyone disagrees with me, i would like to hear it. So I get stuck on my third point. This guy is not calling for the inclusion of an alternate (however offensive) view in an article. he is simply using his own user page to spew hate. This is why I lean towards Corvus Cornix. We should not let anyone hijack Misplaced Pages to spew hate speech. I have seen other suers make no edits to articles because their edits would violate our core content policies; instead they just edit talk pages or their user page - pages where NPOV and NOR do not apply - and in effect they are making a mockery of our core values. User pages have a value in introducing enough of ourselves to facilitate collaboration. That is there purpose. This is not My Space or Facebook or a blog, user pages do not exist just for individuals to have their own web-page on the web, they serve a function in Misplaced Pages. Again, this user seems to me to be perverting that function. I am not sure I would ban him but I would consider a long block. Remember, blocks are NOT punitive. They are meant to stop disruptive behavior and provide time for a person to reflect on and reconsider their acts. I would support a block that was long enough to throw a wrench in his disruptive behavior (one week would obviously be reasonable) and also enough to give him time to study our content and personal behavior policies so he can learn the error of his ways - if English is not his first language, two weeks may be called for. This guy is a newbie, and has made some valid edits, so I oppose an indef. ban. I really think we should try a rehabilitation through a block first, and make it clear to him that he cannot abuse his user page or talk pages, and needs to learn our core values via our policies. A block sends the message and provides time for education. Is my reasoning off? ] | ] 06:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::At least two of the diffs above are not vandalism. One is an edit to the article that did add some relevant information (albeit in Japanese). The other is a request for explanation (again, in Japanese) on a user's talk page. What seems to have provoked the outburst about 9/11 is frustration. Now, I'm not saying I like this guy, and I'm not saying his behaviour is acceptable. This is the English Misplaced Pages site, and contributions need to be in English (and some of his have been), and civility applies even when there's no reasonable expectation that the target will understand what you've left on their talk page. But as I said above, ''for now'' the steps we've taken seem sufficient: we've given him a week-long block (quite proportionate to his behaviour), and we've left messages on his talk page. We've even taken the additional step of leaving a message on his page in his language so that there can be no doubt that he understands it. I still see no reason to upgrade this to an indefblock, yet. ] (]) 07:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Current[REDACTED] policy is that we do not block people for their ''opinions'', whatever they are but only for their behaviour.
	::::::Celebrating 9/11 (as a positive event) is not acceptable behaviour because it is not related with writing an encyclopaedia and because it is not ], particularly in a project where the majority of the contributors are US citizens or live there.
	::::::The current consensus is that 7 days is a good period for such a vandalism, which remains, in my point of view, a provocation.
	::::::If he goes on, the block will be increased, for the same reasons that the people who refused to remove swastikas were undefinitely (?) blocked.
	::::::] (]) 08:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	===Background and updates===
	This reminds me of the banned {{user|Kanabekobaton}}/{{user|Euroleague}} and this ]. The CU could not confirm Tree Cannon as being Kanabekobaton though. That said, it could have something to do with ] instead.
	Anyway, what we got for sure is that {{user|0oors}} is a sockpuppet of {{user|Tree Cannon}} and has been blocked indef for sockpuppetry. A week for TC (the master account) is reasonable. We'll see. -- ] / <small>]</small> 08:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Tree Cannon has left a longish and rather polite post on his talk page in response to the message left in Japanese yesterday. The gist of it is that he is aware of the rules and promises to abide by them from now on (and a bunch of other stuff about different rules for different Wikipedias being unfair, and some other, somewhat more esoteric complaints). ] (]) 16:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::I can't read Japanese but I do believe you. And, does he say he's got something/nothing to do with the cases I mentioned above? -- ] / <small>]</small> 17:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::You keeping on eye on him?--] (]) 16:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::He's blocked for a couple more days isn't he? ] (]) 16:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	fayssal: he doesn't mention anything, but he acknowledges that he was being disruptive, and apologizes. He has also been warned that other users have found some of his comments offensive. My guess is that he'll be ok from now on, but if he isn't he has no excuse: he's been made aware of the rules and has acknowledged that he understands them and that his previous behaviour was unacceptable. As a side note, another user has also explained to him that copyright policies on the various Wikipedias (one of his major complaints) are based on various countries' laws rather than on the whim of the various language editions' editors. ] (]) 18:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Thanks EB. -- ] / <small>]</small> 03:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Now ] understands the copyright policies and realizes that he was barking up the wrong tree. I was asked to post his apology. ''To those who I hurt so badly. I am fully aware of what I have done is indefensible. I am ashamed of my thoughtlessness and filled with remorse. Please accept my apology.'' ] <small>(])</small> 15:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	Thanks for all your help with that. ] (]) 15:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Malfunction on ] ==
	] appears to be tagging non-free images incorrectly as being orphaned despite them actually containing proper citations and not being orphaned such as Image:ALW-Uniform-OAK.PNG. Also it appears other pages are also being tagged by mistake. ] (]) 06:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:From ]: ''"'''Read this first''' Sometimes MediaWiki will report an image not being used when it really is, and the bot will tag it in error. If this happens, revert the bot's edit to the image, and make a null edit to the article containing the image (click edit, then save without making any changes)"'' <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:tahoma;">'''~ Ame<span style="font-family:arial;">I</span>iorate''' <sub>] ] ]</sub> '''@'''</span> 12:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::BJ should fix the bot, users having to do that is some hack job. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 01:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::In this case it was triggered by page blank vandalism, which for a short time, made the image technically orphaned. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 01:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::: (ec) That is actually ''much'' more complicated that it seems to appear. What happens is that the tables in MediaWiki do not update when there's high server load; instead, these entries get moved into the ]. There is no way for a bot (or an editor, by that matter) to know that an image is included in a page because neither the "used in" list at the bottom of image pages, as well as ] shows the image used anywhere. The only way to flush these tables is to force pages through the save parser, which updates all the ] that point to any given page. ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 01:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Yeah but... the description page for a "fair use" image is generally expected to link to the article(s) where it is used. It would be easy for a bot to follow these links, do a null edit, then reload the image page and decide whether it's actually orphaned. — ] 19:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I updated the message earlier, if isn't done manually two different bots remove the template. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	== ] now a target for the Palin POV pushers ==
	{{resolved}}
	I'd like to request semiprotection on the page as it's getting hit by rumormongering IPs...] (]) 06:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I put in a request over at RFPP and pointed them to this discussion. ] <font size="1"> (], ])</font> 06:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I did a partial protection of the article, which should provide time for people to work it out on th talk page. ] | ] 14:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Total of 4 IP edits in the 12 hours preceding protection. *awaits chorus of impassioned "it's a wiki" objections that are de rigueur when reg editors find ''they'' can't edit* ] (]) 07:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::What on earth does that mean? Regular--that is, logged-in--users ''can'' edit. ]<sup>] | ]</sup> 08:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I was drawing attention to how amusing it is that a decision to semi-protect of any sort rarely draws any scrutiny from registered users, whereas full protection is routinely railed against on these pages using arguments that apply equally to both protection types. ] (]) 20:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Query about ] ==
	Hi! I'm a newbie admin, so I would appreciate advice as to what should be done here. I was patrolling the New User's contributions, and I noticed one name cropping up time and time again, that of ]. This editor's actions appear to consist soley of removing references to anything barefoot, and the edit summary is almost always the same: ''Removed barefoot fetish vandalism''.
	I have no experience of the topics of any of the articles this person has edited, so I don't know if this is genuine vandalism revertion (although there doesn't seem to be any pattern to it), or if this is someone going through censoring Misplaced Pages from anything to do with bare feet. I know ] and ] should apply, and if this is genuine reversion, I don't want to stop it. If it isn't, I would like this nipped in the bud before there is too much to do to revert it all. What should be done? ] (]) 14:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Actually, I saw someone else going through and starting to revert the edits, having dropped a query on the talk page. I then decided to help go through the list, and then drop a level one censor warning on the talk page. I'll keep an eye on Crommorc, I think. ] (]) 14:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::There is, apparently, a "barefoot fetish vandal", indefinitely blocked for disruption, who launches socks from time to time. If someone could provide the SSP link, and review the accounts that Crommorc was reverting, it may be that these are more of the same. ] (]) 16:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::They are back as {{user|TheBoneWoman}}--] (]) 02:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Blocked as a sock of {{user|Crommorc}}, who is apparently a sock of {{user|DownTownM}}, who is a sock of {{user|Seasideplace}}, who is a sock of...who? - ] ] 02:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	The template is not working properly. The columns options is no longer working. I believe this edit messed up the code. Please fix this a.s.a.p. —<span style="border: 1px solid #000080;">]]</span> 14:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:The multi column support for Safari was turned off after extensive discussion, as Safari does not render multiple columns correctly. Please see ] for more information. ] (]) 14:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::So that it? It's going to stay 1 column? Ok never mind. thanks. —<span style="border: 1px solid #000080;">]]</span> 14:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Until either Safari is updated to stop the links breaking, or someone can design a reflist that works properly (or degrades gracefully in Safari) I hope so. ] (]) 14:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Bear in mind, it still shows up as two columns on Firefox. It is regrettable that editors using the template from other platforms will be unable to see the precise results of their work. ] ] 01:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	== New Meta Logo - Image:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg ==
	Hey can someone update the meta wiki logo on ] to <nowiki>].</nowiki> Thanks ] ] 15:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:{{done}} ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 15:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Inappropriate conduct of administrators on ] ==
	Since protection, numerous administrators edited this page without talk page consensus. This of course led to heated discussions, reverts and so on. I had to admonish four administrators until now. I request that other administrators help to take care of this issue. I may report this to the current arbitration case on Sarah Palin. Thanks, <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">]]</span></strong> 16:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:] could apply loosely to your claim. Though maybe it doesn't, I havent followed this super closely. ] 16:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Cenarium, providing diffs would be helpful to understand what you find objectionable. ] (]) 16:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I have already submitted possibly incomplete evidence on this to the current case. Please feel free to use my talk if you wish anything to be added to that evidence. ] (]) 16:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::, , , and others more minor or older. Discussion on this happened on the talk page and at ]. I won't be around until tomorrow. <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">]]</span></strong> 16:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::This is getting ridiculous. Since the full protection was last reinstated 2 days ago, there's been more than 50 edits. That's about 50 times more than most full protected articles. If this isn't a sign that extended full protection of high-profile current event articles is a bad idea, I don't know what is. <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 16:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::A few of the cited edits are minor proofing edits, and while probably not a good idea, also not a big deal. People need to step back and calm down--] (]) 16:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Thanks, Cenarium. Looking at the diffs one by one, 1) i'm not sure about the state of consensus at this time 2) already listed at arbcom case 3) without reading up, my instinct is that rmving blatantly nonconsensual edits is fine, even if it feels a bit disruptive on the talk page when ''modification'' of the addition is approaching consensus 4) seems like an honest mistake. Further discussion welcome tomorrow, of course, should you wish it with me. ] (]) 16:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	No, people do not need to calm down, people need to get very very concerned as this sets a very very very very very very bad precedent for[REDACTED] editing on contentious articles. These admins need to be held accountable for violating Wiki policy, and their admin privileges stripped. ] (]) 16:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	I've requested the arbs put in a temporary injunction to stop admins from just arbitrarily editing this extremely contentious and hostile protected article . There's not really any other way to get everyone to calm down besides telling everyone by force to stay hands off that I can see. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 16:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Shall we start taking bets on when the devs will implement a new protection level? <code></code>, anyone? ]<small>&nbsp;(]·])</small> 16:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::]. ] (]) 17:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::OMG!!! Now we can officially kick those pesky habits of self-control and critical reasoning! ]<small>&nbsp;(]·])</small> 17:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	*Please note that Kevin ''chose'' to revert Bogdangiusca's, but not Moreschi's nonconsensus edits. Bogdangiusca actually put back material Moreschi removed. I would very much like to be informed of how I, a non-admin, can go about requesting sanctions against Moreschi. I feel that when the dust clears, Moreschi's edits will not be viewed favorably even in the context of this fiasco. ] (]) 17:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	**You can propose sanctions or anything else ]. ] (]) 17:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	***Moreschi altered her political philosophy to say she was a "classical ]" who was ''endorsing'' the "]" which is a redirect to ]. Read what it says at Night watchman state! Moreschi's ] is a worse violation of BLP than people recognize. ] (]) 20:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	****If she is indeed a classical libertarian, then she does indeed believe in the ]ian concept of a night watchman state. Nothing wrong with CM's edit. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 17:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	=== Unprotection requested ===
	It appears ] (]) 17:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:What was the reason for forking my request here? ] (]) 17:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::To keep others above updated. I noticed you hadn't left a note above saying "I've requested unprotection", so I thought I'd better do it, for clarity. ] (]) 17:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Yeah, I had not planned on a note here, unprotection requests belong ]. ] (]) 17:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::I declined the request, as more wheel warring is not the answer. Any admin who unprotects this page will be subject to sanction. - ] ] 17:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I just want to make a point now, that is is not fair that I can't edit, yet the administrators can. What kind of message does that send? That admins are better judges/editors? No self control here. ] (]) 17:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I think the point is not to wheel war but rather to build a consensus around whether now is a good time to try reducing the protection level. During the initial AE, today was suggested as a target date and a number of people agreed with that. Given the current state of affairs, it might still be too early to unprotect, but since we need to do it eventually, it is worth discussing what the right time is. What the right forum for that discussion is, I'm not sure, but I think it is premature to say that unprotection is not an option. ] (]) 17:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I think it should be unprotected, as it is profoundly unfair that only admins are allowed to make complete and utter fools of themselves on that article. We are getting a very limited view of the lack of responsibility of Wikipedians, and the impossibility of achieving consensus by restricting editing to trusted and respectable editors. Why not let us untrustworthy and irresponsible ones see if we can do an even worse job? I know the bar has been set to a very high level, but I'm sure there must be one or two non-admins up to the challenge. ] (]) 17:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:: *lol* I laughed, at least :-) <strong>]<small> o ]</small></strong> 18:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	Any and all dicussions on protection or non protection should take place ].--] (]) 18:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	<sub>Subscript text</sub>
	=== Cascading protection? ===
	Should we set the cascading bit to stop vandalism? ''']<font color="darkgreen">]</font>''' 03:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Is there a problem going on now? ] (]) 03:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::No, that would be a preventitive measure. ''']<font color="darkgreen">]</font>''' 03:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::I don't see the need as of now, welcome to explore it later. ] (]) 03:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Whoops, looked like . ''']<font color="darkgreen">]</font>''' 18:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Would anyone object to me semi-protecting all currently unprotected templates transcluded on ]? I did this with ] and ], and no one challenged me, but in light of the current ArbCom case surrounding this article, I would like to get a second opinion before acting. ]]] 18:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Well, two more templates got vandalized, so I started semi-protecting. Then Mr. Z-man cascade-protected ]. Should I semi-protect the templates anyway so that when the cascade-protection is removed from Palin's page, we're still good? ]]] 18:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	== User:138.251.242.2 Concerns ==
	First, a quick Google search of 138.251.242.2 shows this is the IP of known spammers . Next, you have personal attacks against other users: ("incredible narcissism") and (false accusation of sock puppetry). Third, you have at least one instance of vandalism: . Soft block at the minimum is probably appropriate. ] (]) 03:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	== protection of ] ==
	Jimbo recently banned PD, and his userpage and talk page are currently protected. I think the talk page would be a good location for discussion of issues related to this, and think it would be a good idea to unprotect. I've dropped a note on Jimbo's talk page, and am inviting feedback (and hopefully a small 'unprotect' action :-) ) cheers, ] (]) 03:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:From what I can tell, Damian is not welcome to post. Also, we should not be taunting him by posting to the talk page. If you wish to propose an unblock, do so here. I endorse the talk page protection. Incidentally I've asked Wales to clear up the blocklog. ] (]) 03:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::] with the protecting admin indicates that this may be a jimbo / arbcom decision in some way (hopefully we'll get clarification in due course). I still think it's a good idea to unprotect the talk page. ] (]) 04:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::The user is no longer welcome to commit posts to the wiki. In this way, the talk page can remain protected. ] (]) 04:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::From ]: "Unlike editors who have been temporarily blocked, banned users are not permitted to edit their user and user talk pages". - ] ] 04:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Adding to that from ] ''Jimbo Wales retains the authority to ban users.'', and since Jimbo is our Constitutional Monarch/god-King, I'm really really not seeing the point in trying to push an unban dialogue at this time. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Yes, that is still policy, untill Jimmy abdicates that authority or the community takes it. Which will not happen anytime soon - no need. ] (]) 04:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::ok, ok! - I see PD's very ''very'' banned! :-) I still think it'd be healthy to unprotect, and for reasons beyond an 'unban' discssion, but will think on it a bit more... cheers, ] (]) 04:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Healthy for who? Certainly not for whoever does the unprotecting. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 05:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::for the wiki of course! :-) (your comment made me smile though - and seems accurate at this point!) - my views on this relate to the thinking that 'we' (the en wiki community) are depressingly good at creating, and sustaining 'enemies' in all sorts of ways that we really don't have to pursue.... that, and the fact that it's almost always good to ] :-) ] (]) 06:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	<- While we're here would someone be kind enough to add him to the ]? ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 06:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:<nowiki>{{sofixit}}</nowiki> :) ] (]) 06:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	The community needs to discuss this openly, and it won't do to simply say that Jimbo does what Jimbo wants. We need an explanation about this block, and we need to discuss whether we, as a community, feel it was the appropriate solution. Many people, myself included, admire Peter's article work, and that alone should be enough to cause us to a consider other approaches. Even though Peter left of his own accord immediately before the ban, he might decide to return if this ban wasn't in place; furthermore, to slam the door behind a contributor like this adds insult to injury and denigrates all his work. ] (]) 06:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:According to him, he scrambled his password. The chances that he will return again as Peter Damian therefore seem low. He's demonstrated in the past that he's capable of registering another username. Maybe what you should seek to clarify is whether he is allowed to do so, and under what circumstances if any. It appears as though its left to ArbCom to determine that, so perhaps RfAr is what you want? ]] 06:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Could somebody please be so kind to explain (NPOV'ishly?), to an outside sometimes-journalist observer, just what this guy did so as to suffer The Wrath Of Jimbo? Note I'm not taking sides at this moment as to whether the action was right or wrong, only trying to figure it out -- ] (]) 06:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::He had been in a dispute with FT2 on some content matters. And he posted which there was some off-site speculation may have been an aggravating factor--threatening to go to the ] in regards to their pending donation of funding to the WMF, or something like that. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 06:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::A good guess, but the block log leaves us in the dark: "User says he is leaving. Good timing. Please do not unblock without approval from me and/or ArbCom." Not only does it not give a reason, it's insulting. ] (]) 06:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Thanks - is there any evidence other than speculation, that the donation was a factor? The comment also discusses other issues. -- ] (]) 06:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I was entirely unaware of that comment, and so it was no factor whatsoever.--] (]) 11:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Beats me. I know Damian had a bee in his bonnet to make the ] and ] related articles totally compliant with ]. Your guess is as good as mine otherwise till Jimmy says whats up, since you know as much as I know. I just know this guy was a far above average content editor. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 06:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Well, at least in this instance there is no question about Jimbo's ego being involved; he is demonstrating no fear of appearing very uncool. ] (]) 09:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I think what we need most of all is: A) an explanation from Jimbo about why he imposed this ban; and B) community discussion of whether Peter should be allowed to edit in the future if he wishes (under whatever account), and whether this ban was appropriate. ] (]) 06:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::: It is definitely disappointing to see Jimbo making such bans (explicitly invoking godking authority in the block notice) but not even posting any explanation anywhere. That's not something the community should tolerate. ] ] 06:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::: I suspect, knowing Jimbo, that he will make some kind of statement when he feels able to phrase it without compromising the privacy and dignity of those involved. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 07:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::: I'm constantly surprised that people seem to assume there is some sort of God-given right to edit Misplaced Pages and that the removal of said right is potentially a major outrage. The fact is that we are all here by permission of the management, and if the management - in this case Jimbo - decides to withdraw that permission, they have an absolute right to do so, for any reason. -- ] (]) 11:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Jimbo will explain when he has worked out a reason that he thinks will satisfy just enough people. I have no opinion about Peter Damian, but I do feel that it is time that Jimbo started acting like a constitutional monarch (something he has claimed to be) instead of acting like an autocrat. ] (]) 11:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::DuncanHill, it is one thing to disagree with my decision. It is another thing to claim that I am working out an explanation that will satisfy "just enough people". Please Assume Good Faith, eh?
	::Please review the users' block log, history of harassment, and off-site attacks. I am drawing a line here in the very strong hopes that the rest of community will feel supported to follow suit and insist that such behaviors are always unacceptable. When we tolerate people who engage in bad-faith personal attacks and sniping and off-site attacks, we poison the goodwill of the community. We are a simple charitable effort to share knowledge, and as such, we often allow ourselves to be victimized by people who are here more to attack us and sow discontent and drama. Let's all get together and say: enough. It's one thing to say "I don't agree with this decision, can we talk about it?" It is quite another thing to say things like "All hail, chief of security and protector of the community, FT2. The bodies of the guilty and the innocent burn together with that sweet sickly smell of death, in the pit, in the morning." Such behavior is absolutely unacceptable and people who do things like that are, quite simply, not welcome to continue in the community. There is a small group of very vocal users (a few of whom you can find in this very thread, complaining about this ban) who seek to defend every trollish user, no matter how bad, to the point that good admins have at times lost the patience or courage to do what needs to be done. I am here to say: ignore the handful of wikianarchists, and let's keep this community healthy by insisting that people who behave that way are not welcome.--] (]) 11:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::: Where did he post that rant you're quoting? Didn't see it anywhere. ] ] 11:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Where did Jimbo state to be a constitutional monarch? I totally love that idea! Perhaps admins should be renamed 'Lords of the Wiki'! :) --''']]''' 11:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::He (=Peter Damian) posted that on WR. – ] ] 12:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Yep, see . - ] 14:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: Okay, thanks, that does make it appear in a different light. Still, I'll echo DuncanHill's comment below; I'd expect some explanation for such a step to be given without prompting, at the time it was made. ] ] 12:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Here is one example (of Jimbo using the "constitutional monarch" phrase) from Misplaced Pages, . ] (]) 12:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Very recently, there was . Actually, English Misplaced Pages is more like a barbarian kingship, where the tribal chief occasionally personally puts offenders to death. Constitutional monarchs don't go around dispensing King's Justice. This is not to assert that "Jimbo I" :-) is a bad king, <em>per se</em>. But the system sure isn't one with much check on supreme executive power. -- ] (]) 13:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::: That comment is pretty disgusting. If Peter Damian had a less problematic history I guess there might be more of a tendency to forgive or at least try to understand and de-escalate, but his behaviour over the NLP business, over which we assumed good faith, combined with that kind of comment, gives a strong appearance of being here solely to pursue a vendetta - and God knows we have quite enough trouble without that kind of thing. So, for what it's worth and to the surprise I guess of nobody, I support the ban. And yes, I feel rather let down here as well, since I had engaged with peter over the NLP issue and generally supported is attempts to scale that back somewhat. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Oh bollocks, Jimbo. It was not only quite poetic, but was heartfelt '''and in line with what his view in how best Misplaced Pages should be served''' (that would be Good Faith comment, that it would). Not only that, but he later apologised to FT2 - publicly, in the same forum - for his language. Nor did I see FT2, to his credit, take any offence at the language but rather seek to explain further his position. At that place, at least, there is an ongoing dialogue. For what it is worth, I too have been arguing over there against PD's viewpoint; as ever, I am in the minority and am being refuted - but always politely (within context) and in the expectation of being allowed further dialogue. Perhaps you may wish to join the debate? You certainly are more likely to be allowed to express your opinions there than some, many or most of the correspondents there would be here...
	:::By the way, "bollocks" is simple British English usage meaning rubbish - not vulgar or derogatory. Ask ]. ] (]) 16:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::* ''Bollocks'' is still considered quite vulgar and derogatory. See . ] (]) 22:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Hang on. Which bits are poetic? The WR comment quoted above? For what it is worth, some people may be missing an undertone here. When I read ''"that sweet sickly smell of death, in the pit, in the morning"'', I think of bodies in pits, and book-burning, and I think of the Nazis and the Holocaust (where bodies were cremated in open-air pits - I should say here that I'm no expert on the Holocaust and my Googling unfortunately brought up a mixture of Holocaust history site and Holocaust denial sites). Not quite sure where the "in the morning" bit comes from. Now, ''if'' some of the people here are reacting that way (interpreting this as Holocaust imagery), they should say this upfront, and not just call it "disgusting" and assume people know why it is possibly more disgusting than using other imagery. ] (]) 18:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::* Thanks for pointing this out. I definitely got the same association reading it. ] ] 08:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I don't think a healthy community would be in the position of having to ''ask'' for explanations of your actions - a healthy community would be one in which explanations of extraordinary actions were seen as routine. Both you and arbcom should be aware by now that unexplained acts of this nature serve only to stir up discontent and make it harder to trust people. If you feel the need to exercise your powers as an autocrat, OK, but at least explain at the time. ] (]) 11:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I've changed Damian's entry on ] to something more descriptive, see . Cheers, ] 12:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	Whether Peter Damian was justifiably angry or not, I doubt that somebody who because it's a place filled with "book burners and hooligans" can be expected to contribute constructively from that point on. ] (]/]) 12:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	: Agreed. Very few websites would welcome into their community someone which is actively trying to undermine their funding efforts. But that's not the real issue here, it's more that he has essentially declared himself at war with another contributor, one who is in good standing. We have enough disputes already without people coming back after absences to stir up new ones. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::The comment linked above (see ) was made 8 days (over a week) ago. Why is it only being brought up now? If the block is justified, then those who saw the comment at the time, and did nothing, should be apologising for their inaction. And Guy, people in good standing can both lose and regain that good standing (cf. ]) and those who come back after blocks shouldn't have that fact alone held against them. It is their actions now that matter. Whether they came back after a break or not is irrelevant. And please, can the ''article'' issues be resolved? The important things here is to not ignore valid criticisms (if they are valid) merely because the person who raised the criticisms has been banned. If the criticisms are not justified, can we please have an open and clear response explaining why the criticisms are not valid? And I agree that Jimbo's wording in the block log ''"User says he is leaving. Good timing."'' (he went on to say more) is open to many interpretations, not all of which will be charitable. Maybe it would be best if Jimbo clarified what he meant there? ] (]) 14:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::I don't think Jimbo, or anyone else in this thread, has said Peter's criticism of some articles were not valid. Consensus on the deletions has shown that they are. But valid criticism in that instance doesn't excuse behavior beyond the pale in many others, which is I think the point Jimmy is trying to make. And the book burning comment above is from a bit ago, but the comment from Peter on WR further up (bodies burning, all hail chief of security) is from yesterday. ]] 16:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::I have asked Jimmy to unblock and reblock with a clear reason... of course I don't think any admin will be desysopped for unblocking and immediately reblocking indef with a clear reason AND Jimbo's instructions. ] (]) 16:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::: That sounds like process-wonkery to me. Simpler to just wait for this discussion to be archived and then link to the archive from his user page. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::This will be the second time in a week I have been told that I was process wonking, I'm sick of it. Waiting for a discussion to conclude is more wonkery than actually going and doing it, no? Please be more careful in the future, calling someones good intentions "wonkery" is offensive. ] (]) 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::I would add that adding links to a user's page is less useful than the block log. User pages of banned and indefinitely blocked users are routinely deleted. Admins (and this includes Jimbo) really must give reasons in the block logs and deletion logs for their actions. Failing to do so makes it harder for people to carry out independent reviews now or later. ] (]) 17:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	'''To Jimbo Wales:''' (previous three words added by comment mover) Well, thank you for the response ... But ... THAT WAS IT??? That's a key reason you cite? The 265th post, on a site which often has a large amount of ranting and raving in discussion threads (sorry WR'ers, it's true), significantly moves Jimmy Wales, (co)Founder of Misplaced Pages, President of $70 million valuation Wikia Inc., to personally ban the supposed miscreant? i.e., a trivial flame-war, which the guy says he's apologized for. I'm not sure which is worse - if that's a real reason, or if it's a poor excuse for a poor excuse (tedious point - this sentence is an attempted humorous commentary on logical possibilities, not an accusation). And before you call me a troll, I'll note I've repeatedly said Misplaced Pages group dynamics fascinates me, and in fairness you should see why from such a perspective this is simply amazing. Look, I know we often disagree, but take this in good faith - what you're doing comes across as because-I-can, just plain random craziness against some unfortunate minor offender who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when the Godking is in a churlish mood. -- ] (]) 14:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:You've got that completely backwards. If the victim of Damian's attacks had been a plain ordinary user, he would have been booted out of here long ago for sheer nastiness. I would have done it without a second thought, were I a simply an admin; I might nor might not have bothered to post on ANI about it. But because it was FT2, a fellow arbitrator (and of course a rather controversial one at times), I knew that if I had blocked or banned Peter, the masses would have yelled "abuse of power", "cronyism", "bullying", and so on. It was hardly one post that caused the banning; it was a long crescendo of ugliness. But FT2 didn't ban him, and neither did I, and I know a number of admins also demurred, which is why we asked Jimbo to take a look. Does the community feel we should have acted without waiting for Jimbo? Next time, because of what Jimbo has said here, I know I'll be less tolerant of continuing vile attacks here or elsewhere. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::"We asked Jimbo to take a look" - are you saying that the Arbcom requested Jimbo to look at the editor and do what he thought fit? ] (]) 17:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::No. FT2 did, and then I did a while later. It was not in any way an official ArbCom request; I don't know what FT2 said, but I said "please take a look at FT2's request" when Jimbo took a little while getting around to it and FT2 mentioned it to me. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Thanks for the clarification. ] (]) 18:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	===How we treat long time editors - make the effort to inform the community===
	Jimbo's block may have been perfectly reasonable - but an uninvolved admin would have no way of knowing without spending a lot of time hunting through links and diffs. Peter Damian worked on this project for over five years - he create a lot of quality content. Jimbo, you owe him and the community better. If you want to ban him, take a few minutes and explain to the community why. Have the courtesy to use an accurate and informative block summary. Make the effort to start a note at WP:AN. Don't conduct court behind closed doors. Don't sit around and wait for people to ask. Is this too much to expect of you? Your actions here are nothing short of slovenly. Really, it's not like we're expecting you to break a sweat or anything. --] 17:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	Not only is Jimbo citing personal attacks that occurred on a different website, but Peter subsequently acknowledged that his attacks were excessive, apologized, and even had some kind things to say about FT2's work. I strongly agree with Duk above&mdash;long-term, hard-working editors are particularly entitled to fair, reasonable and polite treatment, and this is nothing of the sort; furthermore, the community is entitled to explanations (at the very least) when such bans are handed down. I also think it reflects very poorly on Jimbo that he cannot give his explanation without insulting other people discussing the matter: "a small group of very vocal users (a few of whom you can find in this very thread, complaining about this ban) who seek to defend every trollish user, no matter how bad, to the point that good admins have at times lost the patience or courage to do what needs to be done. I am here to say: ignore the handful of wikianarchists..." This kind of thing seems unfitting for a "constitutional monarch". ] (]) 18:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:''"Long-term, hard-working editors are particularly entitled to fair, reasonable and polite treatment..."'' Yes, that is exactly right. A good summary of why people believe Peter should be banned. ]] 18:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Very good point, Everyking, about the "complainers". To be clear, I'm not complain about this ban. I'm complaining about an hour of my life wasted hunting through logs and diffs and histories, all because Jimbo is too lazy to write a note. I wonder how many other administrators wasted their time doing this too. And what about other long time editors who may have respected Peter, only to see him banned without explanation - what do you think the effect on morale will be? --] 18:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::An hour of your life wasted? Well, Damian's has quite some info. One log entry contains , and another one reads: ''"Last chance at WP, no more harassment or disruption will be tolerated"''. - ] 18:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::''Damian's block log has quite some info.'' Ya, too bad the log itself notes that it isn't trustworthy.--] 18:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I must admit that Jimbo's comment there might have, um, discouraged people from participating in this thread! ] is a better term than wikianarchist, I think. But I get Jimbo's point. He doesn't want to stop people disagreeing with him (far from it), but he wants discussion to be logical and centred on the specifics of this case, not merely principled opposition. I think if people concentrated on what happened here with regards to Peter Damian, and thrashed out some agreement, then Jimbo might listen to that. ] (]) 18:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I must be misreading you here because you seem to state that ] have no place on Misplaced Pages. ] <small>] </small> 19:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	It would be nice, I think, for Jimbo to acknowledge that Damian ''has'' made some valuable contributions to the project. It's wrong to suggest that he was just here to troll. He's made hundreds of valuable mainspace edits. ]''']''' 19:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	I found this discussion through WR some minutes after wondering why he was banned. WR is pretty nice for determining why someone was banned when the block log and user and talk pages don't say. --] 19:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	* This is not what a constitutional monarch does, Jimbo. Seth is right about this being more "barbarian king" behaviour. Secondly, although Damian had clearly lost his mind as regards FT2, this does not necessarily mean he was incapable of being constructive elsewhere, so long as he is kept away from FT2. As to what he posts on WR...well, who cares? That site has no credence except that which we lend it. Bless their little hearts, all the people I block can rant and rave about me all they like over there. I don't care, that damages nobody except them. They just wind up looking small. Unless Damian had been involved in "outing", this may be excessive. ] (]) 19:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I'm fascinated by the quasi-official status WR is coming to have here. Should we just fold it into project space, make their admins sysops here, and give them two or three seats on the arbcom? Or would it be better to just redirect ANI to their site? ] <sup>]</sup> 20:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I think a link on PD's user page to the WR thread would suffice. --] 22:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	In line with Carcharoth's suggestion above, I will make a simple outline of what happened as it appears to me:
	:1) Personal dispute between Peter and FT2, on both WP and WR, culminating in Peter comparing FT2 to a secret police chief on WR
	:2) Peter's comments are widely deemed excessive and out of place by others on WR, and Peter apologizes, going so far as to commend FT2's work on a sockpuppet investigation
	:3) Peter leaves WP due to this dispute with FT2 (may have occurred before point 2?)
	:4) Jimbo bans Peter without explanation
	:5) Jimbo says he banned Peter because of Peter's comments toward FT2 on WR, without noting the subsequent apology.
	Is there agreement on those facts? ] (]) 04:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::That seems like an oversimplification of the facts. The idea of Jimbo Wales as "god-king" seems more appealing than these endless discussions. Also, one of the endemic problems with Misplaced Pages is a "do as I say, not as I do" mentality that it's OK for certain long-time users/admins/contributors to use foul/excessive language or engage in their own tribal barbarism. We often see newbies blocked all too quickly, while the admins protect each other's bad behavior (like the "Blue line" in policing). Jimbo's blocking of Peter Damian suggests that no one is immune and after being given seven chances at reform, the 8th was a ban. Yet it may not be a permanent ban, just an "example" ban, to attempt to get others into line.
	] 05:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::You're against double standards, then&mdash;but isn't it a double standard if Jimbo is allowed to ban someone for an off-site insult (which was followed by an apology!), when no other admin would be able to make a block on those grounds? Furthermore, isn't it a double standard if Jimbo can ban a long-standing contributor without explanation? And anyway, if my outline is inadequate, please suggest changes. ] (]) 06:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Over-simplification, Everyking. 9 month almost non-stop history of this on-wiki and off, block logs on 3-4 accounts for the same thing, recent posts about "this means war", recent comparison to the holocaust, recent and past threats, significant gaming of AGF (enough to get unblocked each time, and then almost immediately resume), repeated warnings to stop by many different admins. (And the compliments cited actually came only 6 hours after being compared yet again to Stalin's First Murderer.) ]&nbsp;<sup><span style="font-style:italic">(]&nbsp;|&nbsp;])</span></sup> 11:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	For what it is worth, the user in question has indicated elsewhere that he is not requesting an unblock. In the interests of allowing some breathing space for everyone, I suggest that this moots much of the discussion here on the merits of the block, particularly as the user in question is not able to comment on-wiki on the matter.
	He has also pointed out a related issue, which is that a prior block placed when his account was registered under his real name, became something "that colleagues could see," presumably referring to a search engine result. It is questionable whether userspace should appear in searches at all (compare generally, ]), but it is submitted that in any case, a "NOINDEX" key should immediately be placed in the various indefblock templates, as there is certainly no need for these to be searchable and if anything, this complicates the ability for a banned user to walk away from Misplaced Pages as well as potentially creating real-world complications for the user. ] (]) 12:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Has been since July 30th, ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 12:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Thank you. Good change (not sure if it's been made in all of the affected templates, though). ] (]) 12:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Fairly certain Krimpet hit all the templates, it's used on <s>30,000+</s> 46,000+ pages at this point, so it would need to be a very obscure and almost never used template to not have been covered. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 12:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	== problems with an archive bot ==
	===Re: ]===
	To a helpful administrator who has time to help: I think that the bot at the top of my talk page has stopped archiving my talk page as it is coded to do; perhaps there is a problem in the code. Also, I cannot see the names of my archive pages in the archive box in "show preview" mode; if I want to have chronology in the names and to have a chronological archiving bot, I don't know how to do that either. I did contact an administrator who seems familiar w/ such a bot, but have had no response to the request for assistance yet. Perhaps another admin. could take look at the code in "show preview" mode in my current talk page, and see what the trouble might be (if there is one). It is set to archive after 2 days48 hours and after 2 time-stamped signatures, but I don't think it's doing that anymore. I like the way the archive box shows up, but I can't see the names in the archive pages there, only numbers. Is there any way to include chronologies in archive pages 1 to 22 and to have automatic chronology set for the future (23 on) with a different bot? Thank you if you can assist. --] (]) 05:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Wrong place for this. Try the Bot's talk page or the IRC channel.--] (]) 06:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	This is a category for a users subpages. It seems a bit unusual but I really couldn't recall there being anything saying you can't do that. Any opinions? ] ] 06:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:As far as I remember, not, but I do not see any reason for such category, with existing (and the links already on his/her userpage). I'd say you ask the user to convert the category to a sub-page list and if he/she refuses, to take it to ]. ''']]''' 09:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	== ] / ] ==
	I'm not sure what's going on here. Massive (''massive'') re-cats of chemical articles with no edit summaries by the anon user, and some similar behaviour by the named user. It seems fishy, and ] agrees, but we're not sure where to put this. ]<sup>] | ]</sup> 06:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	: I'd like to backup this assertion. It's baffling and seems robot assisted. All from one IP address and all in one category of articles. What to do? --] (]) 06:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:: Additionally, the user ] has now come clean and outlined what he did and explanation why, but does not cite who/what/why he decided to do a massive bot-assisted change to Misplaced Pages without going through proper channels for a structural change of this level. --] (]) 07:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Am I missing something here? ] (]) 09:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Apparently some fan/member of that party added it to the article to promote the organisation. I have removed the section completely as POV and will watch this page for changes. ''']]''' 10:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Deletion skirmishes over Kashmir ==
	Right now, there's so much irregularities going on at ] that I want to bring this discussion to the general attention of the administrators. I am not going to provide any examples as interested admins may inform themselves by looking at this page (and its history). __] (]) 10:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I (who myself is an active party in the debate) would say that there are problems on two fronts. On one hand {{user|Nangparbat}}, who represents a pro-Pakistani POV in the debate, is constantly disrupting the discussion through various IP number edits. On the other hand, there are canvassing and sockpuppeting cases amongst pro-Indian POV editors. My suggestion is that a the AfD be semiprotected to weed out Nangparbat and the socks from the discussion. --] (]) 10:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:] has already been blocked for sockpuppetry and canvassing. ] is a PoV fork of ]. ] has been heavily votestacked towards a keep, but as a content fork the article should either be deleted or merged. ] (]) 11:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks for the heads-up. -- ] (]) 11:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::I support Soman. What we need are constructive inputs and it's being hampered by Pro-Indian and Pro-Pakistani elements. Please semi-protect. Thanks. <span style="border: 2px solid #828282; padding: 0px;">]]</span> 12:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::No protection necessary, the socks are transparent. It may have been votestacked, but there does appeear to be a legitimate difference between Pakistan-''administered'' Kashmir and Pakistan-''occupied'' Kashmir, the latter consisting of five territories while the former consists of only two. They both seem to have sources, perhaps the solution is to attempt to gut both articles to get rid of POV? ]''']''' 17:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::But the constant disruptions of the dynamic IP user makes the whole debate extremly difficult to read in a sensible way. Nangparbat (the dynamic anon IP user) constantly issues uncivil comments, and many other participants in the AfD are quick to respond. Thus the core issues of the AfD gets sidelined in the discussion. --] (]) 21:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::This is an interesting aspect, and I wonder if any administrators who have experience in such cases can outline how they deal with discussions that are so entangled that it's almost impossible to attain a clear impression of what is significant and what are elaborate distractions. __] (]) 08:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Improper protection of a ]ed article ==
	{{Resolved|semi protection had nothing to do with PROD removal;the contesting of the prod by the anon had been accepted - the article is at AfD. ] ] 06:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)}}
	The article ] is currently up for PROD. After an anon had repeatedly removed the PROD tag, including with the summary "please keep" (contesting the deletion), {{ul|Daniel Case}} protected the article with a summary which clearly indicates his awareness of the anon removing the PROD tag. As it seems from ] that anons are allowed to contest PRODs, and this anon was clearly trying to do so, I think the page should be unprotected, and the PROD tag removed as a contested PROD. ] ] 11:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:] indicates clearly, that removing the PROD-tag needs to be done with a statement, as to '''why''' the PROD is contested. As the PROD will go on until Sept. 11, you should notify the IP of that and once he/she explained the reasoning, the PROD tag may be removed and the article unprotected. Just removing tags is considered vandalism and may lead to protection of articles. I would suggest though that if you disagree with the PROD, that you open a ]-discussion to determine the fate of the article. Regards ''']]''' 11:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::] does not require a reason to be given, nor does the instructions on the tag itself. ] says you ''should'' leave a reason and the tag says that "it helps." ] also says: "If anyone, including the article's creator, removes a {{tl|prod}} tag from an article for any reason, '''do not put it back''', except when the removal is clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article)." That's obviously not the case here. Not should the PROD tag not have been re-added, but semi-protecting the page to force the anon out of a content dispute is a blatant violation of the protection policy. What the hell happened to ]? <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 15:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Completely agree with Z-man. The contested PROD should be taken to AfD. ]''']''' 17:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::I protected the article, along with some others, because the anon who had already been blocked and whose unblock I denied, had already . As we usually do in such cases, I protected the pages he had been targeting as well as extending the block.<p>Yes, the contested prod should go to AfD, but I was giving the original tagger the opportunity to do so as it's really his nom to make. Since he has not done so, I will. ] (]) 18:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::It appears it is ]. ] (]) 18:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	Why was he blocked? was definitely vandalism, but he stopped after that, and tried to improve ] in a noobish way. For that, he was reverted by a bot. --] 07:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	===Fuller response with relevant diffs===
	I did not protect the page for any reason connected to the PROD.
	* First, the anon, by someone else, had . I , since he had it was his intention to edit-war. He responded to the decline by .
	* So, as we usually do in such circumstances, I decided to protect the pages he had been editing disruptively, rather than leave some other admin the headache of possibly having to rangeblock. There were three, of which ] was one. The possible deletion of the article was not an issue to me; the PROD tagger is supposed to start the AFD if the tag is removed, instead of just reverting it back. In addition, I do not believe from his edits above that he would have participated in an AfD. Therefore, the protections were an overall response to his disruptive editing and threats, not an attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute in which I was not a participant at the time. ] (]) 19:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	== RBAG Spam ==
	Per ]
	{| class="messagebox"
	! width="60" |]
	| ] is currently being ] for ]. To view the discussion and voice your opinion, please visit ].
	|} --] 12:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	== IP harassment ==
	]/90.201.182.141 is leaving me rude messages on my talk page and now doing the same to degenerate . I translated the first one using google language tools. Wasn't kind. I'm sure the rest aren't either. I've attempted to entract him into a civil discussion for many days but it simply keeps coming down to personal attacks and now its just getting bizarre.] (]) 16:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:....Hello.... I am in the wrong place?] (]) 22:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Sceptre block evasion ==
	Per a private request, I ran a CheckUser enquiry into the edits of {{user|Z388}} and a possible relationship to Sceptre. This relationship is {{confirmed}}. I do not have any doubt at all about the link between the two. The check also revealed that the following accounts are also sockpuppets of Sceptre:
	*{{user|TUATW}}
	*{{user|Gridlocked Caravans}}
	I have blocked all of these as abusive sockpuppets -- although there does not appear to be anything wrong with their edits in themselves, this is block evasion.
	Moreschi recently changed Sceptre's indefinite block to one of two months' duration () as a "final chance". Given the above findings, this probably needs reconsideration.
	] <sup>]</sup> 16:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:So in effect, Sceptre is basically banned, not just blocked? <big>]</big> 16:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::If it wasn't considered a community ban, it probably should be. The block should go back to indefinite IMHO. —] (]) 16:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::I'm moving it back to an indefinite ban. Evading blocks and bans is a no-no.--] (]) 16:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::May I ask: what is the difference between a block and a ban? <big>]</big> 16:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::A block is directed against an account, a ban against the person. A block is a purely technical matter, a ban is a somewhat esoteric social construct (which is enforced e.g. through blocks). See ]. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">''''']:]'''''</span> 16:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: Ermm No, a block is against the person also, it would be pretty pointless otherwise. You've been disruptive so we'll block this account, feel free to continue with another account... See ] your definition of being against the account would make this pointless as it would be impossible to evade a block just directed against an account. --] (]) 16:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::So basically there's no difference? <big>]</big> 16:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::: The ban is the social construct, blocks one mechanism for enforcement of a ban (though blocks will be used other than for ban enforcement), see ]. --] (]) 16:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::So if you evade a block, you get punished for the same reason as evading a ban? They sound basically the same to me, except a block is the technical part of it and the ban is the part that says that person can't edit. <big>]</big> 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	Shouldn't the accounts be tagged accordingly? <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">''''']:]'''''</span> 16:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	*Personally, I'd be inclined to simply reset the clock. Scepte is an annoying immature individual but they do make good edits when they have a mind. Indef and permaban seems a little kneejerk right now but given our history I'm not going to fight in the trenches for him. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Agreed. ] ] 16:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Sceptre was on an indefinite ban for harrasment, so resetting the clock brings us back there, but I am unfamiliar with the details. Also, an administrator who understands the autoblocker will want to review the block.--] (]) 16:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::At least one of those "harassed" (I would have called it childish name-calling, myself) put it down to childish behaviour and asked for an unblock. Something those who were here for the original discussions might remember. The block log entries rarely tell the whole story. ] (]) 17:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	For the record, I endorse the stated relationships (among Sceptre, Z388, TUATW, and Gridlocked Caravans) as {{confirmed}}, I ran checks myself. At the very least I think a reset to restart the 2 month clock is justified. I leave the rest to the community's discretion, for now. Oh, and thanks again to Risker for some spadework in this matter, and to the WR poster who first spotted the possible connection. ++]: ]/] 16:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Can someone clarify what "stated relationships" means, and what the checkuser confirms, for those of us who have never filed a RFCU and have no idea what that entails? <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 16:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Sam said the other accounts were "sockpuppets of Sceptre". That's the stated relationship. I ran similar checks to what Sam ran, and my interpretation of the results is that they indeed confirm the relationship Sam stated. (i.e. that Sceptre was the controlling account). I hope that clarifies matters. ++]: ]/] 16:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Not really. I'm talking more about the technical details- how the stated relationship was established, what the evidence was. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 16:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::I would have thought that you already knew that a checkuser isn't going to tell you that. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 17:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Correct. I'm surprised that a user who has been around as long as David has would even ask, actually. ++]: ]/] 17:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I guess I just haven't been in many drama-fests in my time. So how are these socks proven then? <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 17:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: Er, that's the same question. There are a number of ways of telling, but a CU isn't going to tell you which one was used in this case. <b>]</b> 17:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Augh! (head hurts) I must not be making myself clear... what exactly does the checkuser action spit out and how do we determine the likelihood of socks based on it? <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 17:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Basically? Checkuser can reveal IP range similarities and suspicious timing. That combined with shared interest, tone, and other suspicious activity can reveal a series of logins to be the same person.--] (]) 17:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::: There is other technical information that CU can pick up as well. <b>]</b> 17:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' - I support resetting the block to 2 months. Sometimes long-time contributors who end up with a block like this don't have the patience to sit it out. A few resets should be used to get the message home before moving to indefinite. And with respect to ] (who I am not familiar with), they have recently returned from a two-and-a-half year hiatus. An edit on 8 February 2006 was followed by an edit on 4 September 2008. I can see from ] that Tznkai has recently been reaccepted as an ArbCom Clerk, but I would reiterate what has been said elsewhere: it is best to ease back in gently. At the very least, reading the threads around the Sceptre block should be done, and not just going by what is stated in the block logs. For the record, Tznkai has said ''"I am unfamiliar with the details"''. ] (]) 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I would also support a reset. Sceptre is a valuable content contributor, and I think this block may just have been a clear note to him to shape up. The socks' contribs were not abusive, as has been pointed out. ]''']''' 17:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	I definitely support an indef block now. It's pretty clear cut that his final chance is gone, no need to AGF anymore. ] 17:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	Quick note: it turns out the relationship between two of them is . I've also blocked sleeper sock {{user|Paracetamoxyfrusebendroneomycin}}. —] (]) 16:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:And you'll notice that these socks are not new. Sceptre has been dropping sleeper socks for quite some time now... —] (]) 17:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::In his favour, there is no evidence that he was editing abusively and I see nothing from Moreschi to Sceptre saying this was a final chance. ] ] 17:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Moreschi's entry in the block log says "final chance". I'm hoping Moreschi also left a note on Sceptre's talk page, as not everyone reads block logs for messages like that. ] (]) 17:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::He didn't. ] ] 17:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Hmm. That's not good, is it? Setting up sleeper socks, while still in good standing, for later use? That is troubling. But I'd still give him a few resets. At the very least, this thread might shock him into realising that if he continues this way, he is very close to a ban. ] (]) 17:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Meh, I oppose a reset. Sceptre knew what he was doing, I'm tired of giving people chance after chance when they blatantly take advantage of it. ] 17:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::I have no objections to anyone changing my block action, but I will note that block evasion to me justifies not only reset, but escalation to the next interval.--] (]) 17:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::We should give him a second chance now so that we can give him a second chance later (not really). —] (]) 17:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::What if, in three months, Sceptre turned up all apologetic, saying he has stopped using sockpuppets, promising not to use sockpuppets again, and asking for an unblock? That is probably what the two-month block was meant to do. People who use sockpuppets to make constructive edits are more likely unable to disengage, rather than abusive. Setting up multiple sockpuppets is more worrying, but it was done so naively I'm almost tempted to say people should look further and see whether this is a smokescreen for something else? ] (]) 17:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Like what? ''']''' 17:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::I wouldn't like to speculate. I would hope that the checkusers have picked everything up. ] (]) 17:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Just out of curiosity, what should be made of ? An at least one of these points to redlinked cat.
	::: I did a quick look at the live links where they exist, and they, by and large, look unrelated to this, but... - ] (]) 17:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::: I think Sceptre has been working at ]. The accounts created in May and earlier are likely his, though. – ] ] 18:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	=== Suggestion ===
	I am actually quite opposed to a reset as well, but as a compromise - reset now, and make it clear that any more block-evasion will result in an indef. Fair? <b>]</b> 17:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:how about resetting to three months with further evasion leading to indefnite? ] (]) 17:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:: I'd be fine with that as well. <b>]</b> 17:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::I support this. ''']''' 17:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Yep, 3 months is ok. ] (]) 17:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:See also and replies to it. WR is not a substitute for WP dispute resolution (nor should we negotiate or whatever there) but the information may be useful. I think someone should undo the redirect of his talk -> user so any conversation that Sceptre chooses to initiate there could flow unimpededly. ++]: ]/] 17:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::{{done}} ] (]) 17:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Questions: where is the best place to leave the message that this really is the final chance? It should be put in the block log for future admins to see. It should also be placed at ] (which as Lar says should be un-redirected). Is his e-mail address still enabled? To what lengths should people go to ensure that the message has got across? ] (]) 17:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::I've been chatting with him, I can relay the "ultimatum" if necessary. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 17:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::He he already knows. —] (]) 17:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::WR shouldn't be used instead of talk pages, either. Some on-wiki statement from him (on his talk page) would be nice, but unlikely I suppose. Anyway, let's leave this to develop a bit more and see what consensus emerges. ] (]) 17:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::I think spectre should be brought into this conversation, on wiki. I personally '''refuse''' to take care of administrative business on an off site forum--] (]) 17:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::I agree. I'm willing to dialog with people but will make no official representations of how I will or won't act, nor will I claim any sort of agreement has any standing. Here is where we do our own business. Not on WR, not on IRC, not on sekrit mailing lists. ++]: ]/] 18:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::I'm probably going to pulled into real life at any moment, so I'm going to go on record with something so there is no confusion. I am '''endorsing a reversal of my block of Sceptre''' by any administrator (upon some decision being reached).--] (]) 18:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I agree that going to a block of three months, with the explicit warning that this will be his last chance, is the best idea. He has made positive contributions, which I think could continue to do if he were so inclined. Hopefully three months distance from the project will help him regain the perspective necessary to edit in a more constantly productive way. ]] 17:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::He has stated in email correspondence that he is amenable to three months as the upper limit. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 17:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::: Perhaps you could relay to him that he doesn't get to "be amenable" to anything. That sounds very much like "anything more than three months and I'll start socking again". <b>]</b> 18:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Amenable may have been David's choice of words, who knows. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">''''']:]'''''</span> 18:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	*For the record, I still believe that the initial ban for those "harassing" edits was totally overblown in the first place. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">''''']:]'''''</span> 18:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	I've a problem with Sceptre's user page being deleted. Is he invoking ] or something? Since when do blocked puppeteers get to request that their user pages be deleted? —] (]) 18:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I don't really agree with that, either. I've long held that userpage and user talk ''deletions'', as opposed to courtesy ''blankings'', should be reserved for RTV situations. David, would you consider reversing your deletion and restoring the history? — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 19:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I have more of a problem with Sceptre calling ] a stalker. See his talk page (transcluded below). But I'm going to be charitable and put that down to residual anger. I would hope that, three months down the line, Sceptre might not do that sort of thing, or, if he has genuine concerns, to learn the right way to state them. ] (]) 18:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	*I support the extension to 3 months. I would also strongly encourage offering Sceptre a one-time-only no-penalty opportunity to provide the names of any other alternate accounts to one of the checkusers involved in this case, either Sam Korn or Lar, with the understanding that any further use of alternate accounts '''at any time in the future''' will result in immediate indefinite blocking. ] (]) 18:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	BTW, if you're waiting for an apology from Sceptre, don't hold your breath. He's too busy . —] (]) 19:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Just ].--] (]) 19:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	===Sceptre's talk page===
	<small> Transcluding ] here. Please copy in text when discussion finished. ] (]) 18:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC) </small>
	{{User talk:Sceptre}}
	===It's nice to see that double standards are alive and well===
	If this was an ordinary user that no one knew, they'd be blocked indef, no questions asked. ] (]) 19:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	* Yes, I do have sympathy for that view. However, we also have numerous previous examples of blocks being lengthened for sock-puppeting block evasion, both with "high profile" editors and others that "no one knew" as well. <b>]</b> 19:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Sceptre is not an ordinary editor that no one knows. Plain and simple. ]''']''' 19:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Agreed. Sceptre has made numerous positive contributions in multiple areas over a long period of time. That's worth making the investment in trying to turn things around, up to a point. IMHO anyway. ++]: ]/] 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Where are people arguing that we don't have different standards for established users who have been with the project for a long time? I thought this was a well-known fact. <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 19:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	===(Not) resetting block to 3 months===
	Unless anyone else has any major objections, and Sceptre is aware that any more socking will lead to an indefinite block, I am going to reset Sceptre's block to 3 months shortly. <b>]</b> 19:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Please don't. I see no consensus for anything, except possibly for a ban at this point. --] (]) 19:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I'm endorsing the 3 month--] (]) 19:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I object too, and would rather support an indefinite block at this point. As much as I want to AGF, Sceptre has been given so many chances to reform yet has continued to be erratic and a net drain on the project. Jimmy Wales himself said in 2006, in ] where Sceptre was harassing an underage female admin, "'''If he does ONE MORE LITTLE THING, he is gone from[REDACTED] *poof* just then, no arbcom, no nothing, just me banning him myself.'''" He has done many more "things" since - I think the project has had enough. :/ '''<font color="#ff9900">]</font><font color="#ff6699">]</font>''' 19:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I'm still iffy on this as well. IF consensus shows that a 3 month block is accepted by most then I'll be fine with it, but right now I'm not sure yet. ] 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Nope. Indef is totally appropriate at this point. Per Krimpet, etc. —] (]) 19:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	*'''OK'''. Clearly no consensus at this time, so I will leave as indef, something I'm not unconvinced by myself anyway. <b>]</b> 19:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::I object also. How many chances do we give him? He was indef blocked and then his block was reduced as a last chance. He has now used that last chance and still is unrepentant about why he was originally blocked. Why keep wasting our time? ] (]) 19:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::I'm not positive, but I believe his last chance was given AFTER the sock edits but BEFORE they were discovered.--] (]) 19:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Huh? The was created and edited within the last few days. The sock that created that sock also edited on September 1. Sceptre's block log clearly says Moreschi's "Final chance" was in August. Which last chance were you referring to? —] (]) 20:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I'm not defending his drama-mongering or his mistakes, but some points. First off, what Jimbo says should not be any reason to conduct our affairs in dealing with users in any different way. We're the community; we decide. Secondly, I disagree with the assertion Sceptre is a "net drain"; he's nominated five successful AfDs and has been an extremely positive asset to Doctor Who. What I've urged everyone to do (and no one has listened) is to try and come to common ground on editors clearly intent on improving Misplaced Pages but who have caused drama in doing so (Sceptre, Giano, et al). This isn't just one editor, it's an offshoot of a continuing issue. I'm just hoping that we can address this so we don't waste our times in threads like these over each individual user. Also note per above Sceptre has good reason to want his talk and user page salted, as the trolls at Encyclopedia Dramatica already have a sizeable article on him and its unethical to provide them more ammunition. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 20:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::First, let's not compare Sceptre to Giano. Giano has pointed out what he - and quite a few others - feel are injustices. If he wasn't so dramatic and biting in his choice of language, he'd get a lot more official support. Sceptre is turning out to be a vandal, a harasser, and an abusive block evading sockpuppeteer. No comparison. It's only now that he's been unmasked. Next, what good is there in deleting his user page? It's just a sockpuppeteer tag that helps the community here understand what happened. What information is contained there for ED? —] (]) 20:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::(ec) That's interesting timing. I believe the "last chance" comment was placed at the end of a block log. I haven't seen any evidence that Sceptre was given the courtesy of being informed on his talk page that this was his last chance. I also don't think dredging up things from 2006 is completely fair, nor is appealing to Jimbo's authority. As can be seen above, Jimbo is quite capable of stepping in when he wants to. What I really want to see here is an acknowledgment from Sceptre that he really is going to step away from Misplaced Pages for a few months (it can be done, and I believe Sceptre has stated this), and then Sceptre make a statement after those three months in the form of a block appeal. This gives people here a chance to calm down as well. In principle, I think all indefinite or long-term blocks should be reviewed a few months later, merely because people may change opinions they expressed in the heat of the moment. Maybe what I'm arguing for is to leave indefinitely blocked, and to revisit it in three months time? People may feel differently then. ] (]) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::The first thing I'm looking for is a slight hint of repentance. —] (]) 20:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::You may not get that now, but you might in a few months. Would you be prepared to wait a few months to get a hint of repentence? ] (]) 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse a reset'''. Frankly, anything that has been stated here is not even ''near'' bannable. The socks weren't abused. Normally, only the socks are blocked due to block evasion. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 20:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:* If the socks are productive, the master account is not blocked, and there's no abusive sockpuppetry, then you'd usually be right. When the master account is <i>already</i> blocked though, that's block evasion as well. <b>]</b> 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::*And evading a two-month block before even a few days are gone is a very bad sign. —] (]) 20:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Two notes: 1 I believe I understand why sceptre wants his user page space to be deleted, and he has legitimate concerns for trolling, harassment, and other distress. 2. I propose that if Sceptre posts an apology for evading via sockpuppet, we move to a three month ban, courtesy blank his talk page with a block notice and sock notice hidden a layer deep, delete his user page, and move on with life.--] (]) 20:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Disagree on both counts. His user page has a single edit in it. There is no information there. I didn't undelete the entire history of it. It's just a pointer with information that trolls already have anyway. Next, the blocks and past threats from Jimbo were all based on a common thread of immaturity and sneakiness. Those don't go away in three months. Three ''years'' maybe, but definitely not three months. —] (]) 20:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::If what you say is true, then ban him again in three months. It takes twenty seconds.--] (]) 20:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::The one problem with that is the possible damage an unrepentent sockpupeteer might do. I'm not convinced though that Sceptre would do such damage. ] (]) 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::(ec) Wasn't the comment from Jimbo two years ago? But the real point here is that consensus ''is'' slowly moving towards a ban, and I think Sceptre is beginning to realise that. Why push for a ban immediately? If Sceptre reforms, that's a good result. If he doesn't, more people will support an indefinite block. If that's what you want, you'll get that eventually, but you don't have to get that immediately. A later indefinite block with firmer consensus is better than one now with opinion divided. ] (]) 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	*Endorse 3 month block but firmly opposed to making him grovel to get it. Shorten the block and indef him next time. He is annoying and immature but produces featured content is is a long term contributor. We really need to look for rehabilitation rather then restitution here. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I endorse restarting the 2 month clock. Firmly opposed to seeking to get him to grovel. The original indef blok was way over the top. ] ] 22:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I'd endorse resetting the two month clock, but tacking on a third month seems punitive. For somebody like Sceptre, who lives and breathes Misplaced Pages, two months is long enough (if he can actually bring himself not to continue socking). I think a reset of the two month clock is a good warning shot, and if he's caught socking again, he should be met with an indefinite block and a discussion regarding a community ban. - ] ] 00:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	In case anyone doubted the elusiveness, a WR user noticed - and not recently but four months ago. I'm actually embarrassed for him at this point. —] (]) 03:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	*Consensus seem to have moved towards a 3 months block and away from an indef at this time. I'll change it round in a couple of hours unless there are further sustained objections. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 05:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	**It has? I only see a couple people who do so. You, Neil, Auburnpilot, Kittybrewster, and Edokter, since Krimpet's post. I don't see any consensus to change anything in any direction, be it towards a ban, or towards a 3 month block. ]] ] 11:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	***I have as well, as well as other endorsement on sceptre's talk page, and on the suggestions subsection of this topic.--] (]) 11:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	**Endorse a three month block. There's no reason to expect a "full, frank apology" or anything like that. If Sceptre chooses to provide one, great, but it should not be a condition. ] ] 09:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::* I agree that ritual abasement is not required here. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	* I am in agreement with Edokter's statement "Frankly, anything that has been stated here is not even near bannable." This is a spat, not a long term behaviour problem, and we're dealing with a 17 year old who is impulsive but not particularly mean spirited - I've dealt with way worse and can't even get them a 24 hour block, so I think an indefinite ban is absolutely ridiculous. Certainly the stuff he has done merits some attention in the form of a block, but it should be finite, and clear, and given his solid contribution to the project overall, unconditional (I see I'm agreeing with Neil on the latter point). ] 17:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	===Consensus Estimate===
	This is my attempt at seeing of the people who have commented here, who thinks what. Feel free to correct. --] (]) 13:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	*This like consensus to chortern the block but I have not enacted this to allow for further comment and discussion. there is no deadline. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 14:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Perhaps more definitively, it looks like a lack of consensus to maintain the indefinite ban. To avoid a wheel war, I can enact whatever remedy is required.--] (]) 14:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Yep, sounds good. Throw in a trout slap for talking to his own sleeper sock and I'm good with either two- or three-month. —] (]) 14:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::In my judgement, we have something resembling a consensus for the following:
	::::*rescind the indefinite ban on Sceptre
	::::*block for 3 months (starting two days ago, so 89 days or so), pending further discussion on the 2/3 month issue.
	::::We don't have as clear of a consensus, but I would like to do the following
	::::*put a note detailing Sceptre's block for sock abuse, and its length
	::::*courtesy blank that same page (there will be a note about this in the blocking log as well.)
	::::*Speedy delete ] per user request
	::::Concerns?--] (]) 17:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	====Rescind indefinite ban====
	*tznkai - Open to Two month or three month ban(Note: Blocking admin for most recent block)
	*Carcharoth - Supports two month block, open to three month block, further evasion causes indefinite
	*Naerii - Supports three month block, further evasion causes indefinite
	*Philknight - supports three month block, further envasion causes indefinite
	*User J - supports three month block, further envasion causes indefinite
	*Kitty brewster - supports three month block, supports two month block
	*Edoker
	*Spartaz - supports 3 month block, "opposed to seeking to get him to grovel"
	*auburn pilot - supports 2 month block, does not support 3 month block, further envasion causes indefinite, consider community ban
	*Niel - supports 3 month block
	*Risker - supports 3 month block
	*Wknight - Supports 3 month block
	*GRBerry - Either a reset 2 month or preferrably a 3 month. Low tolerance for further evasion. ] 16:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	*GlassCobra - 3 month block, low tolerance for further evasion. Indef block inappropriate, socks were not abusively used. ]''']''' 16:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	*Black Kite - 3 month block, NO tolerance for further evasion. Ensure static IP hardblocked. <b>]</b> 17:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	*Orderinchaos - 2 month block, would support 3 month as second option, indef block inappropriate. Agree with most or all of the comments in "other" section below. ] 17:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	====Maintain indefinite ban====
	*Krimpet
	*<s>Wknight - Waiting for an apology/ some sign of repentance</s>
	*KnightLago
	====Other====
	*"For the record, I still believe that the initial ban for those "harassing" edits was totally overblown in the first place. user:Everyme 18:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)"
	*"Agreed. Sceptre has made numerous positive contributions in multiple areas over a long period of time. That's worth making the investment in trying to turn things around, up to a point. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)"
	*"I'm still iffy on this as well. IF consensus shows that a 3 month block is accepted by most then I'll be fine with it, but right now I'm not sure yet. Wizardman 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)"
	<s>*"OK. Clearly no consensus at this time, so I will leave as indef, something I'm not unconvinced by myself anyway. Black Kite "</s>
	*"I agree that ritual abasement is not required here. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)"
	=== Suggestion ===
	The usual result of serial block evasion is an indefinite block. I suggest that if Sceptre has not evaded this block after three months he be encouraged to request an unblock, but that no expiry date be set on the block of his account - that is, it will not automatically expire, it would require an active review after a reasonable period. I think this is fair, given his past contributions to the project combined with his present disruptive activity. I would also suggest that those who consider him friends on Misplaced Pages, contact him privately and counsel him to abide by the block and come back refreshed after a nice Wikibreak. If voting were not evil I would set up a notavote on it right now, but anyway, that's what I think. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I would agree, but I would submit that sceptre is more likely to be receptive to a 3 month block, especially since there is a small but growing consensus among some of the people commenting here that the original indef and final warnings may have been over the top. In the mean time, do you object to a 3Month pending further discussion?--] (]) 18:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	== changes to the templates for Birth/Date age - Still unreseolved ==
	I previously wrote up this issue and it was archived without resolution so I am writing it up again. The linking for birth date and age templates has been removed which is causing the dates to not link within templates., Infobox military person for example. Although I see under the WP:Dates where someone changed the wording I cannot see where the change was determined through discussion or consensus and therefore should be corrected. If the decision is to not link dates in general fine but it should still be linked in templates such as infoboxes. Additionally,if this is the desire is to not link dates then the bots and AWB that correct dates need to be reviewed (because they are still changing date formatting) and the millions of date links on pages that currently exists needs to be removed. Until somone can show me where this has been changed based on a majority decision and not just a user thinking that its wrong then I am going to continue linking dates.--] (]) 17:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Ask ]. He has a page explaining where consensus was reached. See ]. Earlier thread was ]. ] (]) 17:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Does he plan to delete all the month/day/year pages once they are completely orphaned? Seriously, what is the point of all this? — ] 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::That point did strike me as well. There must be ''some'' cases where we link to years. I suppose from calendars and timelines rather than articles? And from timelines within articles. I think the point is that linking a year is OK, but linking the date and month is pretty pointless. Though knowing all the instances when a date is mentioned in Misplaced Pages could be useful in some circumstances. But that more linking dates for the sake of using the "what links here" function. We also have "x in year" articles. Tony's argument that there is vast amounts of overlinking is valid as well, and particularly the point that unregistered readers see a mess (though I thought everyone knew that already - I think half the people that create accounts do so in order to improve their reading experience and to access the reading preferences such as 'skins'). ] (]) 20:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Although I see Tony's point I do not agree that not linking dates at all is the answer and it seems as though he has become the defacto owner of the date formatting for wikipedia. I have reviewed his comments as well as the comments of the supporters and opposers and here are some things that I notice/concerns that I have:
	#The Opposers and the supporters all have a good point but the supporters opinions seem to be favored heavily.
	#Tony's page states that the majority support it but when you look at the vote it didn't clearly define support and the number of users who voted was relatively small.
	#There are bots and apps tat edit dates on pages that need to be modified.
	#There are millions of date links that need to be unlinked if this is kept.
	#There are hundreds of date pages that will need to be deleted if this is kept.
	#I believe that a change like this that affects so many pages and edits should have had more publicity before it was implemented.
	--] (]) 21:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Part of the problem here is that this debate has been going on for ''years'' and has taken place in an enormous number of different places, too many to be easily linked to. In 2006 the whole thing blew up into a wheel war, see . Tony has been consistent and persuasive, and I think he's (probably) right that the significant opposing viewpoints have been answered to the satisfaction of a majority of those who have followed the debates all along. Of course, since this debate affects basically every article and (as you note) a great many templates as well, lots of people are going to notice the actual changes who were not aware of the debate, no matter how well it's publicized. But in this case, consensus of everyone whose watchlisted pages would be affected would be simply impossible (since that's all editors), and there has to be some kind of move forward at some point. Like you I see both sides here, but I also see the downside of continuing the debate for, oh I don't know, another three years. . . ] 05:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::In those earlier debates, was the issue of "what is the purpose of year, month and date articles", addressed, and whether such articles should ''ever'' be linked and if so from where? ] (]) 07:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::The links to such pages are only to be removed where they serve no purpose. Where they serve a purpose they will remain. Therefore, the pages will remain, since consensus is that there is a purpose to having on this day in history pages and chronology pages. ] <small>] </small> 09:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Response to CharlotteWebb et al.:''' If all or even a tiny proportion of year-pages were like ], we'd be putting them up as FACs, highlighting them in ''The Signpost'' and generally being rather proud of them. But they're not like that: I recently surveyed a sample right back to pre-christian days and found them to be most unsatisfactory stubby, fragmentary lists. But even if year-pages ''were'' worthy of proper articles/lists, there's an insuperable problem: they provide information about a whole year for the whole planet, and by definition are hard to justify as links that add significantly to the understanding of a topic at hand. If there's one relevant fish in the ocean of a year-page (that is, one that is not just a stubby little collection of one-line statements, it would always be better ''in the article itself''. Year-pages are actually a great idea for something quite different: ''diversionary browsing''. While many editors work to discourage enticements to divert from our focused article through year-links, if more year-pages could be worked up into good articles, I'd be the first to promote them in their own right as worthy for a certain class of reader. There's the challenge.
	*'''Response to the issue of autoformatting dates in templates:''' This is quite a different issue from the linking of years and other chronological items. It's simple: templates that generate dates need to (1) avoid linking them and (2) allow editors to choose between the two standard formats, US and international (some citation templates seem to like ISO, which is permitted in ref lists). This arises from major changes to long-standing practice, in MoS (main), MOSNUM, MOSLINK and CONTEXT last month.] ] 10:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Cluebot reverts valid edit but its PHP page to revert invalid reverts is broken ==
	I attempted to inform ] that it had made a false revert but on submitting my report at http://24.40.131.153/cluebot.php the response page showed just:
	> POST: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=login (0.239742040634 s)<br>
	> GET: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php?what=content&format=php&titles=User%3AClueBot%2FFalsePositives%2FReports (0.188697814941 s)<br>
	> Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/apache2/domains/default/htdocs/wikibot.classes.php on line 78
	While it says warning rather than error it's hardly the kind of response that would lead one to believe one's submission had been successfully made.
	I was making the report as cluebot reverted my revert of a huge number of edits (over 150) made by ] to the article ] in the last 4 days. My explanation of my actions in my Cluebot report were as follows:
	"This looks like a mass delete but I am reverting over 150 revisions made by ] between the 3rd and 7th of September. While not simple childish vandalism these revisions are bizarre and are not the stuff of a coherent Misplaced Pages piece. Some of it appears scholarly but in fact reflects the personal assertions of an individual (on dates etc.) rather than established historical fact, some reflects non-mainstream opinion on historical events and groups and most is just rambling and irrelevant."
	] (]) 17:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:It should be fixed now. It wasn't really even broken, it just wasn't posting it to ], but it still records the information to the server. -- ]<sup>(]|]|])</sup> 18:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	== STILL at it. ==
	{{Resolved|blocked. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 12:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)}}
	Please refer to , above.
	This morning I left a note on blocked user ] talk page with concerns that he was continuing to edit using IP . This IP was only editing user and talk pages, but I still felt that, with 2 days left of his block, this was unnecessary (it's worth noting that another admin disagreed).
	Just now, however, I noticed another edit to Andy's user page, this time by a different IP. I checked that IP's only to discover 5 article space edits from this morning, so I left a message on Andy's talk page requesting clarification. Following another edit, this time to a template, I have <strike>indef</strike>blocked 79.73.71.54 for evading a block.
	Andy has he is using that IP. I have therefore <strike>indef</strike>blocked his other IP as well.
	Now I propose to increase Andy's original block (already his second) for this evasion. I'd like recommendations on the increase: are we going to give this clearly problematic user yet another chance, or just say goodbye? ] (]) 18:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Wait, you ''indef''blocked two IPs? Are they static? ]]] 18:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::<strike>The blocks can easily be changed. I indefblocked for the very reason that the block is...indefinite. ] (]) 18:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)</strike>
	::On reflection, I've reduced the blocks on both IPs to 3 hours. That should give us enough time to discuss what to do with Andy. ] (]) 18:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:This started with ]. Based upon that incident and the conduct since, I believe an indef block is now warranted. We have already been ''excessively'' polite and patient with this user, but there has been no improvement in their behavior or attitude. It's time to move on. — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 18:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	With this editor I'm continually going back and forth between whether he's just not getting it, or deliberately trying to test others' boundaries. Even though today's IP edits from ] were innocuous (except for -- does anybody know what this is?). My suggestion would be a last warning to AB with indef ban immediately upon any further edit. At some point, ], regardless of whether the editor seems well-intentioned. ] (]/]) 18:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	: is especially strange. ] (]/]) 18:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Just for clarity, 5 edits from that IP today are to article space, and this user is currently blocked. ] (]) 18:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::To clarify my comment too--sorry, yes, I think this is a definite problem. The userspace edits and bizarre comments (e.g., ) make me think he just doesn't get that he's not supposed to edit at all, under any form, during this. Maybe I'm being naive though. If the consensus is that we've given enough warning I have no problem with that too. ] (]/]) 18:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::And to add a little more weirdness, please see latest edit by Andy in which he admits to editing article space and says he's incompetent (!??) ] (]) 18:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	*I'd support a reset of the original block, per ], which seems pretty straightforward. I don't see a very good benefit/drama ratio in extending the block to indef. If I am dead wrong about this, then I think we need to consider updating ] to reflect what the community considers appropriate in such circumstances. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 19:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I agree, ] seems quite clear, so reset. I don't think his IP edits were 'blockable behaviour' on their own. ] (]/]) 20:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Per WP:EVADE the block should be reset. But there's the additional question of whether these edits by this user (whose behaviour has been problematic from the outset and ''continues'' to be problematic, and who has already been indefblocked once), along with all his previous edits and the pages of discussion they've generated, should be taken as evidence that he will likely never be able to participate in the project without being disruptive. I'm inclined to believe that they should, especially since even now (at least as of his last edit) he believes that it was acceptable to use an IP to edit article space while blocked. ] (]) 20:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Exactly right. This violation of ] is only the latest one symptom of a much larger issue. When the totality of this user's contributions are considered (and I encourage those who haven't to carefully look at each and every one), then an indef block is entirely appropriate. — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 02:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Whilst I ''was'' favorable to initial attempts at making this user understand the basic rules of Misplaced Pages, it has become apparent that ] is not compatible with writing an encyclopedia. When he's not being insulting, he willfully tries to work around very explicit and very simple rules, or makes "humorous" edits. He's not here to write an encyclopedia, and has been given numerous warnings and ''a few'' last chances by patient admins.<p>I'm blocking indef; if there is another admin who feels up to setting him up for some sort of mentoring in a strict framework, feel free to take over but I would expect any ''further'' time spent on that user is time wasted. We've already collectively lost hours dealing with someone who behaves in very bad faith (his claims of Asperger's are particularly inane, for instance, especially as some sort of ''excuse'' for his disruptive behavior). &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 03:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I fully '''endorse''' this indef block. ] (]) 04:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I know this is resolved, but I want to add this. Aspergers does make some one unwillingly and unwantingly stubborn. But it in no way makes some one ignorant to the rules. It can cause confusion of the rules if they are vague. But saying Misplaced Pages's rules are vague is like saying Duke Nukem Forever will come out in our lifetime. It just isn't true. <b><font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font color="#9900CC">]</font><font color="#CC00CC">]</font><font color="#FF99FF">]</font></font></b>&nbsp; 15:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	sock of {{UserBk|Tom Sayle}}. Big surprise. Honestly, we waste far too much time on trolls. — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 17:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	Is it for checkuser? ] (]) 17:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:* Sigh * Just when I thought this couldn't get more ridiculous.... ] (]/]) 18:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::I thought "Bjornevich", which he claimed was his real name (as well as the ridiculously long pseudo-Polish full name he used in his original sig), was too unlikely to be true, rather like McWong or Queequegson. ] (]) 18:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Contracted editing ==
	Earlier I deleted ] which had been created first by the now blocked {{User5|JFredaLLC}} and then by {{User5|Swiggins2}}. The first first creation was deleted by {{User|Jj137}} as spam followed by a username block. I deleted it a copyright violation from .
	I now get an email from the user which indicated that they are the webmaster and creator of the companies website. They also indicate that they are "...contacted by this company to add the material..." and they have released the material under the GFDL.
	Normally I'd just point them to the contact at ] and keep an eye on it. However, the "contacted by this company" bothered me. I read this, perhaps incorrectly, to read "paid to edit", and, if so, should they just be blocked. ] ] 18:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Their company's list dozens of self-generated sites, making me believe they're just trying to ] in as many ways as possible. That being said, why don't we refer them to the process at ]? We'd also need assurances that they're not ]. ] (]/]) 19:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I think I agree there -- they're more than likely just trying to advertise as much as they can. I may be wrong, but if they're being paid to edit (which is kind of pointless), I'm pretty sure they're just advertising. I have no idea whether or not Swiggins2 is the same person, but considering his first edit was recreating that article (and I hadn't blocked account creation on the first block), it makes me a bit suspicious. &nbsp; '''] ]''' 20:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	Usually even G11-like content released under the GFDL isn't suitable in tone (I've marked it before), but I was pleasantly surprised to see that it wasn't too terrible. Most of it is unusable, but the remaining useful paragraph requires a little cleanup. ] (]) 20:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:However, the parts that were a copyvio are still listed on the above linked page as "© 2008 James F. Reda & Associates, LLC". The editor either needs to adjust the James F. Reda site to confirm that the material is released under the GFDL or contact the permissions, which I did point out to him. ] ] 01:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Evasion of AfD results by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ==
	{{discussion top|All articles speedied except for ], which there is a running AFD on because it is significantly different than the previously deleted content. LGC blocked 24 hours due to edit-warring on this page.--] - ] 19:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)}}
	{{user|Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles}} has begun to move articles, which were apparently userfied for him by kindly administrators after they were deleted at AfD, back into mainspace as redirects. I've only checked one of them at all carefully—], which was deleted per ] and the history of which LGRdC into mainspace as a redirect to ], with the edit summary "Creating redirect following discussions to merge and redirect". I can find no DRV discussion of the deleted article or any other "discussions to merge and redirect"; nor can I find any evidence that LGRdC has merged any material to the article that's the target of the redirect. This, and his other recent moves of userfied material, seem to be nothing more than end runs around AfD consensus in an effort to get the articles' histories back into mainspace. I have no idea how this matter can or should be dealt with; but the editor in question will clearly do anything in his power to disrupt and negate the AfD process, and it seems to me that ''something'' needs to be done here. ] (]) 18:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I'm inclined to tenuously assume good faith. LGRdC seems about to invoke his right to vanish and is clearing out various user pages. One relatively easy(?) solution might be to delete the histories of these moved articles and restore the redirects he's created. If under a new identity he wants to start/resume working on these materials, he can request an admin. restore the edit history to his user space. In the meantime, Le Grand, rather than creating redirects and moving them to article space, it would be a sign of good faith if you were simply to go to the mainspace area and create the redirect there atop the redlink. Then just request db-user for those articles sitting in user space.
	:Meanwhile, though, someone might want to "help" LGRdC with this limbo-RTV status. He twice this section and posted to talk page citing RTV and harassment as a reason not to write to/about him -- yet LG continues to participate in AFDs, posted welcome messages, etc. Something about cake and eating it. I dunno. --] (]) 18:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::All right, LGRdC has now blanked this thread for the fifth time. I'm now requesting that the account be blocked for a 3rr violation. This thread wasn't indended to be about him so much as about what to do with the redirects he created, but it's becoming personal. ] (]) 18:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Are you sure you want to go that route? You initiated the thread (which for some people counts for 3RR) and you've restored it three times. That is effectively adding the same (or similar) content four times. Why not talk to LGRdC about this? The thread can be restored later if needed. ] (]) 18:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::(ec)I left a stern warning on LGRdC`s talk page. If he choses to ignore that, then so be it; however unless that happens, I am not willing to block him yet. --] (]) 18:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::(edit conflict x2)I've already blocked LGRdC for edit warring (he claims to be invoking RtV on an account "not used in many months," a falsehood, since he's edited actively until today) - however, I also caution Deor not to fuel the flames of edit warring like this in the future. '''<font color="#ff9900">]</font><font color="#ff6699">]</font>''' 18:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Carcharoth, I don't know how familiar you are with LGRdC communication habits, but it sounds like you never tried to actually talk commonsense with him. He regularly blanks and stonewalls or otherwise disrupts everything that is in the slightest critical of any of his actions. Moreoever, Kralizec is right that RTV does not include the right to remove this section from AN. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">''''']:]'''''</span> 19:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	(outdent) To the best of my knowledge, blanking other users' discussion-page comments falls within the definition of vandalism, and reverting such blanking (as I was only one of three editors to do here) can hardly be considered edit warring. Anyone have any ideas about what to do with the deleted articles that LGRdC has placed in mainspace? ] (]) 19:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I tagged three Ace Combat-related "deleted" articles for speedy since they included AfDed edit history; PhilKnight erased them. The other things he's created, as far as I can tell from the article history, are just redirects he made in user-space and moved to article-space. So, the AfD-evading thing I think is settled, unless I missed an article/history. --] (]) 19:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	{{discussion bottom}}
	== Question regarding non admin closure of AFD ==
	Is there any issue with myself closing AFD's as no consensus or any other close other than delete? This is more of a sanity check, I want to check my thinking. ] (]) 19:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	* ] is clear; Non-admin closures of XfDs should be limited to the following types of closures:
	:*Unanimous or nearly unanimous keep after a full listing period absent any contentious debate among participants.
	:*Speedy keep closures, per the criteria at that guideline.
	:*Snowball clause closes, where it is absolutely obvious that no other outcome other than keep is possible.
	:*Pure housekeeping, such as closing a debate opened in the wrong place, or where the page under discussion has been noncontroversially speedy deleted, yet the debate is not closed.
	* Now NAC is an essay, however I don't see many situations where it would be wrong.
	::<b>]</b> 20:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	*If as a non-admin you wish to close AfD's as no consensus you are free to do so. Just ignore that rather patronising essay. ] (]) 20:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I thought Hammer was correct to reopen ] AfD. The others you did today were ok. ] (]) 20:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Yeah, I had Hammer give it a second look on IRC, we decided that relisting it won't hurt a thing. ] (]) 20:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Exactly. The burden of correcting a bogus keep/merge/noconsensus/wrongvenue closure is an order of magnitude less than correcting a bogus delete closure (because the latter requires admin rights and is unfortunately considered "wheel-warring" until proven innocent). — ] 20:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	When in doubt, non-admins should not close AfDs unless the consensus is obvious. ] 20:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Why? ] (]) 20:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Because there is no desysopping to threaten them with if they screw up (duh... ]). — ] 20:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::They haven't gained community trust most of the time, ergo I'd be uncomfortable with them closing afds. (Plus, a lot of them have failed RfAs, which shows a lack of community trust.) ] 20:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Also, (not in reference to you because you're a former admin and I'm sure you'll get them right) there have been a number of cases where non-admins have closed non-obvious AfDs and got them wrong, which wastes everyones time. If there's not a horrible backlog (which there isn't at the moment), I don't see the point. <b>]</b> 20:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::What a ridiculous answer, closing an AfD as No consensus is no big deal. Deleting is the big deal and that is where the trust is required. ] (]) 20:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Uh, no consensus is a big deal. That's an interpretation in and of itself, as other admins could see a case as no consensus where others see delete. ] 20:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: Not ridiculous in the slightest. There are plenty of AfDs which appear to be "no consensus" through a simple vote-counting exercise, but which aren't for various reasons. Getting a N/C wrong and ending up with another AfD is just as timewasting as getting a Delete wrong and ending up with a DRV. <b>]</b> 20:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::You make it sound as if judging consensus requires the wisdom of Solomon, it really really doesn't. If it did 99% of our administrators would be in deep shit. ] (]) 20:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::: No, of course it doesn't, you're right. On the other hand, I'm just uncomfortable with the idea of hordes of people trying their hand out at random AfD closing, because I've seen too many examples of people getting it wrong. <b>]</b> 21:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	If the outcome would be either nebulous to determine or controversial, I would be fine with a non-admin closing the debate '''if''' he conferred with an administrator or two, just to be sure of his judgement. —] <small>(])</small> 20:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:So long as the closing non-administrator has ] aplenty, I am happy with him or her dabbling a toe in "no consensus" deletion discussion closures. I advise an abundance of caution to be used when making these closures, however: I've seen contentious non-administrator closures result in some nasty head-biting in the past (mostly justified—non-sysop closures have been known to go poorly—and sometimes not). It's your head; you decide whether it goes on the plate or not! ] ] 20:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I vaguely recall that when you got into trouble as an admin it was over exercising judgement in controversial areas. I'd avise you to steer clear but, as the man said, its your head and lots of people (not me) will be watching to catch any mistakes for you. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Yeah, I see one DRV where I closed an AFD that I voted in (what was I thinking?) and one AFD that I improperly applied BLP. I learned from those, and don't intend to close any controversial AFD's. ] (]) 21:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	=== Summary ===
	So basically what I get from the above is "Do what you think you can handle, we will let you know if you get it wrong". Is this correct? ] (]) 21:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I don't think its that cut and dried. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:More like "if it has any possibility of being contentious, avoid it", I think. <b>]</b> 21:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Black kites works for me. ] (]) 21:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::I used to close AfD's during my downtime at work and found it incredibility frustrating. On the one hand you have users who are much too wrapped up in the outcome of a deletion discussion; once they catch wind that you are not an admin, and then it's all "rv - ''Oh no you did-n't'', you’re not even an admin!" On the other hand, you have certain admins who feel that their RfA somehow uniquely endows them with the ability to make an intelligent determination of consensus, who like to bowbeat you with ] for their own amusement. Never will anyone point to a problem with the actual close itself, only that it was a non-adminstrator who did the legwork. It’s infuriating, and in your specific case and obvious qualifications I imagine it would only be especially so.
	:::If you do decide to put up with it though, I’ve successfully closed several debates as delete. Just slap a {{tl|db-xfd}} on the target article and a sensible admin will come along to delete it eventually. ]! 12:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::I agree mostly w/ Dr. Nick here. NAC's help the backlog a lot, but they can generate stress. People get REALLY caught up in the outcome and will come banging on your door if you "mess it up" (give them an outcome other than the one they were looking for). further, closing a LOT of deletion debates will make later attempts to become an admin ]. ] (]) 14:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Seriously though, if you're going to close as delete, make sure it's <i>really</i> uncontentious. <b>]</b> 16:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Seen this? ==
	Consider me chastised if I'm in the wrong place, but have you seen ] lately? ] (]) 20:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Hey, what is going on here. I just checked and it's ok. Ten minutes ago when I went to the article it had a large photo of McCain on it, accross the actual Kerala page. I saved it as a web archive if anyone is interested. ] (]) 20:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::That was likely transclusion vandalism, which can be fleeting. ] (]) 20:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::(ec)There has been some template vandalism involving a picture of an old man, I suspect this is what happened here. There is a report at AIV about it. ] (]) 20:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Review ==
	With regards with the tools, I've requested feedback ]. Comments are welcome. ] (]) 21:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	== User:Bandsofblue ==
	First, please see where I noted ] (who has been indef blocked from vandalism) was using his talk page to create fake results from various reality TV shows on their talk page, fills them all up and then deletes and restarts a few days later. The worst I think the user could be doing is tracking a fantasy league or something like this around these elements, which would violate the appropriate use of userspace.
	Basically, the user is back at it again modifying ]. Again, this may not be harmful, but as I've not yet cleaned out the entry on my watchlist, its hard not to notice. I dunno what can be done short of completely blocking the account; the last time the edits were reverted and deleted but that only seems to be a pattern that will keep on going. --] 23:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Re-deleted and re-protected. The account has actually been blocked since 7 December 2007, so there's no need to allow this to continue. - ] ] 00:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	== User:Screambloodygore667 ==
	Judging by his ] where he encourages vandalism and his contributions which often consist of curse filled furors in all caps (Example being his edits to Talk:Music ), I'd say this is a troll account. ] (]) 00:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I've notified the editor in question about this discussion. - ] 00:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::And I've left him a message asking him to remain civil. ] (]) 00:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::: Keep an eye on him, he's here to 'uphold the glory of metal', which is rarely a good thing. ] (]) 00:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::...Yes. But maybe he can uphold metal's glory while being civil and non-disruptive. ] (]) 00:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::: In my experience, that is ''never'' the case. ] (]) 00:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::...In which case we can uphold the glory of Misplaced Pages by blocking him. Civilly, of course. ] (]) 00:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: Agreed. ] (]) 00:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::(ec)Please ]. Way down at the end of his userboxes, he claims to be a liberal and a ] so I hardly think he's into biting the heads off bats, drinking the blood of virgins, or really challenging the natural order of things. He will discover the joys of ] and ] in all good time. --]] 00:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::Well according to a university in Scotland his Mozart and Beethoven days may come sooner than expected. As the article explains, Screambloodygore667, is just a . ] ] 01:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::: Hey, Rock is my favourite genre, I think the ] article is really crappy, I'm not some sort of classical elitist, don't get me wrong. ] (]) 01:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::None of this is relevant. Is he being disruptive, or do you just not like his tastes in music? - ] 01:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::: Hey, I actually quite like Metal. As I explained in my first post, he's been ranting and raving and cussing and generally being disruptive. ] (]) 02:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Protection is about to expire on the above article. I've laid out suggested ground rules on the talk pages for conduct. In addition, I am recommending here that uninvolved administrators use very short (15 minutes) blocks and page protections to force users to discuss issues with each other on the talk page.--] (]) 01:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	: Protection on the article expires in two weeks; it's not "about to expire". <font face="Verdana">]&nbsp;(])</font> 01:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Whoops. Downgraded the protection now anyway.--] (]) 01:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	===Administrative action review: ]===
	Tznkai appears to be using his position to POV push and support those who do. I am requesting that ] be the admin there as he seems to really have a handle on NPOV. ]. ] (]) 15:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I'll note for the record I havn't made a single content edit to the article. I have made no ( that I can remember anyway) content suggestions on the talk page. I have warned Books repeatedly about violating 3RR, and less so, civility issues. I stand by my actions, which are available for anyone curious. --] (]) 15:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	: @Booksnmore4you: Thread with care while you learn the ropes and please ]. You are welcome to disagree with Tznkai actions, and best would be to address your concerns directly with him in his talk page. ] <small>]</small> 15:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:@Tznkai: There are other people violating 3RR there, hope you look over these as well. ] <small>]</small> 15:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	== The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning ==
	The way I understand it, when listing out actors for a cast list, they should be placed in order of importance, or in order of the film's credit listing. ] persists in re-ordering the cast list of ] in (their own words): "To make it easy to read.Puting it in order by smallest to largest,which I'm doing right now." I've raised the issue on the user's talk page, and already reverted their edits twice, so I cannot revert again. Thoughts? ] (]) 01:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Where did you find that at? (The way cast lists ought to be?) ] doesn't list that, nor does the ] documentation. At least, not that I can see on a cursory first pass of each. I wouldn't say you're wrong per se, but I don't see cast list order as something to push 3RR over, IMVVHO. Will the hypothetical casual Misplaced Pages reader take notice? ] 04:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::We really ought to have an MOS bit on that, so we can at least have consistency from one article to the next. Alpha and order of importance make sense. By length of line, not so much. ] ] 04:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Should I bring up this issue somewhere else, so it will be addressed in the MOS? ] (]) 05:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::You're right, it isn't in the guidelines, but that was the impression I had from interacting with other more experienced editors in the ] project, some of whom are quite particular about the order in which actors are listed. I realise it's a petty issue, but the editor has been repeatedly editing the cast list to make it fit by "length", which may be pretty to look at, but doesn't make any logical sense. ] (]) 04:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Block helper script ==
	I've been working on a block script for quite some time (after DerHexer's script regretfully stopped working, actually), but I've just now gotten around to posting about it here. Some of the specifics of working and installing it are available ]; if you have any bugs, requests, or anything else worth mentioning about it, feel free to ]. Please note that this script has ''only'' been tested in Firefox. Yours, —] <small>(])</small> 01:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Worked beautifully. , then tagged the and . Thanks! - ] ] 02:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Anarctica: Vandalism/Hacking ==
	Can an admin please look up the Antarctica article? There is discriminatory language posted at the bottom of the page <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:I took a quick skim but it's quite a long article. Could you be more specific please? ] (]/]) 03:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I've gone back a week in the history and can't find anything. There was other vandalism that was always quickly reverted. The user left a message on my talk page saying it was within the boxes at the bottom--maybe a template got vandalized somewhere. ] (]/]) 11:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Shortage of involved admins at DYK ==
	OK folks,
	DYK updates have been a bit slow and there's a bit of a shortage of admins actively involved, and some of those who have been doing it for a while could do with a break. We are asking folks who listed themselves on ] to update details on this page - ], so we can grade everyone's involvement (and who, knows, someone may want to get involved more :)
	I find it a nice change of one is getting a little tired of negative interactions with vandals, POV pushers, reverters etc. so maybe the nice warm group-hug of DYK may good place to recharge.
	Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 04:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Please watch me ==
	{{resolved|Sock blocked}}
	http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Hrafn#Please_read_my_recent_edits_...
	Hrafn and his buddies are about to kick me off. "His" hierarchy of consortial editors (using the same username, passwd, and /or email communications) might now kick in. I would like you to restore my good name as Doug youvan, Nukeh, and MsTopeka, as one in the same. I do not have the editorial skills or ability to do anything other than what I have already done, because I focus on content and edit in good faith. I am sorry for breaking rules, but this consortium is just to fast and well skilled in WP rules for me to do otherwise. ] (]) 04:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Please explain precisely what it is you're asking an admin to do. --] (]) 05:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Diffs? Where has hrafn harassed you? And do you have any proof of your accusations of sharing usernames and passwords? That's a serious charge. ] (]) 05:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Given that ] has kindly admitted to being a further sock of banned ]/], could somebody please ban 'her'. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 06:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::There he is, hrafn, and I believe ''that'' to be a consortium of editors, and a proxy of www.kcfs.org with many editors on the same username. It's possible all edits are piped through Krebs at kcfs, but I don't know anyone who could figure out how to detect such technology. I'm now in their home state, but I will not make any legal threats here. They defame my real name, Doug youvan. One has made a threat of violence. One of their goals is to control WP articles that are supportive of certain public policy positions, such as NO Intelligent Design being taught in school. ID is now a mess on WP and elsewhere, but it tracks back to the ideas of Arrhenius, one of the fathers of thermodynamics.
	:::My cv includes 8 years of teaching in 2 departments at MIT in chemistry and biology, 20 years ago. Since then, I was the CEO of a biotech company, worked in aerodynamics, cosmology, mathematics, etc. I am Hrafn's worse nightmare in a public debate because of my background in research level science in many fields. On the other hand, ''his'' goal appears to be only to influence public policy, e.g., the Kansas State School Board elections. They pervert scientific articles on WP simply to make Darwin stand and ID fall, because they believe ALL of ID is a trick to get Creation back in the schools.
			] has been removing any reference to the term 'insurrection' in articles connected with the January 6 capitol attack. ] (]) 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::I broke some WP rules to catch these guys, so what do I do now? I have accumulated evidence here: http://www.childpainter.org, a master website that has links to other websites. I ask you to look at http://www.wikipediaversusthegodofabraham.org. You will also see that MsTopeka has recently tried to alert fellow WP editors to a potential IPO of WP, and has also looked into MACIDs for security reasons. These are not the efforts of the typical bad troll or socketpuppet. They are more akin to an ACLU activity with the goal of continued Freedom of Speech in a society that has lost much to the war on terror, which appears to be the delusions of a dry drunk, Prez Bush, and his money grubbing pals. Please do not lump all Christians in his bag. To do so will recreate 1935 Germany with Chrstians taking the place of Jews in the present day. Hrafn (and Godwin, a pun) would love to see that happen.] (]) 13:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Community assuming the block on Crouch, Swale ==
	::::Above, I read "that this may be a jimbo / arbcom decision in some way (hopefully we'll get clarification in due course)" on PD. If that is a method unknown to hard working, common, everyday editors, it appears we have still another problem. ] (]) 14:14, 8 September 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)
	::::ROFLMAO -- I think this pretty much sums 'Ms Doug' up. I've added a report on ]. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
			*'''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)
	:::::I have no idea what ] is. So, I ask a senior admin to defend my position. I appear to be ''pro per'' (court analogy) in Hfran v Youvan, where Hfran is highly skilled. I am a scientist, mathematician, and proponent of fair play - not a WP "attorney" like Hrafn who wins arguments in article content based on skills in admin stunts. ] (]) 14:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
			* I am not enthusiastic about this, can we not just let them go? --] (]) 13:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Username Blocking... ==
			*: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)
	What's a reasonable amount of time to wait when blocking a username to allow the user to file a request at ]? I unblocked ] after to change his name. Instead of going to CHU, he ...--]] 05:57, 8 September 2008 (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. ] <sup>]</sup>] 17:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	* I speedied the article, because it was NN. To be honest, I'd block them again but to be less ]y, leave a note explaining exactly what they need to do. <b>]</b> 06:03, 8 September 2008 (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 ==
	::(ec) I'd tend to reblock. If the contribution history is limited (as this one is), one might suggest the user simply open a new account with a more Misplaced Pages-friendly name. ] (]) 06:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::I agree, I would reblock. ]] 07:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::I would say that if the user clearly knows that the account is unblocked, and has not yet requested it within 10-15 minutes, he should be reblocked. ] ] 08:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::''At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.'' It's too soon to block. I ] this editor thinks that posting the unblock request (which contains the new username) is all they had to do. <s>I'll see if I can explain.</s> ETA I've been overtaken by events - Smashville has re-blocked (I think the WP database is a bit laggy right now). <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 14:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Yeah...I went with Gale's suggestion. Going through that process is kind of a lot of stuff for a new user whose only nondeleted edit is an unblock request. I left him open to recreate a new account and told him he was able to do it. --]] 16:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
			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)
	== Recurrent IP vandalism on ] ==
			: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)
	See . Suggest temporary semi-protection. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 13:31, 8 September 2008 (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 ] ==
	:Please add this to the ] Thanks ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 13:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
			Please help me move page ] to ] (currently is a redirect page), because of this airport was . ] (]) 04:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	::{{RFPP|semi|1 month}} Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. ] ] 15:01, 8 September 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 ==
	==Need Assistance with Approving Page==
	{{resolved}}
	I created the page "Bettertrades" recently, with the intention of putting up a new and useful page about something I knew and had sources for. It was speedily deleted, and I couldn't get either the deleter or the suggestor to specifically explain the issue. I edited the page even more. I have done everything I can to keep neutral POV, assert notability, and adhere to[REDACTED] standards. I tried requesting help from ] and ], since Coren was the deleting admin, and Jerry was the one who restored the page to my userspace. I've been trying to get some approval or editing from anyone who can help me to make sure that I make the page correctly in order to assure that it doesn't simply get deleted at a pass again.
			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)
	If no one has any opposition, I would like to move the page from my userspace at http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Westcoastbiker/Bettertrades to the URL http://en.wikipedia.org/BetterTrades (note the uppercase "T"). I hope that my exhaustive efforts have proven useful, and that I can move forward with working on other[REDACTED] interests. ] (]) 15:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Westcoastbiker
	:You will probably get better reception by copy/pasting your paragraph here to ]. Would you like assistance in doing that? ] {{IPA|&#448;}}<!-- &#124; also works --> ] 15:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
			:I've done this, but this isn't really something that needs to go to AN. ] (] &#124; ]) 20:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Yes, please. I had not been aware that I could have pursued it in a deletion review when I first started this. Thanks. ] (]) 16:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Westcoastbiker
			== Topic ban appeal from ] ==
	::::I did it. please see: ]. <font face="century gothic" color="#eeff00">''']''' </font><small>] ¤ ]</small> 16:16, 8 September 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:
	==Checkusers please==
			# The bans are both over a year old.
	There is a backlog at ]. Since the worst cases of disruption often end up there, it would be good to keep response times to a minimum. Confirming sock pupptry quick, and thoroughly, can help reduce administrative backlogs and help shut down edit wars. We should be endeavor to find ''all'' the socks in a farm at once, rather than playing ] with them for weeks or months. My sense is that doing a thorough job discourages further socking, whereas whack-a-mole (or cat-and-mouse) encourages more of the same. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
			# 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">&#91;]]</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. ] (] &#124; ]) 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)
	== Request for speedy closing of AfD ==		== Closure request for ITN RfC ==
	{{resolved}}
	Could someone please have a look at ], with an eye to a speedy closing of the debate? It is not just the ≈100% unanimity, but the fact that the nomination was made on faulty premises. As it stands, all the deletion template does is to deface one of the most visited pages on WP. ] (]) 16:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	* Closed. I don't see any point in prolonging that one. <b>]</b> 16:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Thanks for quick response. ] (]) 16:22, 8 September 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)
	== Temporary unprotection of ] ==
			== ] closed ==
			An arbitration case ] has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
	I would like to request that ] is unprotected for a few days, so I can implement the changes needed for ]. In theory an admin could do the changes, but the whole process is pretty complex, and I'd rather get on with it myself. ], an admin who is also in charge of ], has already said that he would see me do it - ] (]) 17:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Not to deflate the balloon, but Arctic.gnome asked you to create the modified version in a sandbox, and then implementing the entire modified version in one edit, not that we unlock the template for a few days so you can whittle away at it (not because you are untrustworthy, but because of other stuff that I won't say per ]). That's my interpretation of his remarks. —'''<font face="Comic Sans MS">]]</font>''' 17:27, 8 September 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.
	== Please review this block ==
			* 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.
	{{resolved|Block reviewed, block-evading IP blocked.}}
			* Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
	I've been blocked for preposterous reasons and accused of vile actions that I did not do. I placed the unblock template on my talk page but nobody seems to have seen it yet. Can someone uninvolved please review my block at ]? If necessary, e-mail me to discuss further. I'll be online sporadically the rest of the day. ] (]) 17:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
			* 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.
	:I have notified FayssalF, the blocking admin, of this discussion. — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 17:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
			* ] 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.}}
	: On the face of it, the block appears to be poorly justified, and based on a single IP edit which is claimed to be you, which you are claiming isn't. I would expect FayssalF, as an experienced user and arbitrator, to give *significantly more* justification for a 2 week block than what has been given, it took me over 10 minutes just to find out what on earth you had allegedly been blocked for. I would consider unblocking if evidence is not forthcoming, but am willing to defer to FayssalF if a much better explanation and substantiation are provided. ] 17:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
			* 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.
	<s>:Well, I can't help but notice the IP address is the same ISP and location.</s> This could of course be a coincidence - it might be worthwhile asking a Checkuser to determine whether it is the same person. ] (]) 17:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Strike, that possibly may not be the case, sorry. ] (]) 18:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
			* The community is encouraged to run a ] aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
	::While we are waiting, this IP is admitting to block evasion, so I've blocked it for the same length of the original block. Even an unjust block does not justify sockpuppetry to get around it. Of course, if the block on the registered account is overturned or reduced, the IP block should be reduced/removed. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
			* 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, ]&nbsp;] 23:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	: I'm calling that {{confirmed}} on both IPs, per FayssalF. IP information has already been revealed above, so yes to that. Both ] and the vandalizing IP used that IP within a very short time. Other technical evidence supports this too - ] <sup>]</sup> 18:12, 8 September 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

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

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• 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 discussion

Open tasks

Centralized discussion

• Prohibiting the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects
• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Noticeboard archives

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
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

XFD backlog

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	97	97
AfD	0	0	0	9	9

• 8 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 10 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 1 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
• 106 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 23 requested closures
• 33 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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think saying that I will never use multiple accounts anymore and that he wants to make constructive content would indicate that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. Ahri Boy (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  And he admits that he was too focused on quantity, rather than quality, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on mass-creating non-notable stubs. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to start over. Frank Anchor 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
• 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)
  • No. Spicy (talk) 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. - 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)

• 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 on mass-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)

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

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

1. Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-12-12/Op-ed

Statement from Tamzin

Excerpting my comment on their talkpage:

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.

-- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 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 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 ban block 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 ban block 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)

• 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)

• 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 that a 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)

  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)

• 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)

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

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)

• 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 wikivoice with 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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

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:

1. File:AL-Cattlemen-2022-approved-passenger-768x376.jpg
2. File:AL-Ducks-Unlimited-2022-768x370.jpg
3. File:AmateurRadAZ.jpg
4. File:AppalachianTN.jpg
5. 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)

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

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 cawikimedia.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)

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)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 17:22, 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)

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

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)

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

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) Looks like we’ve got another @CFA 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… TiggerJay (talk) 04:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC) @Liz here is another CFA imposter for you. Cheers! TiggerJay (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC) I indeffed CFA (AWB) (talk · contribs). Johnuniq (talk) 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. Liz 05:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed community ban of Marginataen

COMMUNITY BAN IMPOSED This clearly fall sunder the except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours condition 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)

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

User:TWC DC1

Warned, then sockblocked. (non-admin closure) JJP_Master (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)

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

Sapo.pt

• Sapo.pt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could an admin undelete that redirect? Thanks Nobody (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:51, 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)

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. JJP_Master (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)

 Done; b:Special:Redirect/logid/5236509. JJP_Master (she/they) 05:08, 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 second third n-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)

Yes. Legend of 14 (talk) 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, 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 to 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 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)

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 a 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. 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)

@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)

• 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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

  By "oppose", are you opposing the site ban or the regular block? JJP_Master (she/they) 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. --Aquillion (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Oh, I think I misread the title of this section—I thought "assuming" was "assessing". JJP_Master (she/they) 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. 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)

• 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)

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:

1. The bans are both over a year old.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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)

• 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

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 logged, 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.

• 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

Category:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards