Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 04:28, 15 May 2006 editTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →Nathanrdotcom blocked for persistently flaunting a stupidly large and garish signature← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:56, 23 January 2025 edit undoDronebogus (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,433 edits →Ban appeal from Rathfelder: ReplyTag: Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}
			<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
	__NEWSECTIONLINK__
			|algo = old(7d)
	__TOC__
			|counter = 368
	== Tasks ==
			|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
	<!-- Please add new sections to the bottom, not here. -->
			|maxarchivesize = 700K
			|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
			|minthreadstoarchive = 1
			|minthreadsleft = 0
			}}{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude><!--S
			{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
			|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
			|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive
			|format=%%i
			|age=48
			|index=no
			|numberstart=255
			|minkeepthreads= 4
			|maxarchsize= 700000
			}}
			--><!--
			----------------------------------------------------------
	<div style="padding: 0 0.5em; margin: 1em 0 0.25em 0.25em; border: 1px solid black; color: inherit; background-color: #ffe3e3; text-align: center;">
			New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
	The following ''']''' require the attention of one or more editors.
			----------------------------------------------------------
	<br>
	''], ], ] and ].''
	</div>
			--><noinclude>
			==Open tasks==
	= General =
			<noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}}
	<!-- Please add new sections to the bottom, not here. -->
			{{Administrators' noticeboard archives}}
			{{Clear}}
	== Requested deletion of pages in my (former) userspace. ==
			{{Admin tasks}}
			__TOC__
	Hello. This is ], and I would like to request the deletion of the following pages in my userspace. (I'd tag them as speedy, but I wouldn't be able to tag them with my original account, which could potentially cause confusion for the admins who clean up speedy deletion candidates)
			</noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove-->
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	In addition, I would like for my userpage, ], to be purged, as there is some personal information in the history that I would like removed. Thank you. --] 01:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
	:This now-blocked user has gone on multiple vandalism sprees, and spent weeks harassing multiple user (myself, Musicallinguist, Slimvirgin, Nicholas Turnbull, 'etc). He put his personal information out there of his own free will, and now that he's decided to act badly, I suspect he doesn't want anyone googling his name to find out about his misbehavior. I don't see why we should be doing him any favors. ] 01:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
	::I've deleted all the user subpages, but not the main userpage itself. The tag about indef block needs to remain as a record. Hopefully this is an acceptable move. ]]<b>]</b> 01:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::That's what I intended by "purge". I would appreciate it if the history of the page was removed. The tag should certainly remain. --] 01:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
	::I removed the information prior to being blocked. The reason I want it completely gone now is because users such as Malber are re-publishing the information in several locations, and that is not acceptable. I did add it of my own free will, true, but that was because I was attempting to foster accountabilty, when I thought that Misplaced Pages was still a decent place. As it turns out, it just became troll food, and that's why I want it gone. --] 01:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
	::Oh, and lies do not become you Raul. I've only gone on ONE vandalism spree, after enduring a multitude of abuses from you, NicholasTurnbull, and several other editors. I was wrong in doing so, true, and I recognize that. That's the only "vandalism spree" I have ever gone on, despite what summaries you use when blocking thousands of potential contributors by instating range blocks on 72.160.1.1/16. I've toyed with your userpage and NicholasTurnbull's userpage, but that is not the same as a "vandalism spree". I also have not at all harrassed Musical Linguist. She just happened to be the user most frequently watching your talk/userpages when I went a'trollin'. As for SlimVirgin, I have given her a fully sincere apology, and have not harrased her since then. --] 02:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::I was counting your sprees on en, meta, and commons - the three that we know of - seperately. If you want to count them as a single one, that's your buisness -- I, for one, do not. ] 02:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
	*Now Raul is starting in on the trolling and republishing this info. I want it gone, and I want action taken against Malber and Raul654. --] 23:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
	**Incorrect. The "republishing this info" was made two days before Blu put in the request for that page to be deleted. Nor was it gratitious - I was making the point that if he should get his ranged blocked again, that the complaint against his ISP (being written by other legit users on that range who get blocked) would contain the personal information he freely posted to his user page. ] 00:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
	This user thinks that there should be no consequences for his actions and his reputation should not be tarnished. I should hope that the Misplaced Pages administrators would show him that he's sadly mistaken. -- {{user|Malber}} 21:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
	In my view his user page should be deleted. The punishment has not included "not to delete his user page". Mind that no one is going to question the punishment. -- ] 10:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
	**Erm, doesn't this IP deserve a block as a user evading his block? ]<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 14:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Jason Gastrich==
	I assert that <span class="plainlinks">] (] &bull; ] &bull; &bull; ] &bull; )</span> has exhausted the community's patience (see ], ], and ]), and have taken the liberty of blocking him indefinitely as a community ban. ] (]) 23:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Endorse decision'''. - ] 01:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
	* I thought this decision had already been made. What gives? — <small>Apr. 21, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>''' <]>'''</tt>
	* I thought he was indef banned. But honestly who cares if someone else indef bans him again since it changes nothing. ] <sub>(] ])</sub> ] 02:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
	** He was banned for a year by Arb Com. Incidentally, I'm not an admin but I also concur. ] 02:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
	*** You're a member of the community so your view counts. - ]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 04:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
	**** I know, but the last time I concurred in a similar context, someone got the mistaken view that I was an admin, so just thought I'd be clear in this case. ] 04:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
	*::::Comment: I saw that - 1) there is a cure for your "unconscionable pretenses of Adminship" (tongue firmly in cheek) , you know, become an Admin! and 2) with people like the accuser running around posting, you'll get your Rouge Admin badge in no time (the editor in question accused JoshuaZ of false pretenses, disruption, misleading him to gain compliance, etc. All the standard cries and protests.) ]<sup>]</sup> 11:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
	*::::: Ok, I get the point, I think your the third person whose made a comment about me becoming an admin in the last 48 hours. I'll probably run in a week or two after a few things are settled. ] 14:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
	*Shoulder-to-shoulder (also non-admin) support on this one <b>]</b> 08:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
	*], support. ] 12:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
	*Support, given his continued sockpuppeting ''after'' a one-year ban was issued. ] - ] 18:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
	::Indeed. I see no evidence that he gives a toss about consensus. ] 21:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
	*Support, given that Gastrich has never contributed anything but time-wastage and hearburn, continued to disrupt and create socks for that purpose post-Arbcom, and shows no signs of ever doing anything else. ]<sup>]</sup> 11:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Totally.''' Don't see how it'll stop him puppeteering, though. ] | ] 18:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC).
	== Suicidal user ==
	Apparently this is the place to report people discussing on Misplaced Pages their intentions to commit ]. The most recent such person is {{user|The Hypnotist}}. Pay particular attention to his edits to ], ], and ]. ] 04:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
	:I wouldn't entertain this. His own talk page and some have shown a tendency towards vandalism and trolling. Based on the ministerial training I've received, posting "Hey, I've got cyanide" messages on Misplaced Pages would be pretty atypical warning signs for a person seriously considering suicide. Not to sound callous, but I don't take this guy seriously, and both the extent of intervention available via Misplaced Pages and its impact is negligable. A link to an outside website should suffice; let's not play into a troll's hands. <b>]<sup>]-]</sup></b> 05:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
	::I agree that his edits in the past have been less than stellar, although some of them (e.g. the whole thing with the ] article, see ]) seem more confused than bad faith. But just because someone is a vandal or confused doesn't mean they can't be suicidal. ] 05:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::Let's warn him with a {{tl|suicide3}} right away, maybe? LOL!! - <b>]</b><small> ]/]/]</small> 05:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
	::::STOP! This is your last warning! Do not commit suicide here. ''You'll make a mess!'' HAHAHAHAHA - <b>]</b><small> ]/]/]</small> 06:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
	:I'm altogether concerned that this has become "the place to report people discussing on Misplaced Pages their intentions to commit ]" (I readily recognize that perhaps Moink offers that description sardonically, and I'd certainly concur with that spirit); one's discussing his/her prospective suicide ought only to be dealt with as any other vandalism. Where disruption to the project occurs (e.g., when a user inserts extraneous comments into mainspace or consumes talk page space with wholly irrelevant comments), a user should surely be blocked; where disruption does not occur (e.g., when a user simply posts comments apropos of an imminent suicide on his/her user page to no deleterious end ), nothing should be done. Having followed the discussion last week with respect to this issue, I'm reasonably sure my position doesn't have a great deal of support here, but I thought it ought to be noted that we are here to write an encyclopedia (cf., to insinuate ourselves into the lives of other editors where the primary object is not the expansion of the 'pedia). ] 06:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
	::Well, and to view it from a practical standpoint for the "suicidal user," if they're genuinely looking for help online, it seems very, very unlikely that they're going to do so by coming to Misplaced Pages to pore over an article on suicide. This is not a self-help site, and if someone's able to find their way to an article in Misplaced Pages, they're able to use Google to look up a resource that's actually helpful. I think this is a good example of ]... don't give vandals the impression that they can eat up resources by claiming that they're suicidal. It's not just an issue of "this is disruptive to Misplaced Pages," it's one of vandals manipulating concern to get attention. <b>]<sup>]-]</sup></b> 06:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::Well, I missed the discussion last week (where is it? I just looked for it and couldn't find it), and I think we've got a responsibility to do more than ignore this. I also don't like the notion of dismissing suicidal talk just because someone has been trollish in the past. I'm not saying that someone couldn't make claims of suicidal ideation in order to stir up trouble or get attention, but I'd rather err on the side of responsibility — better to feed a troll a bit than have someone commit suicide on our watch. Besides the moral questions, imagine the headlines if it turned out to be genuine: "Misplaced Pages ignored suicidal teen's pleas for help" and the like.
	:::I'm also not so sure that someone who's suicidal wouldn't look here. They might ''also'' look in more "useful" locations, but since Misplaced Pages has become such a universal tool it's not inconceivable that someone might look here first. The Misplaced Pages page ] does come up on the first page if you type "suicide" into Google; it's not the top of the list, but it's there.
	:::All that said, I also recognize that most of us can't do anything more than the sensible comments ] has already left on The Hypnotist's talk page; could we get an idea of where he is with a whois search? —] <small>(] • ])</small> 06:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
	::::I think the attention for an unheeded response posted to Misplaced Pages — which would be the same as if it were posted onto a blog, or MySpace, or Facebook, or whatever — would be slight in comparison to that drawn to an article like ]. <b>]<sup>]-]</sup></b> 06:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
	::::The last time this happened it was immediately passed over to the Foundation. I think the same should happen here. (If it turns out to be a spoof, he should get a long block; if it isn't a spoof we have a ''moral duty'' to do ''something''). --] 06:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I think ] to be largely irrelevant here; even as we don't want to encourage trolls and vandals, we ought to react in the same way to a "suicide threat" by a user whom we know to be serious as to one by a user whom we are certain is trolling (perhaps we would suggest a block in the latter case, inasmuch as the intent is to disrupt, but, of course, the former also tends to disrupt when expressed on multiple pages); scilicet, we ought to do nothing (for reasons I attempt to explain below, in response to Tijuana's template). ] 04:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
	(after edit conflict) There was a similar case sometime earlier this year or late last year, if I recall correctly. We're here to build an encyclopedia, and I think we just pointed the guy to some other site (perhaps it was a counselling site or something...). We should do the same here, and not waste rescources and energy on one user with claims. Anyone can make claims. ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> at 06:39 ] <small>(])</small>
	:More like, road to hell is paved with good obsessions. Misplaced Pages does not have a counseling service. Any personal problems of users are only personal problems of users and hence is of no concern to[REDACTED] comunity as a hole.
	:Maybe this might make a nice addition to ]?
	:--<small>]<sup>]|]</sup></small> 07:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
	::Think a short template would be practical... something along the lines of "WP:NOT for med/mental problems, see WebMD, etc."? Then, if they keep going, <nowiki>{{personalproblems2}}</nowiki> could refer them to ]. Guarantee they won't come back after that. <b>]<sup>]-]</sup></b> 07:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::You are joking right?- ] | ] 10:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
	This humor seems grossly inappropriate to me. I agree that Misplaced Pages isn't a suicide prevention / general selfhelp service, and certainly agree that potentially suicidal users should be pointed to another, appropriate, external resource / service. I do disagree with, for example, the concept that "personal problems of users are only personal problems of users and hence is of no concern to[REDACTED] comunity as a hole." (sic) I'll keep this focused at a purely project level and suggest that, at least, it is my hope that the community would be concerned if an editor was lost to the project through suicide. There's a whole wide world out there for mocking fellow humans - this discussion doesn't seem to be contributing to a better encyclopedia, IMVHO. And, as ] points out, we have a ''moral duty'' to do ''something''. ]<font color="green">]</font>] 11:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
	:Then find someone with cheackuser to grab the IP then contact the ISP. We don't know who this person is or where they live so there is nothing else we can do.] 14:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
	:To get this in before somebody tells us to discuss it somewhere more appropriate... all joking aside, I'm fairly certain that all of the editors above would upset if an editor committed suicide. However, the likelihood of someone coming onto Misplaced Pages to declare their serious, immediate intention of taking their own life is beyond remote. Based on my somewhat limited knowledge, when a person has a serious intention of suicide, they will begin to manifest by speaking to friends and family rather than strangers online. More importantly, they don't do so by tagging obnoxious comments onto talk pages with happy faces on them . Part of the reason that you may be misunderstanding some of the responses above as callous is because this is a easy to spot case of a vandal looking for attention — it wouldn't be the first time he's tried .
	:I'm not sure how much experience you've had dealing with vandals, but they'll do pretty much anything for a laugh... faking suicidal tendencies wouldn't be that far up the list compared to other things that have gone down here. If one starts to pick up that he can start getting attention from editors that rush to every suicide claim, trying to track down their IP and call their provider, he's gonna do it again. On a practical level, there's nothing an editor can really do other than refer them to a self-help site, but like I said above, if they got here, they can get there. Since there still seems to be some users concerned, though, ] that you can use in such a case. Looks like this:
	{{suicidehelp}}
	:Just type '''<nowiki>{{suicidehelp}}</nowiki>''' onto their talk page.<b>]<sup>]-]</sup></b> 14:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
	::I can't imagine that I'd be particularly distraught over the loss of any particular editor, and I surely hope the community writ large (and even any given editor) wouldn't be upset over my committing suicide. I, in any case, oppose our apprehending a moral duty (as a matter of policy; certainly individual editors may act, generally, as they wish in this respect) to intercede, and think it altogether inappropriate for us to offer, on a template, an external link to what is plainly an advocacy site (even as most may think the POV for which the site advocates--viz., that one oughtn't to kill him/herself--to be the "correct" view with respect to suicide). This relates, I suppose, to the discussion currently underway apropos of ], and, I think, at the end of the day, the concerns that militate against our adopting that proposed guideline militate against our having an advocacy template here; we are here to write an encyclopedia, from which we may then benefit, and not to inculcate morals under color of policy. If one wants to express on his/her talk page the view that suicide is wrong or should be looked upon with disfavor, especially by those contemplating killing themselves, that's fine (at least if one believes user pages may contain expressions of such sentiments; I, as I've expressed elsewhere, believe that the use of user pages to express personal beliefs is beneficial, rather than harmful, to the project), but I don't think it at all appropriate that we should have a template that responds to a user's querying talk pages and the like about suicide. ] 04:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
	As I mention on the ], I think we should '''keep''' an NPOV version of <nowiki>{{suicidehelp}}</nowiki>, and that it should be similar to the "Resources for dealing with suicidal thoughts' section of ]. Also, ] does not apply here, I don't think people will commit suicide "just to try it." - ] 03:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
	:The beans reference was not for people committing suicide because an editor on Misplaced Pages suggested it. It was about giving the idea that a vandal claiming suicide could get other editor's attention. <b>]<sup>]-]</sup></b> 03:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
	::OFC a vandal actually going through with suicide would be a good thing wouldn't it? ] 15:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Help needed to fix c+p move ==
	] was moved to ] by ], but it appears to have been done by a cut and paste, instead of a move, wiping out the history, (and the resulting redirect is mis-formed). I ] to the user about it, but admin intervention is needed to sort out the history issues, etc, and is probably easier to fix before anyone else edits the target article. Regards, ] 10:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
	:Thanks to ] for fixing the original article, however it appears that a different, second user has renamed the page to yet another title, making the same mistake, so the history is now scattered over <B>three</b> articles! (the talk page history for the original article wasn't merged, was this was just an oversight?)
	:Three pages in question are: ], ] and ] if any admin feels like getting this back into order again! Regards, ] 22:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
	:: What joy. Sorry for missing the talk page history - that was indeed an oversight. I'll go look at these articles now. ] ] 23:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::Thanks for your work on this, I know it's a little messy to fix. (I don't even have anything to do with the article myself, just happened across it by chance!) Cheers, ] 23:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::: Okay, I ''think'' it's done. I redirected two of the names to ] because that's where the article history happened to be. If anyone wants to check this, I'd appreciate it. ] ] 23:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
	::::: BTW if you catch a copy and paste move quickly before any other edits have been done. Its generally best to just revert it. This avoids an admin having to go to the trouble of a history merge etc. It also reinforces the "don't do copy and paste moves" message by forcing the user who did it to go through requested moves if they still wan't the move to go ahead. ] 16:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Blocking numerical user names ==
	Is there any clear policy concerning blocking numerical user names? ] is blocked, ] is not, ] is blocked, ] is not. -- ] 15:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
	*] just says, "Random or apparently random sequences of letters and numbers", but not specifically a number sequence (especially if the number might be significant to a group of people). ] ] 16:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
	Thanks, but what is the difference between 160490 and 159753; 30021190 and 16836054? -- ] 19:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
	::The only differences I noted was that 159753 is a long time user (possibly before the number restriction went in) and 16836054 may just have been overlooked when they registered. --] 19:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::: Then this policy lacks any clarity. I will propose its change in liberal way. Together with kingboyk I don't have any problem with any of the user names I have mentioned. -- ] 07:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::The point of that clause is to prevent confusing usernames. Usernames of larger numbers are hard to recognize and remember, so, for future cases, usernames like the cited examples should probably be blocked. ~]]] 22:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
	::::Rather ironic that these words should be spoken by Mdd4696 and Zzyzx11 isn't it?! Both look like "Random or apparently random sequences of letters and numbers" to me. That said, I personally don't have a problem with ''any'' of the user names mentioned. --] 02:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Actually, my user name is not random. It is named after the ] page :-) ] ] 03:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Blimey. Live and learn. What about the number 11? Are there 10 more Zzyzx's who registered ahead of you? :) --] 03:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::: Maybe it was the rationale. But in practice, where is the difference between 30021190 and 16836054? -- ] 09:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Truthfully, 30021190 doesn't look so random to me... it's a fairly easy-to-remember number with a lot of repeated digits, and likely had some meaning to its user. I think username blocking for randomness should be limited to situations where there is strong reason to believe that a username is genuinely random; at the very least, admins should ask before blocking on grounds of randomness, to determine whether the name in question is genuinely random, or if it just refers to something they don't know about. As noted above, ] could easily have been blocked on joining by a careless admin who didn't bother to ask about the name. --] 09:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
	::::::its the date 09/11/2003 written backwards. &nbsp;]]] 17:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::Technically they don't even need to ask (although it's always nice of course) - "Random or '''apparently random''' sequences of letters and numbers" --] 05:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Actaully, I started editing on Misplaced Pages long before that policy clause was put in place. As I recall, it was instituted because there was a vandal bot that was randomly creating usernames with random characters. ] ] 05:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::: That sounds rather complicated. Why all the huge bureaucracy with it? Why not be liberal? Is 16836054 offending somene? Let's discuss it on ]. -- ] 10:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
	::::: Perhaps it should be changed to only apply if there is a suspicion that the account was created by a bot (unlikely now, don't they use captchas) or is to be used for disruption? --] 05:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::: Nice. Should I alter my proposal? -- ] 08:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	This has been recreated after an AFD, with the edit comment "I'm going to keep doing this forever". I wouldn't like to speedy this myself, as I was involved in the heated ], and in fact I'd suggest a merge-redirect is a better option than deletion (see also ] and ]). — ] ] 15:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
	: Whatever is done, the page should be protected to prevent continued crap. ] 19:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
	::I agree with JoshuaZ. -- ] 10:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::Already is. ''']''']|<sup>]</sup> 17:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Guy Bannister ==
	IP's 65.202.223.13, 66.28.239.163 (twice) and 24.90.8.50 have been vandalising the ] article by inserting random references to "Guy Bannister". Does Guy have the hots for this band in particular or has he popped up anywhere else? <b>]</b> 15:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
	:The vandal(s) must recently have purchased the ] of ] ;) ]] ] 03:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	== On the move, need account terminated. ==
	I'm moving again, and to keep this account from running around, as persuant to what happened to another user, I'm requesting that my account be terminated. ] 01:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC) ''':)'''
	:I don't think the devs/stewards/whoever's in charge of these things carry out these types of requests. ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> at 01:09 ] <small>(])</small>
	::Just make a massively long random password and remove your email address and nobody will access it -- ] 01:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::There is no way to terminate an account, but you can do as Tawker suggests and set the password to something you'll never be able to recall. ] (]) 01:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::Real funny, I'm just taking precautions, admit extreme precautions, so that my account does'nt vandalise Misplaced Pages. ] 02:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC) ''':)'''
	:::::Understood but they ain't kidding. :) --]<sup>]</sup> 03:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::If you are serious, leave me a talk page message on my talk while signed in, requesting an indefinite block, and I will oblige. — ] <sup>]</sup> 03:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::We can also delete your user pages if that's what you want. -- ]<font color="green">]</font>] ] 03:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Per your requests , , , ; your account has been indefinitely blocked from the project withough prejudice. Should you change your mind and wish to return, place the {{t1|unblock}} template on your talk page. — ] <sup>]</sup> 13:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	== A list of fascists on en.wiki, FYI ==
	The user ], registered also on other projects, published on his blog (Article ''Fasiste na en:'') an article, where some users (and I guess also admins) of the en.wiki are listed in a list of fascists. Namely '''Jossi, Dmcdevit, SlimVirgin, Sean Black, Will Beback, TML1988, Ben Aveling''' and '''Stevage'''. Thereafter he deleted . ] 14:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
	P.S. The author of the blog is obviously reading these pages... Some minutes ago he reformulated his blog, making "nepratele svobody" (''enemies of the freedom'') from the original "fasiste" (''fascists''). Nevertheless, I have a copy of the original text. ] 15:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
	:BTW, he has been blocked by Tony Sidaway for 12 hours, and has been requested to delete those personal attacks (see his talk page). 07:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
	::To some degree, we're out on a limb here. His blog is his blog. What's there may indicate his intentions here, and so it might be evidence of his intent to stalk, disrupt, or vandalize, but we can only really care what Misplaced Pages has. If he wants to use his blog to say that we're all chronic bedwetters, that's his business, and I'm sure he'll get all the readers that a private blog gets. It's just one more opinion floating around out there. On the other hand, we can all watch his edits on Misplaced Pages with an especially jaundiced eye and keep a record of his first hand testimony from outside, and, of course, if any such statements ended up on Misplaced Pages pages, we'd delete them and arbitrate/block. I'm not sure how we can block someone on Misplaced Pages for something they did anywhere else. ] 09:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Unfortunately most of us don't read Czech (the language the blog is written in) so we can't even understand what was written. <small>]</small><sup>] | ] | ]</sup> ---- 13:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
	I know no Czech, but I know enough English to understand what "Fašisté na en" means. In response to Geogre's suggestion that "if he wants to use his blog to say that we're all chronic bedwetters, that's his business", this simply isn't the case." For instance, in the ] case, Gastrich was sanctioned, in part, for his use of an external website to solicit meat puppetry. --] 23:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Jeezus, Tony. If you can't see the dangers in punishing people for things you disapprove of off-wiki, I think you need to give it more consideration. I understand the notion that taking wikiconflicts off the wiki doesn't actually help resolve them, and people who write lists of "fascists", "Jew cabalists", "rouge admins", whatever, generally are going to run into trouble here anyway (or already have), but you really might have another look at Geogre's POV, which I think is sensible. -- Grace Note.
	== Images from ] ==
	I have just come across an image sourced from ] which was up for speedy: the says "All rights reserved" but the says "This photo is public". Is this a bug on Flickr, or what is going on here? ] ] 13:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Last time I checked, "public" isn't the same as "public domain". ] | ] 14:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
	::"Public" as used on the Flickr website means that the photo is publicly available to be viewed on the website, i.e. it is not posted by the uploader as a private viewing only image. In terms of licensing for re-use, all rights to the image are reserved by the uploader and it is therefore not suitable for use on Misplaced Pages. Many images on Flickr are released under the ] Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike Licenses, which can be used here. --<font color="2B7A2B">]</font> <font size="4">]</font> 14:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Thanks for that - I removed one from an article earlier today, will go back and delete it now. ] 21:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	] has posted a link to his Paypal account on his userpage. This link has been removed four times by various users, including myself. I left a note on his talk page saying that such links are inappropriate (a comment which he promptly removed ) (Other people trying to persuade Pnatt not to link to Paypal: .) I know of no particular policy against such links, but common sense tells me that this is inappropriate for the encyclopedia. Perhaps ] should be modified. This user also has a history of vandalism, and has been blocked 5 times. Comments? --]]] <sup>]</sup> 05:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I'd treat him as a persistent linkspammer. There was a case before, of a user who put many external links in very small font at the bottom of his userpage and he got permanently blocked for this. (Can't remember the exact username, but he was from the Hebrew Misplaced Pages and got banned there first.) I don't see why posting PayPal links should be treated differently. ]. 06:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	::{{User|Haham hanuka}}, who, BTW, wasn't permanently blocked, just temporarily. --] | ] 07:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] and ] ==
	I have got an E-mail from ] asking for help. He was suddenly blocked, without any messages on his talk page, warning or '''any clue why he was blocked'''. I have checked the block log and it said:
	: 02:38, 5 May 2006 David Gerard blocked "Zmmz (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (obnoxious behaviour, harassment, inviting others to "pile on")
	Still general words, nothing specific. I have asked Zmmz to contact David by E-mail but David's E-mail is not enabled (I was told it is a requirement for a sysadmin to enable the E-mail). Zmmz is in a middle of an Arbcom case and very frustrated. I have worked with him trying to mediate a conflict over a few Iranian-related articles. I got an impression that he is a good productive although sometimes hot-tempered editor. I would not be surprised if he said something uncivil or obnoxious, but he is certainly deserve to know what he was blocked for. Also because of his arbcom case, is it possible to shorten his block? ] 06:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	* Email is not enabled, but a look on his ] contains a section on contacting him, which includes his email address spelt out. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 07:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I'd say unblock him. He shouldn't be left out of his own Arbcom case. (And he should be informed why he was blocked in the first place.) --]]] <sup>]</sup> 06:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Just for the background, Zmmz' involvement in that arbcom case had gone to the point of wikistalking another (semi-)involved party (), and making threats and harassing posts against arbcom members , , ). ] <small><sup>]|]</sup></small> 06:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Yep, that's what I blocked him for. Also, my email should in fact be enabled; are you sure you're permitted to send? - ] 17:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::: I just checked, and I got an error message as well. Could be a couple of things: could you double check that you've put in an address and that you've the "enable e-mail" button checked? ] ] 21:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	Just for the background, both ] and ] are involved parties in the arbitration case, on the opposite side of ]. ] is gathering evidence and asked two other users to share their input and concerns regarding the case, which is within his right, as another administrator already stated in response to ]'s accusations. --] 06:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	I decided to unblock Zmmz, so he could contribute to his own ArbCom case. ] 07:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I would like to point out that being personally involved in an ArbCom case ''should not'' be a "get out of jail free card", so to speak. If you commit an offense that an admin sees as blockable, it shouldn't matter that you have an ArbCom case pending. Don't do the crime if you don't want to do the time. For the record, I have not reviewed this block so I'm not commenting on whether the block was appropriate or not. ] 08:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Just want to say that I did undo Zmmz's autoblock but it was by request. I'm not taking his side or anything. In fact, I have no side. :) I know zilch about his case. --]<sup>]</sup> 11:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Usually if a blocked user is involved in an ArbCom case, it's a good idea to propose an injunction to unblock for the purposes of participating in the case if you want to unblock them. That makes clear the position that the original block stands, but it is suspended only to allow participation in the case. --] (]) 12:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::I disagree with abakharev's unblock. He should have made more of an effort to discuss it with the blocking admin and waited longer for a response. He posted here at 06:11 and unblocked at 07:03, which is far too quick off the mark. The ] cautions against this. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 12:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::No, that's entirely unnecessary. Anyone in an AC case can contribute by emailing the AC or an active arbitrator directly; they don't need to be allowed to edit on the wiki. Spamming to solicit harassment? 24 hours block is the ''least'' he deserves - ] 17:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	No comment on the merits of the case, but this happens way too frequently. Please, everyone, when blocking a user, ''leave them a note explaining why''. This is so that anyone happening along the situation can understand why a block was done without having to make a fuss about it. ] ] 17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Hi Friday, I agree that leaving a note is helpful, but at the same time, admins shouldn't unblock people without checking with the blocking admin first, unless there's been an unambiguous error. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 17:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	::A block without justification ''is'' an unambiguous error, in some people's eyes. I agree that we shouldn't revert others lightly (whether admin actions or normal edits), but a revert is not always automatically inappropriate. Keeping things going smoothly is more important than fragile admin egos. ] ] 17:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::An unambiguous error is one that doesn't rely on a judgment call e.g. when someone blocked for 3RR clearly didn't revert four times. It's not a question of fragile egos, but of trusting admins to have blocked for a reason, and accepting that maybe they know more about the situation than the rest of us. It's about not assuming we always know best. It's about being able to tolerate than we disagree with a block but that someone else has decided to make it anyway. It's about not having a gigantic ego, in fact. :-) ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 17:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	I`m taking a long break from this whole thing, but just for the record; as I was working on the case I saw two more users complaining about user Zora`s rudeness and incivilities, and because their grievances were similar to the editors involved in the case, I civilly asked the two users to review and participate in the ArbCom case, such that the committee will hear their voices. I had no idea this was illegitimate or counted as spamming. I have never been blocked for incivilities, and was not so in this case, nor was I “''obnoxious''” in any way as the admin who blocked me suggested. Had I been warned about this, rest assured I would have discontinued it. Just to note though, others involved in the case, including user Zora herself had asked many editors to go and help her out in the case by leaving positive feedbacks. Blocks like this have heavy consequences, so I urge the admins to not allow their temper get the best of them, and to kindly communicate with the user beforehands. I also want to add that I`m grateful that ] and ] took it upon themselves to do this, because as it turns-out, after the unblock I was able to post a proposal in the case, and it helped greatly, since the case was motioned to close a few hours later after that. Otherwise, I would not have had the chance to submit my refutation.] 18:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	Just a note: Just throwing-around some words can be damaging to a user’s credibility here, since even after the quick unblock by other admins, the original block will stay on the user’s block log. Despite failure to warn, and in spite of my inquiries ] has not provided an explanation. ] 19:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	Latest of several sockpuppet accounts. Check out ], compare to ]'s: ] and ]'s: ]. They are the same.
	User has a long history of:
	* blanking out pages (, , more)
	* vandalizing user pages (, , , )
	* and threatening[REDACTED] with lawsuits (including his current User page) if his "web-site" (his user page) is touched or if messages are left for him.
	User has been warned against vandalism many times by many users (,, among others).
	Vandalism was reported at that time on the Vandalism in Progress page, and I left a message on the , but no action was ever taken, no comment even left.
	]'s very first edit was a revert of references to Frys104's earlier vandalism () and he says he'll sue anyone who touches "his pages" (user page and talk page). Claims he's not a sockpuppet, but his list of contributions is almost identical to the other two. I originally assumed good faith with the original account, but there've been so many page blankings, vandalisms, and creations of sockpuppet accounts, along now with lawsuit threats, that enough is enough. User is again active (as of today) and is already blanking out references to his earlier vandalisms. User plans to turn "his page" into a training site for a Subway franchise (see his user page for details)--] 12:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	: I have given the user a warning to read ] and removed the threat. We'll see what happens next. As for the subway training site, I cannot see that being allowed, but one crisis at a time. - ] 17:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Indeed. I appreciate the your attempt at a solution, TexasAndroid, and I hope it works. I fear, however, that this user's contributions reflect a basic misunderstanding of many of Misplaced Pages's policies (no spam, actual encyclopedic content, NPOV, 3RR, no deliberate blanking of pages, etc). In short: thanks! I hope it sticks!--] 21:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	::: Yep. You may be right, it may not do much. But he needed to be warned first. He needed to be given a chance, not slapped down without warning. - ] 22:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Commons Vandalism?? ==
	<strike>It seems over last nignt a ] uploaded several incorrect images to Commons last night I'm not quite sure what to do (so I posted here). I noticed when ] was replaced with a red X, so I reverted it, and checked his contributions, and it seems there are alot more images affected. Regards ]<sup>( | ])</sup> 13:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)</strike>
	::Nevermind I'm an idiot ]<sup>( | ])</sup> 14:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	== New editor using edit description to post bigoted slurs ==
	] posts include antisemitic phrase "talmudic supremacist zionazi" See: ]. Thought I should at least mention it here.--] 14:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Well, he stopped about 3 hours ago, so I think it's cleared itself up. ] (]) 14:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Please be gentle when slapping me with the trout, but... ==
	... I've had a ] up for almost 2.5 days with one (solicited) comment. Did I do something wrong, or does no one care about this guy? ;) ]] ] 14:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	:For my money, the same cabal who conspired to kill Kennedy are now conspiring to prevent the Altgens article, and its attendant assassination information, from reaching FA status... ] 18:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	::LOL! :D ]] ] 18:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I think the answer may be in the question... ] 21:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Okay, but where? Certainly not in "spamming", I notified a grand total of three people, two of whom had worked on or helped with the article. I almost didn't post '''here''', lest that be construed as "spamming". So, I'm still lost... :) ]] ] 22:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	Since you ask, it's a short article about a dull man. Not one to get my heart racing. ]] 13:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Sure, it's a short article about a dull man&mdash;who took two of the most recognized photographs in world history. No reason it can't be an FA. :) ]] ] 15:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Either I'm misunderstanding your question, or a bigger fish is called for. I thought you were asking why no-one is interested enough in the article to comment on it (answer, which you seem to accept- because it's boring). Perhaps you could write a more interesting article about the photos? ]] 16:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Perhaps '''he''' was boring&mdash;perhaps&mdash;but I don't agree that the '''article''' is. At any rate, it seems my question is answered. :) ]] ] 16:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	== 212.135.1.xxx range on a spree ==
	I've been tracking down vandalism from this range for a couple of minutes and uncovered stuff like this , I'm just saying that the rollback button is useless against there guys (or one guy with a huge range of IPs).
	It seems to be a fairly populated range, so I don't know what to do with it (absolutely not a range block) and their vandalism is too spread out, so semi-protection is also out of the question. -<font color="#FF0000">]</font>] (])<small><sup>]</sup></small> 14:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Why not a range block? ] (]) 14:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Look at the some of their talk pages, it seems to be the UK counterpart to AOL, but if you're willing to put in a range block, go ahead, I don't want to test it on a major ISP for my first time using it :) -<font color="#FF0000">]</font>] (])<small><sup>]</sup></small> 14:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	::: --<b><font color="666666">]</font><font color="#000000">]</font></b><sup> (])</sup> 14:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Urgh. This provider is a vandal kiddie's dream come true. Apparently it combines the school-type public access () with an AOL-type rotating proxy scheme. ] 14:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Personal information==
	Another rogue sockpuppet has added personal information to ]. I don't know how to remove it. It would mean eliminating an edit and it's summary - does anyone have the necessary skills? ] 16:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Maybe what's above, under "Selective deletions?" (We probably really need this as a standard feature.) If I'm misreading the problem, I apologize. ] 17:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	::See also ] and ]. I found the second link when going to "display and edit complete watchlist". I had to delete some personal information yesterday, and did it by restoring just the bad version and moving it to another page, deleting the other page, and then restoring the remaining edits on the original page. I was a bit nervous that I'd delete things I didn't intend to delete and be unable to get them back, so I experimented with one of my own subpages. It worked fine. I then tried pasting the code into my browser favourites, and it was ''much'' easier than I had expected. ] ] 18:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::The easiest way to remove one or several revisions is to delete the article entirely, and then restore only the revisions that do not contain personal information. If you click the first checkbox in the undelete list, hold the SHIFT or CTRL key, and then click the last checkbox, it should check all of them. ~]]] 21:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	==screwed up move==
	in trying to move ] to ] i accidently moved it to Spanning tree trotocol instead. Then in trying to fix it i accidently moved the redirect that had been created at ] by the first move instead. Can someone please delete the redirects that are currently sitting at ] and its corresponding talk page so i can move the real page there? ] 18:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I believe I have fixed this as you intended. Hope this helps. ] ] 18:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	This arbitration case has closed. Lou franklin is indefinitely banned from editing ] and related articles and discussion pages. He is also placed on personal attack and revert parole. These remedies will be enforced by block. For further details, please see the arbitration case page. On behalf of the arbitration committee, ] | ] 18:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	I've lifted the current 1-month block on Lou, with the blocking admin's agreement ( ), as all Lou's blocks related to an article which he can no longer edit. --]<sup>]</sup> 19:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	:s/can/may/ ;-) ] 21:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	:: Hm? ] ] 22:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::It may be that JzG's trying to claim that 'can' can't mean 'may', which it, er, can. --]<sup>]</sup> 22:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	Lou has edited ] in violation of the ArbCom ruling. If the ruling is to be enforced, he should be blocked. I'd do it myself, but I've just edited that page today (for the first time, I believe) and so might not seem a neutral party. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 05:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Review request for Instantnood==
	*
	* ]
	** See especially log of blocks and bans at the bottom
	Following a number of complaints about the activities of {{vandal|Instantnood}}, I have banned him under his probation from several articles on which he had edited disruptively. The authority for this comes under ]. Because he doesn't appear to be learning to moderate his behavior but instead simply goes to edit war on another article, I also blocked Instantnood for 48 hours for disruption.
	The block having expired, Instantnood now requests that the bans be lifted . I am not prepared to do this, but as with all bans I regard these as subject to review by other administrators. So I invite other administrators to examine the circumstances and make whatever changes they think best. --] 18:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I was not notified about user:SchmuckyTheCat's request at WP:AE, and I was not given any opportunity to defend my position before user:Tony Sidaway's decision to impose the block and the page bans. I'm now preparing a response at WP:AE to user:SchmuckyTheCat's request. Please kindly reconsider the block and the page bans after hearing my arguments. </p><p>"'' The block having expired, Instantnood now requests that the bans be lifted . '' " - I requested user:Tony Sidaway to reconsider ''before'' the block expired , but she/he did not respond until I moved the reply to his user talk page after the block expired. &mdash; ]] 18:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Have you ever considered taking up co-operative editing instead? ] 21:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::May I know what else do I have to do? &mdash; ]] 10:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	::I've responded to user:SchmuckyTheCat's request at WP:AE. &mdash; ]] 22:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	::: JzG's question wasn't rhetorical. I'm interested in the answer also. Why aren't you changing your editing patterns? ] 21:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	I commented as followed on Tony Sidaway's page (as requested by the ban box). He asked me to copy it here:
	<blockquote>Hi Tony, I checked ] edits on ] from Dec2005 till his/her ban from that article. I couldn't see a reason for the ban on that article. I make no comment on his/her other behviour of which, currently, I have little knowledge. I'd appreciate your reasons. Thanks. ] 15:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)</blockquote>
	<blockquote>I've now checked this user's edits on ] and it appears there is a legitimate reason for his/her edits. An edit summary of this user pointed to the difference between a ] and a ]. Hong Kong is listed as the former but not the later. ] 16:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)</blockquote>
	<blockquote>Hi Tony, I've now checked his/her behaviour on ]. He/she used the discussion page appropriately, organised a poll and edited accordingly. He/she suffered incivility from other users. I can't see why he/she is banned from the page. I have not looked at his/her editing on other pages and will await your comments. Thanks again.
	] 16:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)</blockquote>
	Since then I have also seen the claim that there was an arbcom case about him without his knowledge. If this is true I find it disappointing and unjust. Can anyone comment on this? ] 07:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	: To clarify, Instantnood actively participated in both of his first two arbitration case, and was fully informed of the third case but volubly declined to participate. --] 11:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	::I've explained for many times why it was like that. I wasn't able to submit a statement before case was opened, for I was blocked around that period. When the block expired the case was already opened based upon one-sided opinion, and the evidence and workshop had started. I could not pretend all these had not happened and submit a statement by then. The statement wouldn't have much effect, anyway, since the case was already opened and things were already getting on. I requested to reconsider its opening, but the ArbCom members obviously didn't care about fairness and justice of the arbitration mechanism. That's, frankly, disappointing. &mdash; ]] 20:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	If it was unfair, you can appeal to Jimbo. --] 20:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Would it help? &mdash; ]] 20:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	:In fact I tried before, and apparently there wasn't any response. &mdash; ]] 21:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	The arbitration committee has amended this case to add a new remedy. Herschelkrustofsky is now banned from editing Misplaced Pages for one year. On behalf of the arbitration committee, ] | ] 19:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	=={{lx|1=|2={{ucfirst:Talk:George W. Bush}}|3=Talk|4=talk}}==
	'''] issues''', big ones, that talk page needs a full time monitor, it's virtually 100% trolling, there's no way to interact with anyone on that page without being reverted, threatened, mocked, and subjected to the usualy freepr nonsense. As most of you will recall, back in december or january, i forget which, they had an official "''freep in''", which thankflly most of them were too mature to respond to, however the ones that did respond, seem to have never left and have essentially camped out on that talk page, and focused all their hosility on it. I think at this point that page is going to need some sort of adult supervision, from a preferably uninvolved admin--] 19:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Who'd have thought? ] 21:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Sounds like a job for a listserv moderator! 8-) If a non-admin would wade in, would someone be willing to throw him a life raft from time to time? ;-) --] 21:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Possible attack account and sockcheck request ==
	] has, to date, contributed nothing other than attacks on my user/user talk page and edits to their own page(s). I'm almost certain who its a sockpuppet of, but despite relatively damning IP evidence, they denied everything on an RfC...
	If this account could be blocked, I'd appreciate it - less noise to remove from my user or user talk pages; and if a sockcheck could be run I'd really appreciate it. --] 22:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Sockcheck? You're not referring to ] are you? To be honest, I can't see a case for a CheckUser since the editor in question is soon to be indefblocked simply for harrassment if s/he carries on with you. I'm watching them to see if they keep harrassing you, and if they do, I will block them. Sometimes a '''final warning''' can make someone get their act together. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Right, I didn't know that it had changed name, and that it had its own page now, oops. And no, its not the indefinately blocked user who somehow latched on to me; its someone from an awful lot longer back who has constantly returned to mess around with my user page and make snide comments on my talk page. Which is why my user page is sprotected... --] 22:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::I blocked indefinitely just minutes after Deskana had given a final warning. I don't see any point in unblocking; the account obviously exists for the purpose of harassment, and he has the option of apologizing on his talk page if he wants to turn over a new leaf. He has no useful edits. Regarding ], they may think it's unncessary since he's been blocked, but if it's a sockpuppet of someone who's in the middle of a six-month ban, for example, the ban would be reset if the sockpuppetry is established. ] ] 22:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::Right, one of said users other sockpuppets, ], has reappeared for the exact same purposes (attack account). This is why I requested a checkuser... If this attack account could be banned, I'd appreciate that too. --] 02:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	== "Governor" cruft. ==
	<small>(This isn't an incident per se, so I don't know where to report this to. Please tell me if I have reported this to the inappropriate page and I will move this to the right page. Thank you.)
	{{user2|1028}} - "Don't forget to cast your vote for Wikipedian governor! The polls close on May 9! Send your nominations for governor to User:1028's talk page". (Misplaced Pages doesn't have a Governor, as we all know)
	This has been posted to several other Wikipedians' userpages:
	* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:FreplySpang&diff=prev&oldid=51754959
	* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Shanel&diff=prev&oldid=51754658
	* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Kungfuadam&diff=prev&oldid=51754508
	* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Academic_Challenger&diff=prev&oldid=51754377
	* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Kusma&diff=prev&oldid=51754208
	Thanks. — ] ] ] <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>]]]] <sup>(Got something to say? ].)</sup></b></font> 23:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Leaving a message on his talk page as you did was the appropriate thing to do, although being more polite wouldn't hurt. ~]]] 02:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Yes, I could've been, and I'll try to be. even after my comment on his talk. I even linked to ] and he just doesn't get it the concept. That's a bit frustrating. :| — ] ] ] <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>]] <sup>(Got something to say? ].)</sup></b></font> 02:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::I completely understand what you mean, but I'm not sure there's anything you can do until it's more than an annoyance. There's all sorts of people on Misplaced Pages, and there will always be some that just don't "get it". ~]]] 04:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::Btw, I was a bit more polite in the explanation the second time around (and I'm usually never sure how to word things), perhaps he'll get the idea this time. If there's anything I could've said/done better, please let me know on my talk. Thanks for the help. — ] ] ] <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>]] <sup>(Got something to say? ].)</sup></b></font> 05:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Hmmm. Taking a good look at his talkpage, I'm not sure it's more politeness that's needed. He seems a little aggressive in defending his nonsense articles, coming close to harassment in some cases. Many of his invites to the Governor election have gone to administrators who've tried to deal with these articles, and with him. He seems to focus especially on the patient ] (who told him in March, with uncharacteristic terseness, that "It is obvious that you are not President Bush"). I think it may be coming up to block time, and have dropped a note on Academic Challenger to see if there's anything he'd like to share. And in the Governor Cruft race, my vote goes to ]. ] | ] 05:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC).
	I have a lot of experience with this user. He seems to enjoy playing around with administrators. About a month ago he wrote an article called ] which I and several other admins deleted, but he kept recreating it for a while until finally he got tired of it and got me to agree to what he called a truce. I'm not sure what should be done with him. He seems to have made some good edits and from his user page he seems to be pretty intelligent, but I'm not sure how to get him to stop these types of actions. Basically I've politely responded to all of his messages and that seems to be working somewhat. ] 05:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	: I don't know what on his userpage makes on think he is "pretty intelligent"; I don't get that impression. He lists himself in the non-existent category of "Wikipedians with an IQ of surprisingly high" which doesn't even obey the rules of English grammar. As for useful contributions, I don't see any in the last 50 edits. ] 06:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	Yes, you are right that any useful edits he made were done a long time ago. I would support a block for disruption if he continues to add nonsense to article pages or talk pages. ] 06:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Come on! ==
	Look at this. The two other diffs before show quite a lot as well. PLEASE, admins, list pages you protect. You are welcome to use my monobook javascript for protecting pages (if you run the monobook skin), but please use this list. It has many advantages for Misplaced Pages and page protection, as it easy easy for ''all'' admins to get an overview of what is going on.''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 07:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Personally, I've '''rarely''' found ] useful at all. There are already at least a dozen ] for protected pages, and most editors discuss the protections on the protected page's talk page. When I place page protection, I keep it on my desk until I lift it, use the protections templates, and usually leave a note on it's talk. Is this ]? Perhaps, but it seems to be working. — ] <sup>]</sup> 14:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	:All the protections I do are semi-protection of vandals' user talk pages, and I always stick a note at the top of my talk page header to remind me to take it off if/when the block expires. (Not only is it a page I see very often, but if I was run over by a bus, other people can see it.) And more recently I've protected some DYK images, and whoever does the next update always takes care of that. I don't see why any further notice of either type of protection is necessary. --]<sup>]</sup> 15:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Yep, I keep a ] right on my main user page too, with ToDo's and blocks/protections to revist, its very usefull for me. — ] <sup>]</sup> 20:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::I borrowed yours as a "calendar". Nice idea, hope you don't mind. ;) ]] ] 02:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Yeah...I should mention that userpages protections are not really needed at WP:PP. I don't care much for those, but the other ones are important.''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 17:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::I must be missing something then, why is that page so important? — ] <sup>]</sup> 20:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::I've just completed and debugged super javascript that looks at the cat pages for semi and full, checks if they are listed and makes a list of the ones that aren't, goes to the log (which limit=5000) checks for the last protection of those items, extracts the summary, user, and date and then goes back to WP:PP and adds it in. Sheesh...debugging that was annoying...''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 05:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::To avoid a ] let continue this at ]
	== spamlink by anon in progress ==
	] is spamlinking Misplaced Pages. He/she/it is adding http://www.seemalaysia.org to a lot of pages. Tried to revert his edit but too many and too fast. I suspect it's a bot. Hope somebody could ban the IP temporarily and revert all his edits. ] <sup>(])</sup> 10:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	:User has stopped; I've reverted and left a message on the talk page. ]] ] 17:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	I'm looking for a volunteer putting ] on his watchlist, enforcing ], guiding Misplaced Pages newbies not to use the talk page for endless discussions of the subject etc. I've tried but I'm not up to the task. No prior involvement with article would be a plus. --] 11:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I tried once, in mid-February, and I burned out like ''that''. It's a terrible place. I'd say no prior involvement is more than a plus, it's a precondition, because once people have tried to do those things you describe, Pjacobi, they're unlikely to go near it ever again. I mean, I tried, and look at me now, sticking straws in my hair, muttering to myself, clutching at the air. ] and its talkpage are home to some contributors (I speak euphemistically) who edit only there, who are at Misplaced Pages for no other purpose than pushing their POV at that article. It's a lot like the notorious ] in that respect. Frankly, in several cases, I don't think it's that they're newbies (they aren't any more), it's that they're not here to learn. Rather than sending new waves of fresh-faced young admins into these purging fires, it might be time to send the article and its habitual editors straight where ] ended up: to messy and acrimonious . ] | ] 12:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC).
	::Ah, the Bogdanov affair. Is it a bad thing that I can look back almost fondly on that? --] ] ] 02:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	::I found your comments, Bishonen, to be unnecessarily negative. Yes, we have sometimes contributors that come with the only intention to bypass policy and push their POV, engage in uncivil behavior and disrupt talk-page discipline. These come and go after a few weeks. But we also have committed contributors that are civil and do a great deal of research to improve the material in the article. At the end of the day, it is perseverance and patience that wins the game against POV pushing. The article has benefitted from your first intervention and from P. Jacobi's. Efforts have and continue to be made to make the article better, more succint and more compliant. Unnecessary negative comments and comparisons as the ones you made above, only help those that want to sabotage Misplaced Pages's processes. Your Barnstar to a self-declared POV pusher, commending him for "his efforts to balance the article" after just a cursory look at the article, did not help either, and shows a definitive bias that I am surprised to observe in you. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 15:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::I think I fully deserved Bishone's award for keeping the Prem Rawat article balanced against Jossi's POV pushing. Jossi repeatedly removed all specifics of criticism from the summary. Bishonen's observation of Jossi's behavior then was enough or could have been enough to see that Jossi is not exactly the ideal, neutral contributor to that article. ] 22:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::This is an outrageous and untruthful statement, Andries. Judge me by my edits, by my behavior and by my contribututions to Misplaced Pages. I have welcomed each and every editor that came to edit this article, even those that attacked me personally and were banned. I have explained policy to each one of them. I have restored criticism deleted by proponents. I welcomed Bishonen's and Pjacobi's interventions, while you were at work in the detractors' forum colluding on how to push their POV with your help. You are the self-admitted POV pusher, not me. Just read . My opiniopn remains that Bishonen's "award" was a mistake and did not help, on the contrary. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 22:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::I do admit that you try to be fair even on that article, but it will be clear that I do not think you are fair and reasonable. ] 22:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::Yes, I openly admitted that I was a POV pusher, but I wonder how other editors would feel if e.g. the article ], ], or ] stated that they cannot be trusted and do not speak the truth. I am not aware of any other article in Misplaced Pages that makes such generalizations. ] 22:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::POV pushing is POV pushing is POV pushing. Two wrongs do not make a right. So, before you accuse anyone of that, just look at your behavior at ]. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 04:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Bishonen, arbitration for violating what policies and guidelines? Yes, the talk page is used by minor contributors for many off-topic discussions, but I do not think that the violations by the main contributors relative to the amount of contributions by them on the article have been frequent and serious enough for arbitration. I almost wished they were, because then the endless disagreements, reverts and discussing could possibly lead into constructive directions. Now the proportion of non-constructive edits and discussion remains too high and this is not likely going to change. ] 13:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::It ''can'' change, if we all help with it. Join me and other experienced editors in reigning some kind of basic talk-page discipline. We can do it, if we apply ourselves to it. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 16:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	<!-- 00:15, 07 May 2006 (UTC) -->
	This user was permanently blocked for recreating a copyvio article, ]. He has expressed interest in recreating the article without copyvio. Can someone read his talk page, review the deleted article, and reconsider the length of the block.
	This article is being reported on by the of the New York capital.
	==]==
	I have blocked {{vandal|Seahen}} indefinitely for creating userboxes promoting pedophilia (girllover and boylover), general trolling by listing their speedy deletion for review, and talk page spamming in an attempt to rig the deletion review. --] 16:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Object'''. I cannot support an indefinite block without warning on a user who has no previous blocks and continues to make good-faith edits, including today. I would support a 24 hour block to make sure he understands that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia and attempts to use it for something else are not welcome, and longer blocks, possibly indefinite, if he continues to defy policy after it ends. --]<sup>]</sup> 16:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	: You're right. I overreacted. I've no objection to an unblock or modification. --] 16:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	::I've reduced the block to 24 hours for talk page spamming. --]<sup>]</sup> 16:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	*It seems rash to indef block someone that has contributed for over a year over one situation in which they were given no warnings. Also, since when did NPA not apply to you Tony? I know people support calling a troll a troll (even though I am not sure if this was done in bad faith), but do you really need to throw in stupid too? Someone should also explain why he is now blocked (the talk page spamming in an attempt to vote stack) and he has requested an unblock. ] 16:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:He knows why he's blocked - Tony referred to talk page spamming, and as I specifically asked him not to continue after his block was lifted, it's pretty obvious that that was the reason I didn't lift the block entirely. And ] has dealt with the unblock request (denied). --]<sup>]</sup> 17:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:: I lifted this block later yesterday after Seahen clarified that he had discussed the matter with Jimbo and accepted that he shouldn't do things that might bring Misplaced Pages into disrepute. --] 23:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	This arbitration case has closed. ] is banned from depleted uranium, placed on probation, and placed on general probation. Those opposing editors who have made personal attacks on James S. are reminded of the policies regarding courtesy and personal attacks. TDC is placed on revert parole. For further details, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, ] | ] 17:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Apparent ] violation at Pilot of invisible F-117-a AFD ==
	I request an administrator to check the discussion about ]. {{user|Dzoni}} and apparently {{user|Kris12}} are doing ratial comments against {{user|Mig11}}. Since I do not know Serbian, I cannot verify if what Mig11 stated is correct, but if so, maybe it is time for the AFD to close since it has lost ] and ]. Thanks. -- ] 17:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Also, this AfD seems to be going into its 8th day. =P&#160;— ]] 08:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] not closed ==
	Found this cleaning out my watchlist. The nom has been open since April 21, and all votes are delete, so I have no idea why it's not closed yet. Maybe it accidently got removed from the log or something? Anyway, some admin should take care of it. ] 17:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Done. --]<sup>]</sup> 17:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Image related legal question ==
	My question is about ], uploaded by {{user|Aditya Kabir}}. The image shows a group of teen-aged-looking tribal girls dancing during the festival. The image is used in proper context in the article ], where these tribes live.
	Now, the problem with the image is a bit of frontal nudity of one of the dancers. Normally, that wouldn't have been a problem (and I know that ]). However, it appears that the dancer is underaged, and my question in this case is whether the image is legal to use in the articles or view it, considering US or more specifically Florida laws regarding images of underage people. The image also has dubious source/copyright info, but that's another problem. Thanks. --] 17:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	Yes, it is legal. Full frontal nudity of children is on all the time on PBS TV shows in every state in the US. ] 18:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Nudity != pornography. Pictures of nude children are fine so long as the picture was not intended to be sexually arousing. Lacisvious is the correct word, but I can't spell it right for the life of me, so use my attempt and find the correct one. -''']</font>'''<sup>]</font></sup> ] 18:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	: is the word; see also , the term most often used in the United States in analyses such as this... ] 18:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Prurient doesn't quite apply here, thats generally used to classify obscenity (appealing to a prurient interest). Lascivicus ('lewd, lustful') is used to classify pornography, and as such is the difference between those naked bath photos your mom as of you as a baby being embarassing rather then illegal :) -''']</font>'''<sup>]</font></sup> ] 19:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Well, we do often use the ] in considering whether pornography is obscene; I'd suggest, for example, that an analysis of an ] photograph would turn on the lack of appeal to a prurient interest. Your point with respect to the difference between nudity qua depiction of a natural human state and nudity qua tool of sexual arousal is well-made, but such distinctions are sometimes difficult for judges to make, and there is a tendency to classify all that involves human nudity as pornography. Notwithstanding the legal distinctions, though, Wiktionary gives them as either word as a synonym for the other, so I suppose it's all good. :) ] 06:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	Thanks for the clarification regarding the image. --] 19:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
	:The nudity is absolutely fine in the cultural context, but it would be nice to confirm the licensing status. I've left a message for the uploader. ] 15:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Ongoing problem at ] and ] re photos==
	Long ago, I added a photo of Louis Gossett, Jr., as Anwar Sadat. There appears to be a campaign to obliterate this photo from the article in favor of that of a very Arab-looking actor who portrayed Sadat (and looks nothing like him) in a later production. It repeatedly has been removed and the other pic inserted. My stance has been that there is room for both. The latest edit warrior is insisting -- IMO, absurdly -- that there are "too many pictures" and that the Arab's photo is "more important." From where I stand, just another example of afrophobia. I'd appreciate it if someone would stop by and take a look. Thanks. ] 07:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	Same problem at ]. The photo of the Fellahin girl (in a section that expressly discusses the Fellahin) has been repeatedly removed. (The Fellahin are darker-skinned Egyptians.) Repeated problems with this image being removed also. Presently, the same edit warrior ] who repeatedly has removed the pic of Louis Gossett, Jr. in ] has removed the photo of the Fellahin girl in favor of a "superior" photograph. IMO, repeated and blatant attempts to expunge the image of black Egyptians from the website. ] 08:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	:One would predict that Egypt has ethnic issues that are distinct from ethnic issues in the US. Don't project your own views on others where they are not vaild. ] 12:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Talk Page has gone missing==
	Could someone please reinstate the talk page to ]. It's gone missing! Thanks--] 11:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	::I restored it. I am assuming it related to the Alkivar problem and Freakofnature just forgot to restore it after cleansing the page history. There wasn't an summary in the deletion log, so if I restored it in err, another admin should feel free to redelete it. --] (]) 11:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	This arbitration case is now closed.
	* Article bans:
	** ] and ] are banned from editing articles related to Persians or Iran. Relatedness is to be interpreted broadly so as to prevent gaming.
	** ] is banned from editing ] and ].
	* Probation:
	** ] and ] are placed on ] for one year.
	** For edit warring, ], ], ], and ] are placed on ] for one year.
	* Banned from Misplaced Pages:
	** For edit warring, personal attacks, and other disruption, ], '''under all of his usernames''', is banned from editing Misplaced Pages for one year.
	Further details are given in the decision at the link above.
	For the Arbitration Committee. --] 15:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Vandal at "Libertarianism" ==
	A user by the name of "Irgendwer" is repeated deleting the word "political" from the descriptor "political philosophy" on the Libertarianism page. The issue has been much discussed on the talk page and consensus is that the descriptor "political philosophy" is appropriate. This user has some kind of ideological axe to grind. Help would be much appreciated. ] 16:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	:'''Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content.''' Try taking it to the article's talk page, the user's talk page, or ]. If he does it more than three times, report him at ]. ]]]''']''' 16:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks==
	Please see ] for an attempt to create a new and very bad policy by the means of edit waring and voting. ] 17:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Releasing Personal information on Misplaced Pages==
	{{IPvandal|69.133.158.38}} just recently posted personal information (ie; address and phone number) of someone on Misplaced Pages . Could someone delete this edit so it isn't for public viewing. Thanks! ]] 21:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	*Just a thought, but this is a high traffic page, you might not want to hyperlink that, according to google, the phone number and address are both listed, so putting it out in the open might attract unwanted attention--<i><b>]</b> <small>iso − 8859 − 1</small><b>]</b></i> 21:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	::I deleted the edit and blocked the IP. ] 22:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::FYI: that user has three other edits with the same personal information. ] 22:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::Way ahead of you. :-) I already alerted Chick Bowen and hopefully they too will be deleted. ]] 22:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	I'm handling them now. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I've removed those edits from the page history. Problem solved. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Sorry, I should have checked that. Thanks, everyone, and good work, DGX. ] 22:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Admin familiar with Pro Wrestling? ==
	Howdy,
	I'm looking for an admin that either particpates in ], is familiar with pro wrestling, or at least follows the WWE to help out with a small task. Please contact me on my talk page if this is you! Thank you for your help, --]|<sup>]</sup> 01:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	::The only admin I am aware of that knows anything about Pro Wrestling is ]. If you need help on anything pro wrestling related in relation to a trivial extent, I am available for that as I am pretty knowledgeable about it. :-D ]] 01:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Yes, I've already contacted him, but he is kind of on a wikibreak of sorts at the moment. The matter concerns a semi-protect so I really need to speak to an admin, thanks though! --]|<sup>]</sup> 02:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	Just to be clear, I'm still looking for someone :) --]|<sup>]</sup> 15:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	:''This page is linked from the English ] to this title (above) corresponding to the section below. Please make sure it is not renamed again.'' --] 01:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Wiktionary user ==
	The ] (apparently corresponding to ] here) was indefinitely blocked this year on the English Wiktionary for '''massive, systemic copyright violations.''' His primary sources were ''Webster's third new international dictionary, unabridged'', by Merriam-Webster, Inc. and ''The Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised)'' (using either the on-line edition or a CD-ROM version - the specific version remains unclear for a portion of his entries.)
	The main Wiktionary discussion can be found here: ]. In his own defense, he relied on bizarre personal attacks, personal threats and repetitious flagrant lies (perhaps in the hope that repeating a certain lie over and over again would make it somehow become truth.)
	For over a month now, he has used '''many''' sockpuppets on the English Wiktionary, confirmed by checkuser(!) request on ]. <small>Only the most recent batch of sockpuppets is listed on the meta page.</small> He has become ] single most assiduous vandal, recently prompting an automated '''block of some 6,000+ IP addresses''' used by the ].
	His signature vandalism patterns alternate between massive rudimentary copyright violations, and bombarding Wiktionary with massive quantites of unattested vulgar terminology.
	His copyright-vandalism today on the English Wiktionary (via a new sockpuppet that he created some time ago, in preparation) was first traced to the Misplaced Pages entry for ], where has been steadily, incrementally adding content. It is apparent to me, that he is using a 'bot to upload material here on Misplaced Pages just as he used to on Wiktionary, as several tell-tale signs are in each of his entries. It is my personal theory that he is using 'bot technology to split apart his edits, so that no single edit triggers a VandalBot "copyright" warning on the anti-vandalism channels.
	I hereby request assistance from '''''all''''' Misplaced Pages sysops in chasing down this prolific individual's copyright violations (here on Misplaced Pages, as well as on Wiktionary - as many entries on Wiktionary still have not been cleaned adequately.) I am somewhat unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages policies regarding copyright violation. But I cannot imagine that such systemic, wholesale copying is condoned here.
	--] 07:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC) (Wiktionary sysop; please leave messages on my talk page ].)
	:Here is a bit of advice to anyone who reads this: check carefully everything Connel MacKenzie says. He has been known to exaggerate greatly at times. This is a very complex, personal dispute between him and I. Unfortunately, I do not possess the knowledge to use "bots". (And, what does this have to do with Misplaced Pages?) I don't know what you mean by "vandalism," either. I've had some ''content'' disputes with you. I admit I moved some material I wrote here to ''Wiktionary,'' all of which you apparently deleted on sight. The autoblocker blocked my IP for a short time, so I was able to get a new user name (something suggested to me by Tawker in a public discussion). I created about 5 vulgar entries on ''Wiktionary'' which Connel MacKenzie deleted on sight (even though ''Wiktionary'' is not censored--supposedly--and they all had citations). So, that's hardly the "massive quantites" you're describing. Really, this is not relevant to Misplaced Pages at all. The reason I remain blocked is very complex but can be boiled down to three factors: (1) personal attacks, (2) evading my block, and (3) alleged copyright violation. Now, Connel MacKenzie is going through everything I ever created on Wiktionary (I made about ) and reverting or deleting it on the unproven assumption that it's all copyvio material. Connel MacKenzie is a very bitter person. He's had more disputes on Wiktionary than any other user. Now he's the person who banned all of those accounts and he's the only one still complaining about me. The fact he is even bringing up such a matter here shows even greater malice on his part, in my opinion. If he were editing on Misplaced Pages, he would have been banned a while ago. However, there's no real formal dispute resolution process on Wiktionary, so he can just continue acting the way he does and no one can do anything about it.--] 10:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::Thank you Primetime! I could not have ''asked'' for a better demonstration of your immediate tactics of 1) resorting to invalid personal attacks, and 2) bold, flagrant lies. --] 01:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	::I find this dispute worrisome because it may have affected Wikpedia administration. I recently nominated "]" for AfD, due chiefly for its apparent violation of ] . ] argued eloquently, effectively, and somewhat duplicitously (as I've said to him) against its transwikification to Wiktionary. ] had said that Wiktionary editors were intolerant, and would not accept the material. This report describes additional aspects to the matter. I don't know if the claim by Connel MacKenzie has merit or not, but Wiktionary is a sister project and we should work in a coordinated fashion. -] 11:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Please note that Primetime's indefinite block on Wiktionary was approved after a decision made by the community. It was not even issued by Connel MacKenzie . Now Connel is indeed a very active contributor and sysop on Wiktionary, probably among our best (if there's such a thing as "the best" on a wiki), who's not afraid of discussion, some arguments in which he is a party indeed evolving into what one might arguably call a "dispute". That is, however, of no relevance here, and has more to do with the argumentative nature of the English Wiktionary. Primetime, though, has never conformed to the rules that apply to Wiktionary, and he and his host of sockpuppets have been banned from Wiktionary '''by the community''', for the reasons given above by Connel. The majority of his former contributions have either been deleted (by a variety of sysops, not just Connel), or rephrased in order to eliminate the copyright violations originally entered by Primetime. New admissions from his part, once they have been identified as being Primetime's, are being deleted on sight (by a variety of sysops, not just Connel or me) due to his long-standing tradition of '''proven''' copyright violations. ] 18:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC) (Wiktionary sysop).
	::::First, there was a discussion where the editors participating came upon agreement that my most-recent creations, created on three nights in March and January would be deleted. (See ]). Further, my most-recent contributions were already trying to be deleted or had already been deleted when some discovered that they were from me. Others no one ever found out were from me were deleted as well. Further, those didn't look anything like the single-phrase definitions they were complaining about for copyvios. When Connel MacKenzie did a checkuser on some accounts, he immediately deleted the remainder. He never did a checkuser on the accounts he blocked last night, though. Here's an explanation of why they were already trying to delete them:<p>Some editors have interpreted Wiktionary's ] as meaning that a single reliable source is enough to prove a word's usage. Others, however, say that only three quotations will suffice, despite the fact that the page states that "Usage in a well-known work" qualifies as proof. These same editors claim that other dictionaries do not count. To many Misplaced Pages users accustomed to citing disputed assertions with a single source, having to give three sources is upsetting and unwelcoming. Many entries have been deleted because they had only one or two sources.<p>Knowing the anarchic atmosphere of Wiktionary and the propensity of certain administrators to use these unusually-high standards to delete offensive terms, I created six entries with three quotes per sense and with full source information for each quote. (See ].) Then a user named Jonathan Webley nominated each of them for deletion saying "I can't find these terms anywhere else". Shortly afterward, Connel MacKenzie chimed in saying "This series of anonymous submissions seems intentionally disruptive, and pointlessly inflammatory. '''Delete all.''' These are certainly no more than the sum of their parts (each submission) with a clear intent to enter as many forms as can be dredged up, and to bypass the comparatively neutral, explanatory entry at ]." Then, another administrator deleted them and protected the pages. His assertion that they were the sum of their parts is an example of an exaggeration by MacKenzie as "Blue-eyed grass (genus ''Sisyrinchium''), especially California blue-eyed grass, S. bellum" was not the sum of the phrase "nigger baby". Another example is this: ]. I had three quotes and a dictionary reference for that one. Here's another one: ]. Editors there have a tendency to delete terms they don't like on sight (See that had a reference to a slang dictionary, but was deleted anyway the first time. When I recreated it, he nominated it for verification, then deleted it again when he found out it was from me.) As for "give me fin on the soul side" I had two quotes and a dictionary citation. They deleted it anyway, but I had it saved on my hard drive, so I recreated it. Then, they said two quotes and a dictionary references weren't enough, so I added more, for '''3 quotes''' and '''5 citations.''' Connel still wanted to delete it anyway, which shows his deceptive and bitter nature.<p>As everyone can tell, Vildicranius is good friends with Connel MacKenzie--even though Vildicranius is pretty new. However, Connel MacKenzie has been known to harass other users. On the Beer Parlour (their equivalent of the Village Pump) he had at least three discussion threads raised against him by Ncik: ], ] even though I had been there only since November. He went after Ncik, who he chased away apparently, Eclecticology, then me. I'm sure there were others, though.<p>In conlcusion, I'm a financial donor to Wikimedia, so if I believed that something would harm our wikis, I wouldn't do it. On Misplaced Pages, I fight vandalism (I have over 830 pages on my watchlist) and try to be civil. I've worked countless hours, and have on Misplaced Pages under this user name as well as 366 under others. I tend to use '''Show preview''' and focus on articles, so the tally doesn't tell much, either. However, on Wiktionary, it's harder to get along. Many Misplaced Pages policies, such as the ] and ] are not policies on Wiktionary. To some users from Misplaced Pages, this makes the site seem like it is ], and makes many administrator decisions seem arbitrary, as well. Everyone knows each other, so you either become good friends or ''really bad'' enemies.--] 20:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Interestingly, that last bit and sound quite alike. And your palaver about being a financial donor is also . ], Primetime. ] 22:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Absolutely. I've said it before, and I need to say it again. Everything I just said is all true. Everyone should read what I just wrote. As for my donation, go here: --I listed my user name in the comment column.--] 22:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Let's cut through a lot of noise: Primetime, do you deny that on Wiktionary you copied defintions from existing dictionaries?
	:A quick look through your contributions here (at least ones highlighted on your user page) raise red flags, too. Take ], which you created with:
	::''(Born Whilton, Northants., Dec. 22, 1785; Died Versailles, Feb. 19, 1859). English organ builder. The son of a local ], he first learnt his father's trade. Against family opinion he was apprenticed while still in his youth to the organ builder James Davis and later joined in partnership with Hugh Russell...''
	:We have the idiosyncratic, non-Misplaced Pages style of beginning, the fully-formed sentences, and, most peculiarly for an American contributor, the British usage of "learnt" -- which you changed in subsequent edits over the next hour. My guess is Britannica, but I have a friend who owns a copy, so I"ve asked him to check. --] | ] 20:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Sounds good. You can also search the introductions for each entry for free online. As you can see here: <nowiki><http://www.britannica.com/search?query=John+Abbey&ct=></nowiki>, there is no entry. As for formatting, I hate Misplaced Pages formatting because it is not in keeping with style recommendations of writers. For example, above, I did not give the link as because I think it looks unintuitive and doesn't tell the reader where they're going.--] 20:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::''I hate Misplaced Pages formatting because it is not in keeping with style recommendations of writers.''' Really? What "style recommendations of writers" are you referring to? What possible applicability do these "style recommendations of writers" have for THIS project? And what about these "style recommendations of writers" gives you an exemption from the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style? --] | ] 23:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::This is another debate, but I tend to follow styling guidelines of style manuals like ''Merriam-Webster's Manual for Writer's and Editors'' as well as Random-House's style guide. I also imitate for experimentation purposes several innovations, like enlarging the headword a point or two. I have had several disagreements and have explained myself in detail on why I don't always follow Misplaced Pages guidelines. Examples include pronunciation aids,<sup></sup> as well as links.<sup></sup>--] 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Can you clarify where the article came from? Is it all your own original writing or is copied from another source? -] 23:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::To repeat, let's cut through a lot of noise: Primetime, do you deny that on Wiktionary you copied definitions from existing dictionaries? Can you affirm that the text I quoted above is all your own? What was the source of your information? --] | ] 23:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::::It is not copied from anywhere. I wrote most of my contributions. Many were written as school reports. Others are from the 1911 edition of the ''Encyclopaedia Britannica''. Some are reports I wrote for my classes at school.--] 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::This article, ] , also appears to be copied from another source. If it isn't then it is a severe violation of ] as it includes extensive literary criticism. -] 23:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	Now that's strange: that list of articles on on ]'s page, which listed the articles he says he was principal contributer to? The one I browsed checking for copying? Primetime has suddenly removed them . Why would that be? --] | ] 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I'm tired of you guys going through each of my contributions and picking them apart. I don't have time for that.--] 00:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	Man, I'm slow: that list I mentioned? One of the entries is for the '']'' -- and the article includes an external link to a site which provides short versions of some of the articles. Looking up ]...Hmm, do these look familiar?
	:'''''Reinhard Johannes Sorge''' (January 29, 1892-July 20, 1916) is considered one of the earliest ] dramatists in Germany. Although his death on the battlefield in World War I put an abrupt end to an all-too-brief six-year period of intensive literary productivity, Sorge, who was only twenty-four years old at the time of his death, achieved recognition as one of Germany's foremost religious playwrights and poets, one whose poetic mission was inspired by his fervent quest for God and by an ecstatic mystical faith. Sorge's protagonists are either projections of his own self into a dramatic character who combines the role of the writer as leader and healer with that of the prophet and seeker of God's truth, or personal interpretations of key figures in the history of Christianity such as King David, Saint Francis of Assisi, and Martin Luther. None of his plays was performed during his lifetime. '' (from
	:''Reinhard Johannes Sorge is considered one of the earliest expressionist dramatists in Germany. Although his death on the battlefield in World War I put an abrupt end to an all-too-brief six-year period of intensive literary productivity, Sorge, who was only twenty-four years old at the time of his death, achieved recognition as one of Germany's foremost religious playwrights and poets, one whose poetic mission was inspired by his fervent quest for God and by an ecstatic mystical faith. Sorge's protagonists are either projections of his own self into a dramatic character who combines the role of the writer as leader and healer with that of the prophet and seeker of God's truth, or personal interpretations of key figures in the history of Christianity such as King David, Saint Francis of Assisi, and Martin Luther. None of his plays was performed during his lifetime.'' From the
	Busted. --] | ] 00:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	::OK. I admit that it's from the ''DLB''. That doesn't mean that everything I've ever written is a copyvio, though. Most of the articles I've written aren't even about writers.--] 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Another quick check: ] ( versus )...do I need to continue? Your long-winded rationale is pure misdirection, and while it's, I'm sure, literally true that not EVERYTHING you've ever written is stolen, it's enough to presume it's true unless you provide evidence to the contrary. --] | ] 00:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	::STOP! WHAT DO YOU MEAN? ARE YOU PROPOSING THE DELETION OF EVERYTHING I'VE EVER WRITTEN BECAUSE OF THOSE TWO ENTRIES??? WHAT PROOF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO PROVE THAT THEY'RE '''NOT''' FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE! WHY ARE YOU GOING AFTER ME SO HARD?--] 00:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Those first two entries are what I found sitting at my desk, from my computer, after only a few minutes work and without breaking a sweat. Imagine what I could do if I went down to the local university library and actually search in their hard-copy of ''Britannica'', ''Grove's'', ''DLB'', ''Current Biography'', etc. --] | ] 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	::A message on my talk page: ''...Also, why are you doing this? You know that Misplaced Pages isn't liable for copyright violations that it isn't aware are occurring? There's absolutely no reason to be doing this!'' This is perhaps the most pathetic rationale for copyright abuse I've seen in a long time -- but more to the point, we ''are'' aware now. You've been busted: deal with it. --] | ] 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	*Throw ] ( versus on the list. Man, this may take a co-ordinated effort to root out. --] | ] 01:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	===Block of Primetime===
	I have blocked Primetime per the above developments, and the obvious rejection of any wrongdoing from him. Currently set to indef, but if there are objections, please someone take the initiative to unblock. This is only a precautionary measure from stopping him from creating any further articles for now. If there are no objections, then it'd be a community indef block. ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> at 00:58 ] <small>(])</small>
	:I would like to remind you that ] has now dozens of ''known'' sockpuppets on the English Wiktionary. He is very adept at finding open proxies. He is also very adept at finding the newest "tor" exit points. Again, I request assistance from ''all'' available Misplaced Pages sysops now, to 1) verify whatever portion of his edits you need to, are copyright violations and 2) keep a very sharp eye out for new sockpuppets.
	:Despite everything he has said in the past six months or so, I do not believe his stated motives. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you must, but I think he is being paid to insert copyright violations into Wikimedia projects. I cannot comprehend any other reason why he would have pursued his attacks on the English Wiktionary, for months after being blocked. For example, ] is still being actively vandalized. It obviously is not some desire to propogate "truth." It is instead, a very disturbing case. --] 01:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Given his insistence of innocence until '''proven''' to have violated copyright I have to agree that this user has forfeited all right to ]. Insertion of fragments to 'build up' a copyvio in pieces shows foreknowledge that they are not allowed and a deliberate effort to evade detection. He needs to provide an explanation for ''why'' he was deliberately sneaking in copyrighted material and list every instance of doing so under all accounts before we should even ''consider'' unblocking him. I'm usually the one saying 'blocks are bad and cause more problems than they solve', but '''this guy''' needs to be blocked indefinitely and his contributions sanitized. If in doubt assume it is a copyvio and remove or rewrite it. --] 13:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	::: Given the extent of his damage, has anyone in Misplaced Pages requested a blanket Checkuser on his IP address, for his Misplaced Pages activities? Looking at policy #6 from ] it looks like such a check is permitted. But only for a couple days more. --] 23:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	===The article ]===
	By sheer coincidence, I looked at this article about a week ago. I grew suspicious at the very atypical tone of the piece, and so I checked the history. What I found was something atypical of copyvios, namely a long series of edits to a section made by a registered user with a userpage, so I shrugged it off. In light of this, however, I've Google-tested some pieces, but found no hits; could anyone perhaps check a copy of ''EB'' and/or other likely reference works to see if it's stolen from there? &mdash;] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 02:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I left a list (compiled by going through a list from his own user page) of likely copyvios on his ], with a request that he account for them. Let's see if his repentence is serious. --] | ] 07:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Compare histories of ] and ]. Also those of ], ] and ]. They have multiple Primetime or Primetime sockpuppet edits. There are probably more cross-project parallels. ] 10:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	::I've received e-mail from Primetime, and it's apparent that he doesn't have the slightest clue what he's done wrong. Until he does, I strongly urge not unblocking him. --] | ] 10:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::That's perhaps a reason why he keeps doing it. However, I think he's cleverer than that. At Wiktionary, he has tricked various users into believing he was completely innocent, prior to his unmasking and the consequent indefinite block. ] 10:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I have M-W Third on hold at my local library again, and will pick it up tomorrow afternoon. --] 07:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:ImpuMozhi#A_threat
	Do we require editors like ]? When he can use such nasty words and worst of ] slangs with 50 edits, how dirty he shall make our wikipedia. I recommend that such editors should be banned for life. Regards. --] 08:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I blocked him for 1 week, for issuing a physical threat. Feel free to override me. Thanks. --] 08:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	::You may also want to list him on ], our (oft-ignored) page for reporting ]. ] (]) 16:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	I am running a bit impatient with editor {{user|Vorash}}. The editor started out as a well-respected user of the Misplaced Pages, (though he and I had some major problem/wars when I first came here). Late last year, he closed his account because "he was labelled as a vandal". His anger was increased when his "pride and joy" ] was listed for deletion. After closing his account, he has made a few edits to Misplaced Pages (perhaps a few edits per weeks). Here's the problem: he made some edits to ] a long time ago, which were modified by some anon editors, and especially by {{user|Extraordinary Machine}}. For some reason, Vorash is determined to have the article his way, and he does this by reverting the entire article to months old version, completely wiping out '''all''' updates that have been made since that time: ,, , ,
	. Even though other editors (myself included) ], he is uncivil and unyielding. He also uses sockpuppets to carry out his dirty work: {{User|Rodrigogomespaixao}} and {{User|Klppaa}} (I've blocked the latter, but I'm a bit skeptical of the former, so I haven't blocked him).
	I gave Vorash one final warning on May 7, 2006 . The day later, he reverted it to his month old version (). I am getting extremely impatient with him. I cant block him for 3RR because he does not do it three times a day: he slips in every other day or so and revert it. I once protected it, but one can only protect the article for so long. As Carey has a couple singles on the charts, the page needs to be updated weekly. I am tempted to block him indefinitely, but:
	# It might be too drastic. I really do not want to abuse my power.
	# Blocking might have no effect. He rearely uses his account anyway. He'll probably just use another ISP.
	# as he and I have been in squabbles in the past, I dont want to be the one to block him.
	Can anyone help me come up with a solution? I do not necessarily endorse the current version of the article. What I'm concerned with, however, is his rude ] behaviour, and the fact that when he reverts the page, all the weekly edits are completely obliterated (wrong info is therefore deliberately introduced into the page). ]] ] ] ] 17:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Unblocking before reblocking? ==
	It seems to be standard procedure to unblock a user before reblocking them with a different duration. I was just wondering if it's necessary, or if it's a hangover from a time when Mediawiki didn't properly handle this situation? I ran some block tests on a dormant account I created. First, I blocked the account for 1 hour, then - without unblocking - for 15 minutes. ] showed the latest, current block to be ending in 15 minutes. Of course that information doesn't guarantee that the old block has actually been overridden, it merely suggests that it does. Comments anyone? --] 17:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I think MediaWiki takes the shortest of the block periods and whenever it expires, unblocks the account, disregarding the longer blocks. Bug or feature? I don't know. --] 17:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Yeah, feature. Whenever any active block on a user expires, all blocks on that user expire. So, you have to unblock first before you can apply a longer block, but you don't have to unblock to apply a shorter block. &mdash;] (]) 17:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Thanks. And you're positive that hasn't changed in recent revisions of MW? :) --] 17:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::You can check the CVS logs if you really want to, this behavior hasn't been changed :-P ] 23:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::You know what? I'll take your word for it! :) --] 13:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Template:AIDSWikiCredit ==
	Someone created a template ] to explicitly assign credite for using a specific page. I think this is not in order, but I am not sure about that. What are the feelings about this? ] 19:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	:We require that kind of attribution from other sites using our content under the GFDL, so I think it's only fair we also give credit where it's due. It does of course raise the question of whether we want to be using material taken from another wiki in the first place. --] 13:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	::I'd consider it a bad idea:
	::# If using an article from that Wiki as source, no specific GFDL note is necessary, just use standard referencing for specific statements
	::# If our article is a derived work of the article on another GFDL licensed Wiki, that notice isn't sufficent to fulfill GFDL requirements.
	::# Anyway, using http://www.reviewingaids.org/awiki/, the Wiki of the ''] movement'', as source is hardly matching our criteria of ] and ].
	::] 13:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::I think that specific information can be added as references, and than I want to go to the actuall cources. So, I do not see the need for this kind of credit giving in the first place. It suggests as if the page is made by that source and imported in wikipedia, which is definatly incorrect. BTW, the tamplate is also inserted in various other page for which I think this is inpropriate. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	:If this is used in articles which used the AIDS wiki as a source, this template is a bad thing. If it is used in articles which are derivative works (or wholesale copies) from that wiki, then it's a good thing. After all, we credit public domain sites when it's not legally necessary; in this case, where the content is released un the GFDL, this should be mandatory. ] | ] 17:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Yet another attack account being used on my talk page ==
	I had another report (see above) a few days ago where I requested a check user on ], who was indefinately blocked for being nothing but an attack account. As I expected, another of the sockpuppets, ], was resurrected to continue the same. If this could be blocked, I'd appreciate it - its an attack account. Additionally, I'm now going to request a checkuser. --] 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Or not, considering it seems relatively complex to do a request and seems to require other avenues to be exhausted. Although the user in question denies everything, obviously... --] 20:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] (CAUTION - Unpleasant picture) - good, bad, ugly? ==
	I noticed a bit of vandalism at ] and was trying to figure out what was going on when ] <nowiki>{{prod}}</nowiki>ed it with no explanation, except repeating the bit of vandalism. When trying to check out why ] was so interested in the word 'shit' I was acquainted with his focus quite rudely. I see he is roaming widely and intensely today and have to wonder about his judgement from viewing his user page. Could someone look into this and tell me if I shouldn't be worried what might come out of this? ] 22:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	:You might have warned people about that link to his user page. ] ] 00:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Also, why the weird page history, the link you provided is a redirect with 7 or 8 edits to a page with only 6 edits, most of which on boht pages are by IP's which seems a bit odd. Can an admin please check to to see if either page has any deleted revisions? <small>]</small><sup>] | ] | ]</sup> ---- 00:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	"This user identifies as gay", "This user identifies as African American". ] anyone? Emulation of Goatse image on front page as well? This user is an obvious, unquestionable troll and I am banning him indefinitely. — ] (]) (]) 00:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Zeq banned from ]==
	Under his probation in the case ], I've banned Zeq from editing ], for tendentious editing, particularly removing well-sourced information from the article . --] 23:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	I received the following two comments on this:
	: ''Hi Tony - I'm not sure if banning Zeq was the best thing to do. While he may be hard to reason with, I'm not sure that his intentions were malicious. Maybe you could reconsider or at least give him/her a chance to iron the dispute out over another day or two. Thanks. ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 03:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)''
	: '''I don't accept your ban'''
	: ''Nakba day needs a mediator, Ian has delibertly caused an edit war in order to try and ban me from this article.''
	: ''Look at my last edit and talk page. I tried to restore sanity to this article and <b> avoid </b> making it another vbattle article about the events in 1948.''
	: ''I expect that you will remove the ban and help madiate the subject. ] 04:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)''
	: ''Please note that according to policy: "Striking out at users on probation is strongly discouraged" this apply to Ian specifically as he tried to take advantage of the fact I am on probation and inserted unrelated information (which is already in the article ]) into ] so that i will remove it. Any attempts to reason with him failed.''
	: ''This editor has been following me around in the last 2 weeks. Every edit (or almost any) I made, ant where in <b> any </b> article got a revert or change from him (most often a revert). This is a simple issue that can be prooved. I have also asked him several times to stop stalking me. I expect that you will not take a side in this harrasment and help resolve the content dispute in ] reminding ian on harrasment policy as well on his own being cautioned against creating an edit war. ] 04:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)''
	I don't think the ban was unreasonable, but I welcome review and would accept removal of the ban by another administrator. I have no intention of getting involved in mediation, as Zeq requests. If mediation were likely to succeed, I very much doubt that the case ] would have been required in the first place. --] 04:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	::I am not going to argue the ArbCom case here again but to note that it arrived to ArbCom without any mediation or RFC.
	To the currect issue:
	Clearly in the ] case mediation has been proposed (and needed). Instead of accepting it ian Pichford (which has tried for two weeks to "trap" me by reverting and changing any edit I did on[REDACTED] (violating harrsament policy, despite numoures request to stop on his talk page) has choose to bring admin action aginst me. I suggest that anyone intersted in what goes on will ask Ramallite who does not agree with me on content of the article but understand that this is an honest content dispute with no malicious intentions on my part.
	::The absured thing of all is that <b> prior to Tony appliing the ban</b> I announced on the talk page that I will stay away from the article until it is mediated. ] 06:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I don't think intentions should matter where probation is concerned. So long as he was violating the terms, a ban is the appropriate action. --] 18:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Of course intention matter. I was trying to resolve the edit war on issues that do not belong in this article. I created focus (by taking many contested issues out) while the other side tried to turn the article in another battle field about the events in 1948 israeli-Palestinian war are debated. (these issues are already address and debated in other articles) ] 19:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::If you're involved in an edit war, you're edit warring. These issues need to be resolved on the talk page before they're taken to the article. --] 19:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	I find Zeq's assertions somewhat puzzling. At the time I inserted the ban notice, at 2305 on 8 May, the last edit on the talk page had been by Zeq at 1942 UTC on 8 May, and the last edit on the article had been by Zeq at 1859 UTC on 8 May. For someone who said "I will stay away from the article until it is mediated", he seems to have been awfully active! Moreover, even while banned, he is attempting to persuade me to remove edits by another editor. He hasn't left this article alone even now. --] 19:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	Tony, Check your facts: I made an edit that was to stop the editwar on the events at 1948 and clearly suggested that if someone don't like it they can revert it <b> and I will not make any more change </b> This is not an <b> edit war </b> this is an attempt at resolution. Also suggested to one editor in the edit war (Rammalite) to correct any fact I may have left out.
	My only "sin" is being bold in trying to resolve the issue. ] 20:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	: I'm still trying hard to get other people experienced in the subject matter to review the ban.
	: Meanwhile I am rescinding it because Zeq and others have raised several legitimate points that cast doubt on my original decision. I've removed the ban notice and hereby place this update on all other relevant notices. If he really needs to be banned from this article then some other administrator will be just as capable of imposing it. In the meantime I apologise to Zeq. --] 18:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Please see the article talk page. Since I no longer participate in this article (only on talk) I doubt any ban is needed> A warnning to Ian Pichford to avoid edit wars, POV pushing and wikistalking could be helpfull. ] 18:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	An administrator needs to see ], there are a couple users which are vandalising this very second. No one is monitoring it!
	:This is clear. — ] <sup>]</sup> 02:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Betty Yves ==
	I've just indef blocked {{vandal|Betty_Yves}}. In her short history here, she's been abrasive and insulting. When she got called out on it, she resorted to vandalism and petty attacks. She vandalized two articles by replacing them with "]" which is either simple vandalism, or an admission that she's the Misplaced Pages Is Communism vandal. Then she told Tawkerbot it was a misunderstanding, she wasn't vandalized.
	So, she's gone. If anyone disagrees, please speak up. --] 02:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Would have done it myself if I hadn't been beated to it. Good on Golbez.--] <sup><font color="#FC0FC0">]</font></sup> 19:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	==InShaneee==
	i'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to report this, but i hope it is. if not, i hope someone can direct me to the appropriate forum.
	InShaneee has twice deleted the article on ].
	the first time, yes, there were some inaccurate information in the article. so i rewrote the article. it was quickly deleted again. i see NO legitimate reason for the article to have been deleted the second time. i looked at this person's talk page, and he/she(?) has apparently been complained about (reported) to the other administrators before. ] 02:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I have replied to you on the article's talk page. ] ]|]||]|] 02:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	:The speedy sure looks like a mistake to me. I've restored the article and commented on the talk page. ] ] 19:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	I'm not sure what I did wrong. I STILL don't see any assertion of notability as per ] on that page, which is a speedy deletion criteria. --] 19:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	:If I may, the page does list several albums produced by the band, which meets WP:MUSIC ("Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels"), and Google turns up a fair number of supporting pages like . I agree the page needs work and should have appropriate tags added, but it does seem a borderline speedy at best. Just my 2 cents, ]rnol 19:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	:(ec) I wouldn't sweat having done anything "wrong"- it's been undeleted, no harm was done. As for notability, we already have an article on the founder of the band, ] guitarist ]. They have a (quite brief) AMG bio. The article could be better, certainly, but a band founded by a musician we already have a decent article on shouldn't be speedied IMO. Also, for those who care about ], there's the bit about "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". Maybe this should be merged into ]- I'm not opposed to that, but I don't think it should have been speedied. ] ] 20:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Did You Know article posted in error: please assist==
	The contentious and disputed article ], which ''does not'' meet the criteria for listing in "]" (it ), has been posted to the front page in error (based on inaccurate comments from some of its editors). Please, could someone remove this listing urgently? The admin who put the list together last is currently offline and unresponsive to three separate contact attempts by various editors. Thanks! &#0151;&nbsp;] 04:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	:It looks like you're right, it's an old article and shouldn't be on DYK, so I removed it. —] 04:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Thanks very much for your prompt attention. &#0151;&nbsp;] 05:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::For future reference, ] is now the page to report any errors needing attention on the main page. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 21:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Actually, it is generally accepted that expanded stubs may be put on DYK. Previous attempts have been made to expand that article, but up until recently they were all reverted wholesale and the previous 'stable' version of the article was a stub. The last expansion, on the other hand, is under dispute but stable. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Cool Cat banned from kurd-related edits--RESCINDED pending further discussion==
	As his mentor appointed by the arbitration committee, I have banned {{vandal|Cool_Cat}} from editing, creating or nominating for deletion any articles, templates or categories related to the ] .
	This is for an initial seven day period, to be extended indefinitely subject to the agreement of the other two mentors. --] 05:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	: I have rescinded this pending further discussion with the other two mentors . --] 15:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Make ] redirect to its incident page? ==
	] requested that the ] page in the main namespace be a protected redirect to ]. Is this okay? <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;"> ]] </span> 09:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I wouldn't say it's necessary. To be more precise, anyone who knows about Willy on Wheels is probably familiar enough with the Wiki software to '''not''' need a redirect there. --] <sup>]</sup> 09:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Even though it's still in development, ] would fall into place here... --<b><font color="666666">]</font><font color="#000000">]</font></b><sup> (])</sup> 11:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Which I read as supporting moving the pages out of the userspace. &mdash; ]]]] 11:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I'd rather see it redirect, protected if necessary, to ]. —] <small>(])</small> 12:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Apart from ], we have separate namespaces to have encyclopedia articles separated from[REDACTED] pages. - ](]) 12:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	::I support the protected redirect to the paraplegic poodle per Ilmari Karonen. One more thing I've learnt today. :-) ]. 13:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::I'm not sure its such a good idea, it could easilly lead to the poodle page getting heavilly vandalised and i'm not positive it would be a legit redirect anyway. ] 13:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::Mind you, that article ''already'' seems to be a vandalism target. —] <small>(])</small> 21:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	:If anything, the page should be a proper article about this product. http://ww3.adultsextoyscatalog.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=5439 Or perhaps not… ] 14:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	:No cross-namespace redirects, please. Also would give this poor guy way to much prominence. Misplaced Pages vandals are not noteworthy. This one is a very minor one easily checked by simple technical means such as the move throttle. If we could protect non-existing pages to avoid their creation altogether, the page wouldn't even exist. ] 14:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Actually, there is a template (I forgot what it was), that you put on a page that says you've created the page and protected it to stop it from being used to recreate deleted content. ]<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 14:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::I know. That's what was done with that page. But if you could protect ''non-existing'' pages from re-creation, we wouldn't need to do that and the page wouldn't be there at all. ] 15:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::Not a very good idea. Why are we glorifying a vandal? Also, we shouldn't do cross-namespace redirects. Keeping it as a deleted and protected page is good enough. He is infamous enough within the Wiki community, no need more mention in the article mainspace. Keep mainspace articles away from project-spaced articles. If its make a redirect, protect the page to prevent any page moves or vandalism. --]]</font>]] 05:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	== help fight denial of service vandals! ==
	and bookmark this template/category: ]--] 15:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	== the little creep ==
	The person who has been vandalising under peoples names has the screen names horse fucker and your papa. Unfortunatly, he has the same IP adress as the rest of us Misplaced Pages users at my place of bussiness so if you blocked him, you would be blocking us. Thanks! {{unsigned|Blopij}}
	:I undid the ], so you should be able to edit now. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Help with ] ==
	I'm having some trouble understanding the autoblocker. How exactly does one find the correct autoblock number to unblock? For example, let's say I block person A for a week. Person B gets assigned the IP, is autoblocked, and comes to me asking for an unblock. Do I just go the ] and type in his username? Will that pull up the autoblock? I've had this come up twice, and I can never find the number... I don't know if I'm just an eejit or if the block's simply expired. Any help is gratefully listened to. (Oh, and I've read ] several times and I'm still confused. Sorry!) ] ] 20:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	:There was a similar case about a week ago where I and several other admins tried to remove autoblocks on the IP of a user repeatedly without success until the original block expired. Not sure what that was about, but may help to identify autoblocks in need of removal. --] 12:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	::oooh, another tool! *bookmarks* --] 12:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	:: Looks good. I'll use that from now on. ] ] 17:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	:The best rule is to ask the user for thier IP. For those who have never seen it, ] is the message shown to blocked users; right at the very top is a line that says "Your IP address is ...". If they tell you the IP address, you can unblock it directly (just go to the unblock page and put in the IP) and it will unblock any autoblocks (yes, they are masked with a #12345-style code on the block list, but trust me, unblocking an IP unblocks any autoblocks on that IP). Trying to hunt down the right autoblock by the mask number is difficult and time consuming, not to mention frequently futile, and is best avoided; just ask the user for thier IP (they can email it to you if they're concerned about privacy) and then unblock it directly. <span style="font-family:Sans serif">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 13:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	:: Unblock the IP? But won't that unblock the person you were trying to block in the first place? Is there a way to undo the autoblock without unblocking an IP that you wish to remain blocked? ] ] 17:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	:There seems to be a misunderstanding of the nature of autoblocks; '''autoblocks are placed against IP addresses, not accounts.''' Though people tend to speak of thier accounts being innocently "autoblocked", that is not actually the case: Your account doesn't get autoblocked when you try to use a blocked IP; it just appears that way, because no edits are allowed from blocked IPs, including those from logged-in accounts. No block is ever placed against the innocent account itslef; it is the underlying IP that is blocked.
	:What the autoblocker does is block IPs (only IPs) previously used by blocked user accounts if they are used again after the account name is blocked. The timeline is like this: User:Foo, who is on IP 12.34.56.79, vandalizes and an admin blocks that account name. Then, someone else, User:Example (maybe a sockpuppet of User:Foo, maybe someone innocent, the autoblocker doesn't know) tries to use that IP to do something else. Since the software knows Foo was using 12.34.56.78, it assumes that the new person on that IP is Foo trying to evade his block, and places an autoblock on 12.34.56.78, stopping all edits, signed in accounts included. (This is when User:Example requests an unblock, thinking they have been blocked; not the case at all: '''Their IP is blocked, not thier account.''' If they switched to a different IP, they would be able to edit immediately.)
	:The autoblock of 12.34.56.78 is recorded on ] as #12345 (no relation between the IP numbers and the mask numbers; 12345 is just convenient), to prevent disclosure of the user's IP address. (If it didn't, you would see "...blocked 12.34.56.78...reason: Autoblocked because your IP was recently used by ]"; this would reveal User:Foo's IP to the entire world, which is not something we routinely do. Why do we care, when it's a vandal? Well, because not everyone who is blocked is a vandal.)
	:So, the only way to clear an autoblock is to unblock the IP; when you unblock #12345, you're unblocking the IP represented by #12345 (in the example above, 12.34.56.78). The software doesn't care if you tell it to unblock #12345 or 12.34.56.78; the action performed will be to unblock 12.34.56.78 in either case. Note that nowhere in this process does the account ] (the vandal) get unblocked; however, when 12.34.56.79 is unblocked, User:Example (who was never really blocked, just using a blocked IP) is immediately able to edit again.
	:Hopefully this helps with understanding it; if I've not managed to make the whole deal clear, let me know and I'll try again. <span style="font-family:Sans serif">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 05:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
	:: That was extremely helpful, I now understand completely. Thank you, Essjay. ] ] 06:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	] - this has been up fairly long for AfD (since 21 April 2006), probably needs to be closed. ] 20:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Good spot. The reason this has not yet been closed is that it was never listed at ] (stage 3 of the nomination was not done). I've listed it now and noted this on the afd page. It is most likely that it will be treated as if it were nominated today and closed in about 5 days. ] 23:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Keep an eye on this thread ==
	Titled "", this clearly shows an attempt at pushing a non-notable article into Misplaced Pages. Please keep an eye on the thread, and act accordingly. - ] 22:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Interesting. I've always thought that if having a[REDACTED] article would make a notable difference to a company, then that company isn't notable enough to have an article on wikipedia. (My own version of WP:CORP in a nutshell :) ] 23:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	:: Well put. ] ] 23:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	::: This article was already deleted (]). ] (]) 07:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	::: Also note ], an article created by another one of the SEO members there. ] (]) 08:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	== tag team vandalism ==
	{{vandal|68.97.135.50}} and {{vandal|AndyBBQ}} were working together to vandalize pages, so simply rolling back wouldn't delete all the vandalism. This tactic has been brought to our attention before, but this in additional FYI. --]]] <sup>]</sup> 01:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	Can someone please call this off now? Since an RFC has to have 2 people to agree that an admin was abusing rights to have an RFC in the first place (In this case ] and ]) and one of them (Dzoni) was just blocked for being the communism vandal, I think this RFC is moot, IMO. ]] 02:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	:He's left an unblock request, which I was inclined to deny but there's too much superficial conflict of interest there, so please can another admin do it? --]<sup>]</sup> 22:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	::I've denied it and removed the <nowiki>{{unblock}}</nowiki> template. ] | ] 23:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC).
	== Oops! ==
	Hi, I was in the middle of disagreeing with a PROD, when the article got deleted from under me! It was ], and I was planning to move it to AfD. Is it possible to belatedly do that? The article seemed substantial. (Don't know its history, just found it at the last minute while scanning PROD.) ] 02:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	:You can go to ]. The prod seems to be done in line with the policy of waiting for 5 days. In this case the prod was from 5 May. Thanks. --] 04:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I've added this for you, since no admin appears to have undeleted it yet. Not sure if this is because people haven't seen it or because the content is no good. ] ] 06:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	::I undeleted it so you can either send it to AFD or improve it in line with the concerns raised. ] 06:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	Yup, I'm sure it was just bad timing on my part. Many thanks, will send it to AfD. ] 11:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] blocked ==
	Could an admin take a look at ] for me? This user apparently has been caught in the indef block on ]. Is there anything that can be done to allow this IP to edit while keeping Jazzper blocked? If the user registered an account, I assume they would still be blocked? Thanks, ]rnol 03:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I have removed the ]. ] ]|]||]|] 03:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Matthew Mazankowski page ==
	how come i cannot make a Matthew Mazankowski Page? please help me out. thankyou {{unsigned|Matthewmazankowski}}
	:] with 0 Google hits. ]] ] 03:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	::You can as a user pager! --] ] 04:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	How would i do that?, im trying to make my biography :S:S but it keeps getting deleted... {{unsigned|Matthewmazankowski}}
	:I have done it for you on your ] already! ] ] 05:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	:It keeps getting deleted because, under ] as linked above, the biography does not assert the notability of the subject. One needs either wait until one is notable&mdash;and, naturally, best of fortunes&mdash;or tell us who you (?) are on your user page, as the user above has done. ]] ] 05:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	::And please sign your edits with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> --] ] 09:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Block recommendation: ==
	of IP editor with copious warnings. Block as appropriate, no current block in force, last block was 20 April 2006. Last edit was data entropy. -- ]] 07:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	:This should go to ]--] ] 08:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	==How to deal with edit summary vandalism?==
	It is easy to revert page vandalism, but is there a way to remove vulgar edit summaries? This case is an example. On low traffic pages they remain visible for a long time. --] 09:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Done. Check the history now. Thanks. --] 09:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Hmm... normally we don't remove edits unless they contain personal information (in the edit or its summary). ]. 09:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Like ? ] 13:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::Hell, yes! The Alkivar phone number vandal strikes again! (This is the first time I've seen it.) :-( ]. 15:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	I can't delete the page to delete the revisions, I keep getting a "Wikimedia down" error. Can someone else try it? --] <sup>]</sup> 17:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	I think I tried with that particular page a day or two ago, and kept getting an error message &mdash; probably because there are ''so'' many versions of it. I think we need a developer for this. ] ] 17:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	: Yep. See ]. ] ] 17:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Uh, crap ==
	I just clicked on the current AFD log instead of the May 4 one and closed a load of AFDs, thinking they had spoiled. What do I do? :( ] (]) 13:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	: I'm reverting you and restoring, don't worry about it. You might want to recheck to see if I restored anything that you rightly closed as speedy delete, although I am looking out for them. --]<font color="green">]</font>] 14:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	== User:Asoczewko ==
	Can someone please hurry up and block {{vandal|Asoczewko}}? He's been listed for over an hour now, very actively vandalising pages including my user page. - ] ] 18:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Blocked already. ] <small>(])</small> 21:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Speedy undelete request (page history merge) ==
	The page ] was deleted so that ]'s page history could be merged into it. Now I've made the appropriate move, and the deleted revisions of ] should be undeleted. &mdash;] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 18:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Done. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 21:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Note to admins who close AfDs==
	It might become good practice to skim an AfD's history page before closing it, as there has been a recent trend of anon (IP address) users attempting to add votes to these pages. They often (somewhat successfully) try to pass themselves off as logged-in users, using a name followed by a timestamp. Occasionally this might be an actual registered user forgetting to log-in, but in practice they should come back after they've logged in and confirm that it was actually them. Recent examples of this include ] and ]. Just thought I'd give everyone a heads up. ]] | ] 19:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Agreed. A good idea would be for the nominator of each AfD to have it watchlisted; that way, s/he can spot discrepancies and any attempts to game the system easily and quickly. ] <small>(])</small> 21:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	::There are people who don't watchlist the AfDs they create? It saves some embarassment if you can withdraw your nom after additional information is revealed during an AfD. In fact, also the other contributors should watchlist the AfD, after all, it is a discussion, not a vote. ] ] 21:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::And no matter how AfDs you participate in, it's not like they all clog up your watchlist. --]<sup>]</sup> 22:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	* ] looks pretty obvious. I may presume good faith that the vote in ] is actually someone who forgot to login, cos' the account itself is pretty new. - ] 10:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Personal information released==
	{{vandal|Jumphoop}} has released ] telephone number in his contributions. I think someone needs to go through his contributions and delete any mentions of it. And because of the looks of his contribtions, his account might need to be indef blocked. (Never mind about blocking him, as I read Curps blocked him). But the edit should be deleted. ]] 21:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Done already. ] <small>(])</small> 21:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	This indefinitely-blocked user has added a load of article material to his own talkpage. It may be POV-pushing and inappropriate, I'd appreciate if someone would take a look. ] (]) 23:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	: Done. —'']'' 01:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Alkivar phone number vandals ==
	Isn't it possible to add Alkivar's phone number to the spam blacklist or something? --]<sup>]</sup> 08:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I can think of three reasons why this might not be possible, but am hesistant to spill the ]. Regards, ] 10:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Would you mind ] then? --]<sup>]</sup> 11:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Please note that I too have had to deal with this kind of vandalism in the last couple of days, on an article appearing on the front page. Deleted and restored twice before semi-protection. --] 10:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::If if we add Alkivar's telephone number to the spam blacklist, wouldn't we be releasing it into the public domain on Meta-Wiki where people could easily access it from there? ]] 03:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::Then just add the area code and the first two or three digits. Leave off the rest and no one will know what the number is. ] ]|]||]|] 03:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::The inherent problem with that is that, say, if his phone number was (123) 456-7890, then it could be done as "(123) 45", "123-45", "12345", "12,345", etc., and obviously a number like 12345 could be found somewhere (Rambot articles, for example). There are just too many ways to do it. ] (]) 07:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Half seriously, here, do we know that it is indeed Alikvar's phone number? And if so, has anyone gently suggested that it might be time to get it changed to an unlisted number; if it really is his number, he's got to be having enough prank calls to be driven insane. <span style="font-family:Sans serif">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 07:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::We've still got to stop the guy somehow if we can. What happens to the person who gets that number after Alkivar relinquishes it? And it could set future precedents if we let people post phone numbers, real or not, with impunity. ]. 08:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	] is up for quite a while but wasn't closed ] 11:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
	] ditto ] 11:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
	:You never performed step 3 of the AfD process (see ]) by adding it to the daily log, so no-one knew about the nomination except those who saw the notice on the article. I've listed it on ]. --]<sup>]</sup> 11:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Something seems to be wrong with this guy's contributions; there are a lot of miscellaneous characters, seemingly inserted between every two good characters. I have seen a mention somewhere of this kind of thing happening when someone uses an open proxy, so I was hoping an admin could look into it. Thanks! ]]<sup>]</sup> 15:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Hmm, that and if you read between his weird characters the warning he put on the anon's page is a falsified warning from Tawkerbot2. I'm going to try to keep an eye on him. --] 20:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
	::I know adding random // slashes can be an indication of a bot, but I've never seen this before. Peculiar. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
	::: I don't see what you're talking about...care to explain? He has three edits- one is a revert, another is creating his own user page, and the last is a warning (though copy-and-pasted from Tawkerbot's warnings.) I see no peculiar characters. ] (]) 03:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::I think the editor is using odd characters that you may or may not have in your browser settings or preferences or wherever such things are kept (I'm not an expert on the subject). For example, when I view that Tawkerbot edit in my version of IE, I see almost all odd/nonexistant characters (mostly squares). However, when I view it in my version of Firefox, I see the words perfectly fine. ]] | ] 03:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I don't see any odd characters, in the SeaMonkey browser or when I send the edit diff URL to to see the raw HTTP response. Maybe IE is somehow getting the character encoding wrong? ] 04:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::::I see skull-and-crossbones characters between every letter of his contributions. I'm using Opera for Linux. --] 04:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Further investigation: It's Unicode code point U+0090, a non-printing control character. Most fonts these days don't have a glyph for it, but some non-Unicode fonts (such as Tengwar Quenya on my machine) do. --] 04:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::Just looks like "''......''" to me
	== REdirect damage repair requested ==
	There is a note at ] explaining the problem. Briefly, someone decided to redirect a large and active page, and in so doing managed to lose the entire discussion page and history which were both extensive and covered important and continuing aspects othe article content. The original article (that was redirected), and whose discussion page and history should be transferred to the new name as well, is ]. Thanks, in advance, for assitance with the underlying machinery. ] 16:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
	:The talk page was still there, it just wasn't moved along with the main article because the target talk page did not have an empty edit history. The problem is corrected now. --] (]) 01:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] and ] ==
	An anonymous user has been regularly adding spam to this stub page, consisting of an advertisement for (I presume) his or her website at . It gets reverted regularly enough and I left a short message at the user's talk page. It's a fixed IP number assigned to BellSouth and ] is the only article this person edits. I've now reverted the page twice today. This has been going on irregularly since February. Please block this user or find some way to explain why they shouldn't do this. --] 16:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Help needed==
	I need help from an admin (or someone with a decent browser ;-)).
	] and ] both have user pages contaning an excessive amount of images that are either under fair use or unsourced. Since my browser is extremely slow when loading Images (my computer ends up freezing), could someone look through all the images placed on their user pages and remove fair use/no source images?
	On Kingstonjr's page, I removed many fair use/no sourced images already, but he keeps readding him. (I sent him a warning about it). Could somebody do this for me? ]] 20:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I have added a warning and pointed to ]. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 00:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	:: Someone smarter than I needs to look through the uploads for those two. Despite the fair use images, I see some uploaded that claim that since they're from Usenet, they're in the public domain. I highly doubt that this is a valid claim. ] (]) 03:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	==IP-range block requested==
	Could somebody with the required technical expertise take a look at on AN/I? A block on a range of IPs has been requested to stop repeated disruptive vandalism from sockpuppets of the permanently banned user ]. ]]] 21:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
	:That is too wide a range of IPs to block. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 00:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	::No, it isn't. In fact I have blocked it already. (The block should expire in 11 minutes though) ] <sup>]</sup> 00:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I'd suggest asking for a checkuser first; a quick check of just the /24 revealed at least one legitimate contributor that could have quite easly been blocked as well. <span style="font-family:Sans serif">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 07:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	That is a great idea, I should have thought of that. Anyway here are the known ranges if you want to look:
	'''87.75.130.0/23'''<br />
	'''84.9.210.0/23'''<br />
	'''84.9.192.0/22'''<br />
	] <sup>]</sup> 01:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Bad open proxy or somesuch ==
	I have vauge recollections of "watch out for backslashes, for they art the tool of the devil." So, err, is what that was about? - ]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 01:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Yes, that's the hallmark of a bad OP. Backslashes before quote marks. (Although that edit is innocuous.) ]. 02:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Can someone scan it? I lost the link to Tawker's OP scanner when my computer went boom. --] 09:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::These backslashing proxies are always CGI proxies, written in PHP, with magic_quotes enabled, and unable to deal correctly with magic_quotes. You do not need a scanner (and in fact a scanner would return a false negative, since these kinds of proxies are just normal web servers); just use a normal web browser. In this particular case, it opens a ] page, which means it's a shared web host; that is enough for a indefinite block as an open proxy (someone else already blocked). --] 20:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Backlog on ] ==
	*The page says it is to "get administrator attention quickly," yet there have been issues there for 3 days now that no admins have addressed yet. On Misplaced Pages, I would think quickly means at most a few hours, not days. ] 05:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	**Perhaps it is because your argument has no merit. -- ] 05:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	***I guess you didn't notice the other user reports on there. So none of those arguements have merit and admins won't remove issues with no merit? Seems to me you are just trying to create problems. But what I find funny is that you had said before "I am tired of dealing with this user" and yet you seem to be following my edits. Get lost Gnetwerker, stop following me around making snide comments. Or are you up for ruling cautioning you against being rude? ] 06:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	**I agree with ], who ''did'' in fact address your complaint, that Gnetwerker did not make personal attacks requiring immediate admin intervention. By claiming that admins oignored your complaint when Malber took the time to look into it, you do him a disservice. --]<sup>]</sup> 08:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	***And you do me a disservice by claiming I said stuff I did not. I never said admins were ignoring my compaint. As for Malber, I can't find his name on the . He hasn't identified himself on his user page that he is an administrator either. Can you show me that he even is an administrator? ] 12:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::#I consider it fairly self-evident that your complaint here relates to the fact that your other complaint on ] was not dealt with the way you wanted.
	:::#No, Malber is not an administrator, but non-admins may deal with any 'administrative' task except those requiring administrative tools. Admins are not anything particularly special, they just have some extra buttons.
	:::#If an admin declines to block someone on ], they won't necessarily announce it, especially if someone (even a non-admin) has adequately addressed the case. If no-one posts to disagree with the first person to reply, then that almost certainly indicates agreement.
	:::#If you really want the voice of an administrator, here it is. Malber's analysis is correct.
	:::#Your own comments are far from civil: for instance, saying that Malber has ''"been accused of making personal attacks yourself"'', then giving a which showed a user ''quoting'' an NPA warning by Malber, presenting it as if the quoter was issuing an NPA warning. That misrepresentation of the facts is then followed up by a healthy dose of well-poisoning with ''"I recommend admins taking this user's comments with a grain of salt"''. For your own good, I would recommend that you drop this. --]<sup>]</sup> 22:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::#Or maybe the fact that I did not get an administrator response on an administrator notice board. Would I be making my comments if I hadn't posted on PAIN? Obviously not. However not only were my notices not addressed by an administrator, no one else’s have been for four days now. That only compounds my point. Especially since I have brought this to your attention and other people's complaints are still waiting to be addressed. To the point of ] resorting to shouting! Is ''user has restored the material AGAIN! Help!'' not notice enough? My notice was never addressed by an administrator and I was simply saying "hey! look at all of us waiting for administrators!" Your blatant accusation that I am just doing this because I am not happy with the handling (or lack thereof) is just bad faith and incorrect. In short, the first line of the page says ''This page is intended to get administrator attention quickly when dealing with personal attacks.'' If no administrators comment on issues lasting days you actually think the page is being properly monitored?
	::::#Pot meet kettle. Below you say that I was misrepresenting the facts (which I will address) yet you say ''By claiming that admins ignored your complaint when Malber took the time to look into it, you do him a disservice.'' Hmm... post on admin notice board, user comments, poster saying admins ignored him does said user disservice. Explain to me how that doesn't imply said user is an admin. At the very least show me how it could be reasonably interpreted that Malber wasn't an admin. ''non-admins may deal with any 'administrative' task except those requiring administrative tools.'' Really? Show me the Misplaced Pages policy that says non-admins may make rulings on admin notice boards, not comments, rulings. Show me the policy.
	::::#Do you actually expect me to believe that? That's just faulty logic plain and simple. If an admin removed the notices that would be an indication. But four days of users saying "is anyone reading this? help!" is hardly admins agreeing with comments. At the very least they would remove the notices or say something.
	::::#Now, now, did you really think that would be satisfactory after I asked Malber to justify his remarks? You haven't even shown any indication that you've even read the notice. So basically you are agree with a user that doesn't provide justification. In any case, the reason why I've been asking for justification is simple. Just for kicks (not really), in your own words, define ad hominem, because I have a strong suspicion you have no idea what it is.
	::::#And I will apologize for that, I read it over too quickly and though Malber was being warned, not quoted. But please, don't try to intimidate me with that "for your own good" crap.
	:::::I expect all the other user' issues on ] to be addressed before or immediately after your reply to me, otherwise I would love to see how many words you have to write to even begin to show no hypocrisy. ] 06:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Let's see - taking the recent ones, H8 wasn't addressed because it was a throwaway account that had already been discarded, but just to please you I blocked it anyway. Gnetwerker had already been dealt with by Malber, EnthusiastFRANCE archived the personal attack warnings rather than removing them (he does not wish to have a talk page) and is trying to move on, so no administrative action would be productive, and RyanFreisling asked a difficult question in a perfectly civil way. Now that's over with, you don't bring up anything new. Non-admins may always offer comments (no-one makes 'rulings' around here, except the Arbcom), this is a generally accepted principle everywhere, and, if that doesn't satisfy you, has been formally accepted at ] . And it's very simple - if no admin posts, that means "no action necessary". If a non-admin posts, and no-one posts to disagree, that means "we agree". This is a wiki - "I agree +1 editcount" isn't as commonly seen around here as on Internet forums. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::*This is ridiculous. How do you expect me to reach a consensus with you if you are going to pick and choose which points of mine you are going to address? You addressed most of my first point but not my points raised by Sophia's complaint. I can't see how you even attempted to address my third point, and you completely ignored my fourth point which is the cause for this debate. In addition to your comment of "If a non-admin posts, and no-one posts to disagree, that means "we agree"." Completely supports my point. I was the last responder to Malber. So since no one disagreed with my insisting he provide some justification for his views, according to your statement the admins agree that he didn't provide a good justification.
	:::::::*''Non-admins may always offer comments (no-one makes 'rulings' around here, except the Arbcom), this is a generally accepted principle everywhere, and, if that doesn't satisfy you, has been formally accepted at WP:AIV .''. If it's been "formerly accepted", why is there no policy on it? At the very least there would be a guideline no?
	:::::::*In any case, back to the point at hand, no one has even offered a measly sentence to try to explain how Gnetwerker's comments were not personal attacks. The fact that you have refused to offer an explanation that you even know what an ad hominem is even when you could have copy-pasted from Wikitionary makes me doubt your sincerity in trying to offer a balanced view. I handed that one to you and you still didn't bother to address it.
	:::::::*I don't find it objectionable if someone disagrees with my views. However on every level of non-fallacious arguing and just plain honesty, picking and choosing points to address is indecent. ] 05:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::*'''EDIT:''' oh, just so you know, Sophia has been waiting a week now for a response. Either she is being ignored or no one is bothering to maintain the page by removing out-dated comments (I was the one who removed a bunch yesturday.) "self-evident that your complaint here relates to the fact that your other complaint on ] was not dealt with the way you wanted" my ass.
	== ] closed ==
	This arbitration case is closed.
	Monicasdude is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses. Monicasdude is banned from making edits related to the deletion process (excepting obvious vandalism and copyright problems) for one year. This is to be interpreted broadly, and includes, but is not limited to, commenting on ] nominations and removals of nominations for ] and ]. He may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to a year.
	Should Monicasdude violate any ban imposed by this decision he may be briefly blocked, up to a week for repeat offenses. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to a year. All blocks to be logged at ].
	For the Arbitration Committee, --] ] 08:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	== As soon as his 99 hours block ended.... ==
	<!-- 00:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC) -->
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hamas&diff=52820462&oldid=52794524
	:Shared IP, and simple reports of vandalism should go on ] - when the user has been given a {{tl|test3}}, {{tl|test4}} or {{tl|bv}} warning and has continued to vandalise despite that. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Help ==
	Apparently you are the guys to talk to about editing in the wiki.
	I got a bit confused and wanted to thank Mr Wales for his site as it helped me in researching for a recent paper i did, but I think i put my comments under the wrong tab or wrong place, i dunno.
	I was wondering if there was somewhere i could learn about to edit the wiki properly. i clearly am inadept at it, but i don't think that made name calling a necessity. i mean i don't own any spray paint anyway.
	your help would be most appreciated.
	ps is there an easy way to sign your name without having to copy the time every time?
	tom
	] 14:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Please take a look at ], it will teach you. :-) And signatures are done by typing: <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> ]. 17:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Help vs. Harrassment! ==
	I made one ill-considered edit (I thought it was legit), and now I am being attacked from all sides, with ordinary users placing vandalism warnings and sock puppet notices on my personal page in retaliation. I haven't vandalized anything and I'm not a sock puppet. Full story is ]. Help! -- ] 20:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Why was your very first edit to the encylopedia under this username to another user's userpage? --] 20:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	::I saw a red user name when I hit "Recent changes" and asked the person who was showing me Misplaced Pages why the user's link was red, even though he had made lots of edits. I thought it would be innocuous. -- ] 20:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Ok, looking at your contributions I don't see anything that looks naughty. I'm going to AGF and propose to IronDuke that he leave you alone, and you should leave him alone. This just looks like it spiraled out of control. --] 20:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	Deep breath... all right, I'm familiar enough with Misplaced Pages at this point to see how the above represents a pattern. User A harasses user B (User B being me), user B reacts (in an entirely appropriate way), user A makes a public accusation of harassment (accusing the victim of his own behavior) and editors rush in to "warn" User B to back off. First off: gomi-no-sensei is, I believe, a user who has severely harassed me in the past (and almost been blocked for doing so) and may have multiple sock puppets. But before I get to that - does anyone here believe, for one tenth of a second, that a newbie editor would make his first edit to create someone else's user page? And how would a new user even know that most editors who make lots of edits don't have red usernames unless he was already an editor? Did his mythical "friend" tell him? But that's really the tip of the iceberg. Let's take some of gomi-no-sensei's points one by one.
	"''I have been the subject of harassment by two Misplaced Pages users: User:IronDuke and an anonymous editor 69.117.7.84, who may be the same person as IronDuke.''" I am especially grateful that GNS made this point, as I think it illustrates not only the disingenuousness going on here, but that GNS attempts to smear me with what he is in fact guilty of -- being/using a sockpuppet. The reason that 69.117.7.84 complained on GNS's talk page was that GNS created an unwanted user page for him, too (and that's harassment?). Is GNS implying that, at random, he selected two users for whom to create an unwanted userpage, and that those two users happen to
	be the same person? What do you suppose the chances of that are? At any rate, I'd be interested to see GNS press that case formally, if he truly believes it.
	Moving on: my first edit to GNS's talk page was simply this: "Who are you?" I think this was a perfectly reasonable, neutral thing to ask in response to someone messing with my userpage, neither rude nor polite. I was genuinely curious, thinking it might be a bot, or someone had just made an innocent mistake. I didn't want to bite someone's head off without getting a response. The response I got was having my message simply deleted. Later, when I restored the message, and added another, it was also deleted. Finally, GNS abused the speedy delete function to entirely erase my comments (and bragged about it), when he could have at least (improperly) archived them. Also, just as a for instance, GNS did not "restore" a deleted user page. Mine was never in existence up until his edit.
	I've been advised to "move on" and I think that's good advice and would love to. However, I am being harassed/stalked by someone via their sockpuppet (or maybe meatpuppet, but I'm pretty sure sock). I think I'm not out of line in asking for a checkuser run with GNS and several other users who may be socks/puppeteers of GNS.
	There is, finally, a tendency here at WP, when two editors are having a dispute, to essentially tell both of them, "Okay kids, play nice, I don't care who hit who first." That's totally understandable and generally sensible, but it's a really bad idea here: this user, I believe, has been stalking me in a really unpleasant and threatening manner. I may be wrong, but it absolutely has to be investigated, and if I am indeed wrong, I will abjectly and grovellingly apologize to all concerned. This is why I began the sockpuppet investigation, to get the ball rolling. I believe that it has been closed prematurely and improperly. I have more evidence, and was not consulted in any way prior to its closing. Please know, I'm not denigrating any admins or casting aspersions. I know the idea here is to try to reduce friction and get on with editing, and believe me, that's what I'd like to do. I didn't seek this out, I was essentially baited by a socktroll (and fell for it), and now am put in the unfortunate position of having to plead my case as a co-aggressor, when an actual investigation of the person tormenting me should be taking place. Please keep an open mind here, I really need this to stop. ] 22:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I recall that Ironduke has been the subject of harassment before. ID, I'm going to continue this discussion with you by e-mail so as to keep it off the website. Cheers, ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	::I requested a check user and it confirms that ] and ] are operated by the same person, and that someone from that same IP set up ], which was never used, but which appears to have been created to mimic IronDuke. Given that Gomi's first edit was to create a page for IronDuke, and that someone using his IP address created an account mimicking IronDuke, that strongly suggests to me that Gomi may indeed be Gnetwerker, who was previously harassing IronDuke in the form of posting his personal details. However, the check-user evidence on that point is "inconclusive," which I understand means the IP evidence doesn't confirm that Gomi-no-sensei and Anomicene are Gnetwerker, but that it doesn't rule it out either. In the meantime, I've blocked Gomi-no-sensei as an abusive sockpuppet, leaving Anomicene as the main account until further evidence linking them to Gnetwerker is available. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 05:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Well, I guess I have to say something here (actually several somethings):
	:::*I am not ];
	:::*I am not ];
	:::*I know who both of those users are, and they are not the same people
	:::*I do sometimes work on the same sub-net as Gomi, so I see how ] got confused; and
	:::*Gomi is astonishingly pissed-off that he has no way of responding to his block -- he can't edit anywhere, or send email to admins, apparently.
	:::All of this is beside the point, I guess. I have no beef with ], and it would appear that the ways of Misplaced Pages admins are far beyond the ken of us normal folk, especially from a brief perusal of Gomi's talk page. What a mess. -- ] 07:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::I don't know exactly what the check-user evidence showed, but it was enough to conclude that you are the same person, and in addition you edit the same articles. If you want to e-mail me or any other admin, as Gomi, there is nothing to stop that account from doing so. In addition to the sockpuppetry, the same person set up what looked like an attack account, IronDuck. We've had enough of whatever these shenanigans are. The bottom line is that the person behind these accounts needs to stay away from IronDuke. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Well, I certainly don't want to pick a fight with you, but I think you are confusing IP addresses with people. Does the phrase "Network Address Translation (NAT)" mean anything here? But this is not my fight, so I'll leave it be. -- ] 08:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::The CheckUser evidence confirms that Gomi-no-sensei is a sockpuppet of Anomicene, as was the attack account IronDuck. I suppose Gomi-no-sensei could be Anomicene's identical twin who happens to live with him, but ] teaches that ''entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.'' ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 08:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Check users on ] ==
	<!-- 00:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC) -->
	So, I've just had a flare-up on ]. After a week of often snarky talk posts with a red-linked editor and another editor who won't use talk at all (user or main space) I have them both on at the same time and, given that neither is particularly active, I got wondering if they're the same person. Anyhow, I was hoping some one could check ] and ] to see if they're editing from the same spot. I could totally be wrong and just have a situation where two newbies disagree with me at once, but I want to do due diligence. I have three reverts there now and I'm a little frustrated: it's a months-old intro and it got gutted without consensus. I asked an admin individually to look at it and thought I'd ask here too. ]
	:I'm not certain that a request for check user would be justified here, but you ought to ask, in any case, at ]. ] 01:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
			== Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request ==
	== Πrate ==
			{{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)}}
	{{user|Πrate}} claims to be a Chinese Wikipedian, but the name makes me wonder whether he/she is a sockpuppet of banned user {{user|Irate}}. Thoughts? --] (]) 01:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
			The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}:
	:Interestingly Π (capital letter π "pi") makes this user's name "pirate" perhaps? — <small>May. 13, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>''' <]>'''</tt>
			{{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.
	:As far as one can tell the edit patters are quite different. (And I like the pi-rate pun.) ] 02:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
			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 ].
	==]==
	Could an admin please take a look at this article? It has had '''two''' previous AfD's that resulted in its deletion (] and ]) and is now undergoing its third. The page needs to speedy deleted as a repost and please protect it this time, as its creators have made it clear they have no respect for policy. Thanks. --] 04:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
			However, as I have learned from it, I will never use multiple accounts anymore and adding controversial content without doing a proper fact-check. I will always listen to users, be constructive and be friendly. I will make sure you will not regret giving me my account back. I would like to work under the account ].}}
	:I've done so. Two AFDs is quite enough for a marginal online crufty article. --] ] ] 05:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
			] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Support unbanning and unblocking''' per ]. ] (]/]) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (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}}
			== Tulsi (unblock request) ==
	== Could someone have a serious talk with this editor? ==
			{{atop green|User unblocked. ] 12:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			* {{userlinks|Tulsi}}
			* Blocked (indef) on 3 April 2024 (9 months ago) by ] during an AN thread (]) for undisclosed paid editing
			* Subsequent unblock request was also considered at AN before being declined (])
			Tulsi has now submitted an unblock request which I am copying:
	Sorry to bring this here, but I don't know where else it might be more appropriate to mention this. Could someone have a word with ], please? Maybe that could help de-escalating a nasty situation without my having to file an RfC. The issue are gross violations of ], ], and the "no threats" policy (what was that shortcut, again?). I don't think things like , calling me a or a , or stating that he should be tolerated. Banding together with other editors to push a demonstratably false view (on an image copyright tag) also is questionable behavior. ] 09:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
			{{talk quote block|Dear Sysops,
	The root of the problem is the refusal of some (apparently Russian) editors to accept that {{tl|PD-USSR}} is just plain wrong. For the detailed reasoning, see . Note that I didn't invent that reasoning; there are several U.S. experts who say so; and Russian and Ukrainian experts also agree, and I even discussed the issue with Jean-Baptiste Soufron, our very own Wikimedia foundation lawyer specialized on international copyright issues. What I find most annoying is that none of these editors has participated in the discussions about this template during the past months, although they most certainly were aware of the issue. None of them ever brought forward any rational argument why the template should be right; all I ever got were personal attacks. ] 09:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
			I sincerely apologize for my past actions, which were problematic and deceptive. I fully understand the concerns raised, and I deeply regret my involvement. On April 3, 2024, my account was blocked by Rosguill in relation to undisclosed paid editing associated with the {{section link|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive361|DIVINE and Tulsi: COI/UPE/quid-pro-quo editing, association with threats and harassment}}. However, I want to clarify that my involvement in these matters was minimal, with only minor interactions in the past. I have never written articles for payment, and I do not support paid editing.
	:P.S.: One editor ''did'' make an effort to understand the (admittedly confusing) copyright situation of Soviet works, and agreed finally that the tag indeed needed fixing. Thanks, ]! ] 09:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
			The issues in question occurred ], prior to the block. At that time, I admitted my conflict of interest (COI) and disclosed it on the relevant article talk pages. Following discussions, my global and local rights were removed, but the block was not enforced until two years later. Many of the articles in question were deleted, so I did not find it necessary to disclose anything further. Moving forward, I have no intention of creating or editing COI-related articles. However, if I am ever in a situation where I am required to contribute to such an article, I will ensure full disclosure on the article talk page and submit it for review, as I did with the article ].
	Lupo personal attacks is something ths is not nice but that is a mild form considering your abuse of ] and for an admin like you that is important. I have started an ]. You used your admin powers to deprecate a tag'''without any mention to the Russian and Ukrainian communities TWICE'''. First time we were insulted deep enough but now we feel like we have been spat in the face. That is compleate neglect of a whole community of editors, who actually try to IMPROVE wikipedia. --] ] 12:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
	:You might want to provide diffs, as Zach has, to support your assertations. Zach has shown diffs of six personal attacks by you on him, and you should probably respond to these before you make your own unsubstantiated assertations. <span class="plainlinks"><font color="#0000FF">]</font><sub><font color="#2000E0">]</font><font color="#4000C0">]</font><font color="#6000A0">]</font><font color="#800080">]</font><font color="#A00060"></font><font color="#C00040">]</font><font color="#C00020"></font><font color="#FF0000"></font></span> 17:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
			While I respect Rosguill’s decision to impose a block after the two-year gap, I understand that a block serves to prevent disruption rather than punish. I have learned valuable lessons from this experience, and my contributions over the past two years reflect this growth. In this time, I have created , all without any undisclosed paid editing or COI involvement. Additionally, I have contributed to patrolling, as seen in the ] and ]s, and I have reported several violations on WP:UAA.
	The point is, you cannot find any cases of copyright disputes or court trials on this subject. In the meantime, ] abused his admin powers by editing a protected page (]) only because of his own interest. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 13:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Editing a protected page as an admin is not forbidden. There is a reason why Admins are given that power. <span class="plainlinks"><font color="#0000FF">]</font><sub><font color="#2000E0">]</font><font color="#4000C0">]</font><font color="#6000A0">]</font><font color="#800080">]</font><font color="#A00060"></font><font color="#C00040">]</font><font color="#C00020"></font><font color="#FF0000"></font></span> 17:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Yea... the only thing Lupo has done wrong so far is to not completely allow or follow consensus... I can't say he's right or wrong but the vote and the discussion seems unclear and the action may have been premature. As for the personal attacks by Kuban kazak, he definetely should be blocked. Looking at the he seems to not have learned his lesson from before. Therefore, I am giving him a 48 hour block. ''']''' ]|] 19:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
			I acknowledge that I was not fully familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies in the past, but I have since taken the time to understand them better. I have been an active and committed user since October 2014, with significant contributions across various Wikimedia projects. I have also served as a sysop on Wikimedia Commons, Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki, and the Maithili and Nepali Wikipedias.
	==Lupo's RfC==
	WRT to the conversation above, can people please comment on this: ]--] ] 13:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
			I am requesting an unblock because I am fully committed to abiding by all the established policies moving forward, and I am eager to contribute here in a constructive manner. Please kindly allow me a second chance.
	==Help at ]==
			Thank you for your consideration. I humbly request your reconsideration and the restoration of the editing privileges on my account on English Misplaced Pages.
	Hi there everybody. ] is a page which was created few weeks ago when ] was rewritten. The point of the page is to collect evidence that a user is a sock and then take action. And for action to be taken we need admins. For now, only admin taking part in this project is me. So I'd like to see some more admins participating and giving me a hand there :-) If anybody's interested, it'd be nice to put the page on your watchlist and to comment new cases as they appear. Concerning currently open cases, if you wish, you can take a look at ] as I'm having problems deciding what to do about it... Participation of non-admin users would be just fine too. Since non-admins cannot block, I invite them to comment, propose action or just give their view. --] 16:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
			Sincerely,
	==]==
			]&nbsp;] 14:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	This case is closed.
			Having had discussions with the blocking admin, we would like to seek community comments on the unblock request.
	{{vandal|Terryeo}} is banned from articles related to Scientology and Dianetics, placed indefinitely on ] and Personal Attack Parole. The usual enforcement provisions apply. See the link above for details.
			Tulsi was blocked after UPE allegations that had been outstanding for around 2 years essentially caught up with them. They have now attested to having never edited for pay, which was the question they originally failed to answer twice (], ]), leading to the block. In the unblock request, they give a sincere undertaking not to engage in any more UPE.
	For the Arbitration Committee. --] 17:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
			They have created several dozen articles about Nepalese politicians but these seem to be innocuous. I have identified only a handful of articles where Tulsi could have edited for pay. Given the amount of other contributions Tulsi has made, it would be appropriate to give the benefit of the doubt. ] 15:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	==Another potential open proxy \ backslash case==
	The only edit of new user ] seems to have this classic signature. This seems to be exactly what ] ]. If this can be confirmed, someone should probably indefinitely block. ]] | ] 19:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I blocked indefinetly and will post something at checkuser to tell them to look up and block the IP. ''']''' ]|] 19:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Done. ] ] 20:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
			*I cannot find the link for "A related meta-wiki discussion". <span>]]</span>  15:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	==Guanaco==
			**I've deleted those words. I had decided not to include them in my post, but accidentally left them in. For interest, the discussion was this one: ]. ] 15:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	I have blocked Guanaco for three hours for repeatedly making an edit describing other editors as bullies , despite being politely asked (by editors other than myself) not to do so. --] 20:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per ]. I will AGF that Tulsi will keep his promise not to engage in any COI editing going forward. ] (]/]) 16:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Question''': We are all volunteers here, so the applicant's comment {{tq|if I am ever in a situation where I am '''required''' to contribute to such an article}} (emphasis mine) is worrisome within the context of UPE/COI. Could they, or someone else for that matter, provide some clarification? ] (]) 19:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*: I assume "required" is just poor phrasing and refers to circumstances similar to ] provided in the same sentence you quote. In any event, the second part of the sentence states {{tq|<em>I will ensure full disclosure on the article talk page and submit it for review</em>}} (emphasis added). That promise is enough for me. ] (]/]) 21:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''', we should generally give a second chance to users who have greatly and fundamentally changed in several months. Given that the user acknowledged the block and promised not to engage in undisclosed paid editing, not to mention that the user is trusted elsewhere, I see no reason to oppose. ] (]) 20:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' I believe in their ability to address any concern in the future, given that they served as a sysop on Wikimedia Commons, Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki, and the Maithili and Nepali Wikipedias. ] (]) 21:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Support''' A second chance promises that Tulsi will not do highly undisclosed paid editing. I may partially support a topic ban on Nepalese politics against Tulsi. ] (]) 05:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I must respectfully disagree with this block. I was one of the people who saw the potential edit war brewing; Guanaco first placed a saying ''"And practice should reflect consensus, not the demands of bullies."'' in the ] earlier today. ] noticed this comment and left a on ] talk page, explaining that the comment could be ''"interpreted as a personal attack"'' and urged Guanaco to withdraw it. Guanaco on his user talk page, refusing to withdraw it. Following this, Doc glasgow the edit by Guanaco and left a , saying that he had reverted (removed) Guanaco's comment ''"for him"''. Guanaco then and on his user talk page, asking Doc glasgow not to delete the comment. At this point, I sensed that I could try and prevent an ugly revert war and calm things down; I politely requesting that everyone tone things down. There was no more reverting from this point onward; Guanaco to me, saying that ''"out of respect for your request, I will try being politically correct one more time,"'' a postive response. Doc glasgow also after that. That was at 18:21 UTC; Guanaco had no contributions between then and 19:58, over an hour and a half later, when Tony Sidaway Guanaco for 3 hours and then Guanaco's comments from the CSD talk page 10 minutes later. Guanaco only reverted once and had stopped doing so over an hour and a half later; in addition, he had promised, in his reply to me, to tone things down. While I'm not condoning Guanaco's or anyone else's actions, I don't think this block is necessary or proper, given that Guanaco had only reverted once, was actively engaged in discussion, had promised to tone things down, and had not edited for over an hour and a half before his block.
			*'''Support''' Make the most of the second chance ] (]) 23:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' I had already been kind of watcxhing the discussion on their talk page over the last few days, and agree with an SO unblock. ] ] 23:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist Edit Restriction Appeal ==
	:I hope I've outlined the whole situation correctly above; Tony Sidaway, I urge you to reconsider this block. Comments from other people would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 21:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop green|Unanimous consent after 36 hours to lift the restriction. ] (]) 14:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	::(IANAA) I think Flcelloguy's summary accurately and fairly represents the situation, and I concur in his conclusion that Tony would do well to reconsider the block. ] 21:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
			A bit over a year ago, with near unanimous support, I appealed a TBAN from GENSEX - receiving in its place the following sanctions {{tq|1RR restriction in both the GENSEX and AMPOL topics; is limited to 0RR on articles for organizations/activists who are affiliated with anti-transgender activism or gender-critical feminism, broadly construed; and has a PBAN from Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull.}} Previous discussions are linked there. I am now requesting that my restrictions be dropped entirely because I have grown considerably as an editor, both since my initial TBAN when I'd just turned 19 and since the appeal.
			I translated ] (having originally wrote it on eswiki during my TBAN) and made it my first GA. I uploaded multiple colorized photographs of transgender historical figures to commons I improved ] and wrote articles for famous trans activists ] and ]. I also cleared up serious BLP violations at ] and rewrote the article. I also helped expand ] and wrote ]. I improved ] and ]. I improved ]. I rewrote and considerably expanded ] as well as ]. I expanded the article on the ]. I wrote the article on the 1970 semi-governmental report '']''. I expanded the articles on ] and ]. I rewrote ] to follow ] and use systematic reviews instead of primary studies. '''Most proudly''', I wrote ] and took it to GA - this is particularly relevant as a key part of the original TBAN discussion was whether my commitment to removing misinformation from Misplaced Pages was a case of either ] or following ] and ].
	:::It may be worth adding that in his response to Flcelloguy, "out of respect for your request..." which Flcellogu describes as a 'a postive response', Guanaco actually unrepentently repeats the very agressive words to which I had initially objected. Rather than debate the issues he snidely and unhelpfully refers again to 'some people' as 'bullies' - and their ideas as 'bullshit'. Repeating the incivility is hardly 'trying to be politically correct' - he is are still attacking people without havin the courage to name them. --] ] 22:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
			I believe the restrictions impair my ability to edit productively. I generally edit with 1RR regardless of sanctions. With 0RR, as Red-tailed hawk noted at my previous appeal "they can wind up restricting the sorts of partial reverts that are often a healthy part of the ordinary editing process." With 0RR, I am unable to engage in the BRD cycle properly and always second-guessing whether a partial edit to a recent edit counts as a revert or not. It also prevents me reverting drive-by SPA/IP povpushing. I don't plan to ever edit KJK's article again, but I believe that my record of neutral constructive editing shows the PBAN is no longer preventative or necessary. In the highly unlikely event I ever see a reason to edit it in future, I know my edits would be subject to heightened scrutiny which I'd welcome.
	::::True; I'm not condoning Guanaco's actions here. I personally feel that he was incivil as well. But I'm disagreeing with the block because Guanaco had only reverted once when his comment containing a borderline (i.e. not clear-cut) personal attack was removed, and had not edited in over an hour and a half prior to his block. Blocks aren't supposed to be punitive, and I don't see a justification when the editor had stopped reverting after he had reverted only once and wasn't even editing. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 22:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
			I appreciate your consideration. My best regards, ] (]) 01:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	I have to register an extremely strong disagreement with Flcelloguy. Calling a fellow editor a bully is not borderline. I felt, and still feel, that Guanaco's deliberate and premeditated rebuff to some polite requests, and his repetition of the original attack, merited some kind of preventive. I blocked Guanaco at 1958 UTC, putting a note on his talk page at 1959 and on this page at 2003 and 2007. I chose to remove the personal attack some time afterwards--over an hour afterwards, at 2109 UTC. --] 22:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
			:'''Support.''' ] (]/]) 01:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Support'''. Based on YFNS's activity since the original tban, I don't see any reason to believe that restrictions are necessary going forward. ] (]) 06:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Support'''. Welcome back comrade. ] (]) 06:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Support''' based on their editing activity between TBAN and last year, as well as between the sanctions and now. Good work, and a great example of how this restorative process is ''supposed'' to work. May you inspire other misguided people to a path of restoration. ]&thinsp;] 08:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Snow Support''' ] (]) 14:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Strong support'''. To me YNFS comes across as a very responsible editor and I believe these restrictions are no longer warranted. ] (]) 16:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Support''' I remember the original ban happening due in large part to canvassing on twitter, the fact that any restrictions remained in place thereafter strikes me as a deep miscarriage of justice. ] (]) 23:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			'''Query''' Does your reference to BRD mean that you undertake to follow it in the future? ] (]) 14:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Enthusiastic support''' YFNS is a perfect model of an editor who is an asset to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Support''' A well worded appeal, worth giving another chance. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' This is a convincing and sincere appeal. ] (]) 00:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''', Welcome. ~] ] <sup>「] / ]」</sup> 02:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' as they have convincingly demonstrated change. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' I supported and still support the original restrictions, and the later now appealed restrictions. I think YFNS's case has shown that an editor can come back from the brink successfully and am happy that happened. ] (]) 04:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Lardlegwarmers block appeal ==
	:I am definitely not condoning Guanaco's actions here; I urged him to not use such terms as well. There is no excuse for personal attacks of any kind. However, a block when he had neither reverted nor edited for over an hour and a half, had only reverted what he perceived as the removal of his valid comment once, and had not reverted since being asked not to, was inappropriate in my view, especially since the comment was not a clear-cut personal attack (i.e. "so and so is a bully or idiot!" versus "And practice should reflect consensus, not the demands of bullies," which while is still incivil, is not as egregious as an outright insult or personal attack). Blocks are not supposed to be punitive. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 23:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop
			| result = Essentially unanimous consensus to not unblock. ] ] 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
			* {{userlinks|Lardlegwarmers}}
	::The "personal insult" was at best/worst indirect and to me at least came across as a criticism of behavior - it is not a personal attack, after all to characterize behavior as bullying, if such a charge can be substantiated. Sidaway, on the other hand, blocked without getting familiar with the specifics, including efforts to mediate and reciprocal efforts to calm down. Unless he actually intended it as a punitive measure, the block was unfounded. --] 02:31, 14 May 2006 (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)
			=== Statement from Lardlegwarmers ===
			I have only been very active editing Misplaced Pages for about one month, even though my account is older. I was blocked for pushing a minority POV in the talk page for Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory, which I understand. For context, this issue wouldn't have even come up at ANI except that there was this very old account making borderline uncivil comments constantly, and I took them to ANI myself and it boomeranged. One thing that I learned from that experience is that Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement, and that I am probably not going to be the one to fix it.<ref>]</ref> Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed; my edits were in good faith and I was really just attempting to talk it out with the other editors who did not agree with me. But I understand that the norm in this space is to walk away if there isn't any uptake of my ideas or take it to dispute resolution instead of continuing to try to convince people. The current ban is for making a comment on an AE thread, not a Covid-19 article. I was on the page for a totally unrelated reason and noticed that a user I recognized from the Covid thread was being discussed. My comment was mostly about user behavior and reflecting on the underlying dispute itself, not Covid-19. Also, on my user page I quoted ] discussing his view on Misplaced Pages's approach to Covid-19 , which I'd assumed was permitted because it's my own user page and it's really a comment about the state of Misplaced Pages as a whole. The admin who blocked me, @], blanked it from my user page. If the community won't let me keep that quote on my user page, then fine, we'll leave it removed, but I wish they would have just asked me to remove it and described why instead of editing my user page. A block for this stuff seems harsh. Thanks.
			{{talk reflist}}
			=== Statement from Tamzin ===
			Excerpting my comment on their talkpage:{{tq2|Usually we only warn someone on their first topic ban violation. However, in your case, the fact that both violations occurred within hours of the ban being imposed, and that they were belligerent rants treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground, made me judge that a short block would more clearly communicate just how far you are from what is considered acceptable conduct. Even if you didn't understand that the ban applied outside articles, you should have understood that the community found your editing about COVID disruptive, which should have been reason enough to not make those edits.}} <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#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 ===
	I cannot accept that "And practice should reflect consensus, not the demands of bullies" is not a most egregious and unacceptable personal attack. The block was intended to prevent further escalation of this repeated personal attack, which was defended in the most disingenuous and back-handed manner . --] 00:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
			* Going to open a new subsection here since I've made comments to ] two weeks ago. I wish I could say I was surprised that this ended in tears but that would be untrue (though I did have some hopes the comment a month ago indicating they were aware pro-fringe POV-pushing was sactionable was a signal they were intending to modify their behaviour). As bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez points out, making thinly veiled attacks is not exactly the type of thing looked favourably upon in an unblock request. Nor is making polemical statements on one's user page, whether within the scope of the ban or not, likely to convince the community of one's inclination and ability to ]. Lardlegwarmers, if you do really want to return to editing, especially if you want to appeal your topic ban in 6 months or a year, I would strongly advise reading ] and following the advice there, especially ]. Complaining about Hob's conduct won't help you here, because the block (and it's a rather short one) and ban are about you, not Hob. Given your comment that {{tq|apparently two wrongs make a right}}, I had hoped that you were already also considering your own behaviour, but I would like to make it very clear: taking the role of one of the "wrongs" to address someone else's "borderline uncivil" behaviour is ]. Whether Hob crosses the line is on them, but what you do is entirely on you. ] (] • ]) 07:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			* As I was involved in the discussion to topic ban LLW I think I count as an involved editor. With that said I would discourage an early lifting of this block, which seems appropriate considering that LLW's response to the topic ban was to immediately violate the topic ban. ] (]) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Also, perhaps LLW wasn't aware of this, but people who aren't uninvolved administrators aren't generally supposed to put comments into the "results" section of an AE filing. ] (]) 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			* I was there.. Three thousand ye-- No. More like one, two days ago. I seriously believe Lard Leg Warmers is one of two situations: '''1:''' ] and unable to understand the concepts of medical science as if they were a Facebook mother invested in "essential oils" and "holistic medicine" rather than trusting medical and scientific experts; '''2:''' ] and simply f<s>**</s>king with us for no good reason and leading us around, and around, and around, and around, and around the bend because they get a rise out of it. Either way, my advice: don't get led around the bend, '''advise indef block''' for either ] or ]. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::], those kinds of personal assumptions about their character are unnecessary to this discussion. Instead of speculation on who they are elsewhere, let's just focus on their behavior on Misplaced Pages. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Lardlegwarmers' statement clearly shows that they have learned little from the sanction. They should demonstrate such before there is any lifting. ] (]) 18:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Usage of 'Notable people' vis-a-vis 'Notable person' in section headers ==
	==] user page==
			{{atop
	I got a message from Uofakevo stating that he was going to "shoot" on Misplaced Pages on his user page, namely say that Misplaced Pages is "whack". I told him as long as no personal attacks were made, then he could say whatever he wanted. I got another message from him today saying he posted his "shoot". I read the complaint on his user page and I feel they are personal attacks towards myself and another user, ]. Can someone remove them and warn him of his actions? ]] 20:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
			| result = This is not an administrative issue. ] (]/]) 20:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:In pertinent part, the "Misplaced Pages shoot" notes that, ''...Misplaced Pages is run by the biggest gang of geeks to ever walk the face of God's green Earth. Some of the people here (DGX & feydey being the worst offenders) decided to wreck unnecessary havoc and remove a perfectly fine and noteworthy entry'' and that ''DGX, feydey, and any of you other tools here: you're on notice''. The former, although likely indecorous, isn't, IMHO, a personal attack, inasmuch as the focus is on the (altogether correct) conduct of particular users, rather than on the users themselves; we generally, I think, look with disfavor on user page criticisms of individual editors (here, he could criticize the deletion of his vanity bio without referencing the other editors with whom he clashed), but the former criticisms are not particularly strident or vituperative (similar, in fact, to those many listed on their user pages w/r/to ] during the Userbox Wars). The latter, though, terms editors as tools, and so is likely a personal attack; even as I have many problems with ], I recognize that the policy generally enjoys wide support, so, in view of NPA, I'll remove the offending sentence from Uofakevo's page; I can't imagine that anyone would think further action (e.g., short block) would be appropriate, but surely others may disagree. ] 20:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
			}}
	::If someone could watch him so he doesn't make anymore personal attacks that would be great. Although I don't particulary liked being called a geek on his user page, it didn't strike my attention as much as the comment that I was a tool (which was removed). Thank you. ]] 20:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::I just want to let it be known in advance that I am a proud geek ''and'' tool. I haven't looked into this case, but I find having a sense of humor about it really helps when others make themselves look terrible by namecalling or other forms of PA. &mdash;] (]) 21:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
	Update: OK, I looked. This newbie doesn't need much help to make himself look terrible so far. No contributions but those related to a clear cut nn-bio vanity page. &mdash;] (]) 21:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
			In the course of editing numerous articles, I have come across the header featuring 'notable people' when there is only one person and have therefore modified the grammar.
	Of course, nobody looks at my side of the story. Figures. {{unsigned|Uofakevo}}
			I recently had another editor come behind me and revert one such edit on the grounds that things have always been done this way, regardless of the number of notables for a given locale, which makes little sense to me. Is this really policy? ] (]) 16:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	If you feel like sharing your side of the story, by all means.. go ahead. ]] 20:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
			:This seems like a question for ], not ] as it doesn't involve administrator actions. AN isn't a general Help forum for questions about editing. You could even try asking at ] or the Help Desk. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Reporting Administrator Abuse ==
	==Constant Page Blanking on ]==
			{{Atop|I'm going to do the OP a favor and close this with no action against them. Essentially, the OP's misbehavior was pointed out by Acalamari and the OP is trying to present it as Acalamri's misbehavior. If another administrator thinks sanctions against the OP are warranted, that's up to them.--] (]) 23:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	An anonymous IP address (82.7.136.2 is blanking the Filmography on the ] article. Right after I revert it, he vandalises it again. Assistance would be helpful. ] 00:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I've semi-protected the page for a short while. ] (]) 00:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
			] is abusing his moderator powers in order to post unconstructive comments on talk pages, specifically when we were talking about if we should delete the US 2028 election or not, he said "that Drumpf supporters want there to be no more elections so they can remain in power forever doesn't mean we adhere to their delusions by deleting articles here". This is clearly unconstructive, and treating the talk page as a forum. I didn't know he was a moderator when I was removing his comment, and now he left all of these messages on my page and is saying I'm the real vandal here. ] (]) 22:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Appeal ==
			:So there's two things here.
	Can I appeal to any admins with some spare time to spend it clearing the image dumping categories ] and the other categories linked there? While nowhere near as badly backlogged as they used to be, there's still upwards of a thousand images to be speedied.
			:* First, TopVat19sEver, you removed other users comments from a talk page (not allowed). A user voicing their opinion is '''not''' vandalism, not in the slightest. If you have a problem with what another user has said on the talkpage, rather than ] (which is only allowed in very specific situations), you should bring it for discussion at an appropriate noticeboard, or preferably ask them to change their own comment.
			:* Second, Acalamari, could you please refrain from calling people "Drumpf supporters" and ] on the reasons for nominating an article for deletion? While you're entitled to your opinions, that's borderline (at best) ], especially when you call them "delusional".
			:If both users agree to accept what they did wrong here and move forward, I don't think any further action is necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 22:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Ok, I'm newer to Misplaced Pages, I understand what you are saying, my train of thought was, "this comment looks like vandalism, vandalism on Misplaced Pages is removed, therefore remove". I didn't know that they don't do that for talk pages. Thank you my friend. ] (]) 22:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Vandalism has a '''very''' specific definition on Misplaced Pages - see ] for more information on what is not vandalism. Merely calling people names and/or being uncivil, while against the rules, is '''not''' vandalism. There are proper processes for handling other rule violations (such as asking someone to edit their own comments, or asking a noticeboard for help) such as those, but they are decidedly '''not''' vandalism. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Ok thank you for telling me ] (]) 23:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Where are the ]? ] (]) 22:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*This is a baseless complaint. Ater not editing for months, the OP refactored an AfD that was closed last November. Acalamari rightly warned them for doing that.--] (]) 22:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I agree, but at the same time, I think TV19E has a right to be unhappy that Acalamari, an administrator and bureaucrat, was able to cast aspersions and call people names without it being called out at the time as far as I can see. They went about it the wrong way (removing the comment), but that doesn't mean there isn't room for discussion of that comment. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 22:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Nope. First, it doesn't rise to the level required of this noticeboard, and, second, it's not at all timely.--] (]) 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::To be blunt, Acalamari didn't even tell the editor when they ''initially'' reverted back in November (while the discussion was open) where they could discuss further/report if they felt the comment was not appropriate. I'm not suggesting sanctions against Acalamari at all. But to tell a new editor "someone broke the rules and since you didn't report it in the proper way at the time because nobody told you how, they're allowed to break the rules" is clear ]. I think all that's necessary is an apology from Acalamari - TV19E has already explained that they were mistaken as to it being vanadalism. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 23:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I didn't edit for a few months because I have to do other things. I was just scrolling around I don't even remember what I was doing and I saw he put it back, I didn't know he was a mod, and it also said you can't edit archived talk pages, which he did, so I reverted his edit. ] (]) 23:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::That's not true. You modified a closed AfD. Acalamari rightly reverted your edit of an archived discussion.--] (]) 23:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I just said, he is the one who modified a closed AfD, which is not allowed, then I reverted it not knowing he is a moderator ] (]) 23:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::He didn't modify a closed AfD. His comment was readded while the discussion was still open, because you removed it in violation of ]. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 23:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Oh okay this is my mistake then I thought it was after the AfD was closed my bad ] (]) 23:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Wait hold on, I just looked at it again. He added back his comment after the result was SNOW. On the page when he re added it, it said do not edit the page. ] (]) 23:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::You removed Acalamari's comment as vandalism with the edit summary "subhanAllah". You had ''no right'' to do that. Acalamari restored it, which even though the AfD was closed, they had the right to do in the circumstances.--] (]) 23:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/2028_United_States_presidential_election_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1257014612 Take a look, this is his edit. When he re added his comment, on the page in red it said '''Do not edit the page''' ] (]) 23:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::The comment never should've been removed in the first place. It's within the spirit of the rules to readd a comment that you improperly removed, even if the discussion had been closed in the meantime. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{ec}} There's no admin abuse here as no admin tools have been used. In case you missed ''"The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below"'' with the bright red ''"Please do not modify it"'' at that AfD, I'll repeat the instructions here - don't modify archived discussions.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I was saying Admin abuse because of the fact that he is able to keep his comment on the page when even if he is violating the rules. I'm not a moderator so I can't do anything about. Now I just learned from that guy that they don't remove comments even if its vandalism, now I know. But thats why I reported it here you know. ] (]) 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:He is the one who edited the closed AfD. This was one of the reason why I reverted his edit. ] (]) 23:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*It's very hard to work out what's happening without the presence of diffs. ] (]) 23:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:*{{tq|without the presence of diffs}}. But Ponyo and I have contributed, so you're in the presence of greatness; isn't that better than diffs? :p --] (]) 23:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:*:* ''Tiggerjay is bowing down in great humility before such greatness never before seen in this universe. '' Now.... where is the trout? ]&thinsp;] 23:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:*:Who am I to disagree with the Jedi? ] (]) 23:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Okay, I've looked into this. And...surprise surprise, TopVat19sEver was the one who ''origially removed Aclamari's !vote while the AfD was still open'' . Yes, about a day after the AfD was closed, Aclamari reverted this removal , which ''is'' technically "editing a closed AfD" but I would say they were ] to revert a ]. And now, suddenly, today, two months later, as their first edit ''after'' having done that improper removal, TopVat19sEver goes back to the AfD and removes Aclamari's !vote ''again'' , which Aclamari - entirely rightfully - reverted , and then TopVat19sEver comes here to cry "admin abuse", when no administrative abilities were used ''at all'' in this whole mess. Could Aclamari have used more moderate language in their initial !vote? Yeah maybe, but it was no ''violation'' at all, and the only thing needed here is a ] or at least a {{tl|trout}} for TopVat19sEver. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	Additionally, when you've done that, or if you're not an admin, please consider going on ] for a while every couple of days. While ] picks out most untagged images, it can't deal with the images that have some copyright tag but no source, or which have a fair use tag and aren't in any articles, or which have a completely irrelevant fair use tag.
			{{Abot}}
			== Ban appeal from Rathfelder ==
	And when you're bored of ''that'', would you consider taking a look through a random fair use image category, like ] and doing random fair use audits? A magazine cover can be fairly used in the article about the magazine, but generally not in an article about the person depicted on the front cover.
			* {{userlinks|Rathfelder}}
	Now, back to your regular speedying... if you have any time left, that is... ] (]) 00:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
			* ] for sockpuppetry, vote-stacking and undisclosed COI writing of a BLP attack page
			* ] declined by the community
			* ] not submitted for review by the community for not complying with ]
			Rathfelder has submitted the following ban appeal on their talk page and asked me to copy it here:
	:I will conceed that this is a fairly effective method of keeping a reasonabley high deletions per month average.] 11:59, 14 May 2006 (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>
			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)
			*'''Conditional support''' - If there's been no socking ''during'' the ban. ] (]) 17:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Minimum age for wikipedia? ==
			*: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)
	Is there a minimum age for wikipedia? I'm a bit fuzzy on the subject, but I thought there was a minimum age required by law (COPPA)? I'm not sure if Misplaced Pages falls under this however. I ask because ] admits on his user page to being only 12. I don't know what should be done if anything. Could someone look into this? Thanks a bunch --]<sup>( | ])</sup> 01:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
			*'''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)
	:No, there is no minimum age to edit Misplaced Pages. ] 01:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
			*:To opposers: Would a TBAN from BLPs solve the issues you mention? I understand why some may be hesitant to unban, but they have been a very productive contributor on other wikis. I think that they would be a productive contributor if we simply give them a second chance. ] (]) 16:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Not minimum age to edit, but minimum age to create an account. He could have given his real name, as well as email address during the signup process. A few FTC links about COPPA: . I just wanted to make sure that Misplaced Pages is has its bases covered. --]<sup>( | ])</sup> 01:45, 14 May 2006 (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)
	:::What about people not in America? --] <sup><font color="#3D9140">]</font></sup> 01:51, 14 May 2006 (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)
	::::There is no minimum age for anything. Misplaced Pages is the "the 💕 that '''anyone can edit'''", so no matter who you are, as long as you follow the policies, you can edit. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
			*::Thanks for drawing my attention; I've clarified my comment. ] ] 16:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::I wasn't refuting the part that anyone can edit, just anyone can create an account and give their personal information. Although it would help if I read the text of COPPA better and saw "does not include any nonprofit entity that would otherwise be exempt from coverage under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45)." Misplaced Pages is under the Wikimedia Foundation which is non-profit right? So I don't think we have to worry about this. --]<sup>( | ])</sup> 01:57, 14 May 2006 (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)
	::::I think we are exempt because we are a nonprofit (although I saw no clause 5 in the FTC act), but COPPA is pretty clear on the matter: ''(1) IN GENERAL.—It is unlawful for an operator of a website or online service directed to children, or any operator that '''has actual knowledge that it is collecting personal information from a child''', to collect personal information from a child in a manner that violates the regulations prescribed under subsection'' - The only things we ask are for a username, password, and an optional email address. Thus, we do not knowingly collect information from children. ] 02:02, 14 May 2006 (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)
	::Awesome, I'm glad. Thanks for your help Raul, Mark and Prodego! --]<sup>( | ])</sup> 02:07, 14 May 2006 (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)
	:::I think there should be a maximum age of 22 years. — ] ] 02:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
			*'''Support'''. Serial Number 54129 points to the quote from the piece by Sarah Baxter as the most damning part of his evidence, but Baxter was deputy editor of ''The Times'' when she wrote the article, so it was reasonable to say that that newspaper said that. It may, of course, not be the best way to word things but we don't ban people for that. ] (]) 18:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::I guess I'll have to edit as much as I can in the next 11 months, just in case I become ineligible at that point via Knowledge Seeker's rule proposal. ;o) ]] | ] 02:23, 14 May 2006 (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)
	::::*I think there should be a ''minimum'' age of 21 years. It seems to me that the younger users tend to either (1) use Misplaced Pages as their message board, sulking around pages like this, (2) vandalize pages randomly until they're blocked, or (3) write articles that only teenagers care about (e.g., non-notable bands or anime characters.) I find it disappointing that many of these younger users tend to become administrators simply because they're good at popularity contests. The older users never get praised because they aren't "cool" enough, I guess.--] 02:27, 14 May 2006 (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)
	:::::A minimum of 21 and a maximum of 22... this is starting to sound like the[REDACTED] triple crown where editors can work for a year and then either are bred or turned into glue :o) --]<sup>( | ])</sup> 02:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::::If this were true, we'd have a lot less vandals. Given the choice of a year of hard work and a lifetime of breeding, or a year of goofing around and a lifetime of being an adhesive, I think I know what most people would choose. :o) ]] | ] 02:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::We're not going to geld any users, are we? I'd like to opt out of that. ] 02:46, 14 May 2006 (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)
	::::::::We'd have to rename the place ]. --] (]) 05:32, 14 May 2006 (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)
	:::::::::I NEW someone was going to mention that!!!''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 06:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
			*:People implicitly understand that Jytdog will probably never be unbanned from Misplaced Pages because his act of phoning up a fellow user he was in conflict with was a severe and inexcusable breach of decorum. I think that Rathfelder's breach was on par with that of Jytdogs. People using their position on Misplaced Pages to write attack pages of living people is a huge violation of Misplaced Pages's standards. It's not just some minor misconduct like youthful vandalism or minor socking where someone can just brush it off as "whoopsie, my bad" and be relatively easily unblocked. Stuff like this brings the whole encyclopedia into disrepute. ] (]) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::If I’m not unmistaken ] was banned by ''ArbCom'', not by the community, and was also a self-admitted serial offender. And yes their apology does come across as “whoopsie, my bad”. And they haven’t edited constructively anywhere else as a counterpoint to their destructive editing here. I personally would never support letting them return, but that’s because their situation (at least to me) seemed like it was a case of a charismatic ] actually getting a well-earned block. This current situation seems like someone making a single terrible decision and realizing how terrible it was. Just compare their block logs— Jyt was blocked multiple times indefinitely by arbcom; this user only had a single 48 hour block before getting banned despite being here ''longer''. ] (]) 12:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' I find RoySmith's articulation much more convincing. We don't need to have a concept of unforgivable sins here. And this applies to everyone. ] ] 18:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' ] (]) 20:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per Liz and Roysmith. While Rathfelder's misconduct was quite severe, it was an anomaly in a long, active, and productive editing career here; and his activity at Simple as continued that pattern. Unlike Serial, I do see understanding and regret, which they are *amplifying* rather than *replacing* with the assurance that the circumstances under which the misconduct arose are unlikely to repeat. So - worth another go, I think. No opinion whether a TBAN of some sort should be imposed; if I were Rathfelder, I would stay away from BLPs for some time anyway. ] (]) 23:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' Justice on WP is supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Once years, plural, have passed I think it’s reasonable to assume genuine remorse. There’s no such thing as a permanent lifetime ban on Misplaced Pages, even if some bad actors who have well and truly exhausted the community’s patience have received a ''de facto'' one. This is a feature, not a bug. ] (]) 08:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Appealing April 4 2024, indefinite WP:CUP ban and indefinite 1-nomination GAN limit ==
	== I got lost somewhere ==
			{{atopr
			| result = Consensus to lift this ban will not develop. ] (]/]) 22:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
			At ], I was instructed by closer ] that I could appeal these in a year and it has been 9.5 months. I am appealing because the CUP entry deadline is traditionally January 31. See ] through ]. This year the ] verbiage says "The competition will begin on 1 January 2025 and signups will continue throughout the year". I am just noticing the new language as I am putting this appeal in. Nonetheless, I am requesting time off for good behavior on the ban.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 18:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	Someone needs to help this clueless newbie... I tried deleting this page and restoring it, but I think I accidentally restored some previously deleted edits. (I think it went from 28 deleted edits down to only the two ''I'' wanted to delete.) Is there someway to fix what I did? I'm so disappointed in myself. Please help! I don't know what I may have restored... :-( --] <sup><font color="#3D9140">]</font></sup> 04:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
	: What page is it? There should be, let me have a look at it. ] ] 04:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
	:: He meant ''this'' page, as in the AN. ~]]] 04:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
	::: Looks O.K... what's the problem? There's a total of two deleted edits, both should be deleted. Am I missing something? ] ] 04:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::: Oh... got it. I'd do it, but MDD46 seems to already have the reins. ] ] 04:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
	:: I'm gonna give it a go. Give me a few minutes. ~]]] 04:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Yes... There are only about 20000 versions though. Argh! I'm so mad at myself. I'm done for awhile. See you soon. --] <sup><font color="#3D9140">]</font></sup> 04:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::I couldn't do it, and I'm confused how you could, LV. I kept getting the Wikimedia error message (the one with the dark cyan text in multiple languages)... oh well. Anyone else know what they're doing? ~]]] 04:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::: I just deleted the AN, and it nearly crashed my computer. Try e-mailing ] and see if he can help. ] ] 05:01, 14 May 2006 (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)
	== Username blocks ==
			:'''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)
			:'''Oppose for now''' It's pretty clear that most people in that discussion were supporting an indef ban from the Cup, not an 8-month ban. This appeal doesn't address people's concerns with Tony's editing relating to the Cup, so should be denied. --] 19:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			: '''Oppose''' The original discussion wasn't linked, it can be found ]. At that place it is very clear that {{tq|here is almost unanimous support for an indefinite ban on participation in the WikiCup}}, so, no, this appeal should not be passed. It is, honestly, astonishing that TonyTheTiger has been here very nearly two decades but hasn't taken on board the way the community works ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose''' for no rational that they understand why they were banned or what even led to their ban, and rather simply a sentiment of "I really want to participate". Please understand that '''your ban was indefinite''', so the one year appeal opportunity is your potential opportunity "time off for good behavior". ]&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==
	Hey -- I haven't been meaning to patrol this, but in the last few days I've come across at least 3 editors who have been username blocked and were confused as hell and wanted to be unblocked, some specifically offering to get a new username. Anyway, it's not that big a deal, but I just wanted to remind the admins who do username blocks to please put {{tl|UsernameBlocked}} on the user's talk page, so they have some clue what has happened. It explains what the block is for, and what they can do to solve the issue. Thanks! ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:36, 14 May 2006 (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)
	== Internet slang ==
			: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)
	How about a permanent semi-protect for this page? It's subject to a lot of IP's vandalising it by adding extremely obscure abbreviations, that sometimes aren't noticed and removed for months. There were a few that a channel in the US made up (yes, literally, it was on Digg) for a news-report. +] (]) ] 05:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	:It seems to have died down for now. If it is happening at a high rate please post on ]. — ] <sup>]</sup> 11:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Move Rename ==		== Please Help Me! ==
			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)
	A small MediaWiki proposal .''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 06:44, 14 May 2006 (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)
			== BAG nomination ==
			Hi! I have nominated myself for ] membership. Your comments would be appreciated on the ]. Thanks! – ] <small>(])</small> 14:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Probation of {{user|Shultz IV}} ==
			== I need help from an admin - Urgent ==
	I have been attempting to mediate this user, and as a reward I got a picture of myself uploaded and personal information posted on my user talk page. This user has a history of such behavior, and so I have placed him on probation . The terms are that the mediation ends if he (1) uploads any personal pictures which don't have connections to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, (2) "outs" anyone's personal information, or (3) engages in personal attacks on other users, especially if those attacks involve the personal information of another user.
			{{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.
	As my mediation was a term of his being unblocked, I think that if this mediation fails we would be looking at a community-supported indefinite block, which was where he started. Failing that, I suppose we could consider Arbcom. In the short term, any admins who find Shultz in violation of those three terms should feel free to block as they feel necessary. (])<sup>(])</sup> 16:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
			Many thanks,
	== ] ==
			Mohammed ] (]) 17:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:There's not enough information here for anyone to do anything. Please tell us what the problem is and what help you need. You probably want to read ] prior to doing anything further, though, just in case you've been violating our guidelines around conflicts of interest. --] (]) 17:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:What's the issue? ] (]/]) 17:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::] probably needs blocking. ] (]) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{Done}} ] (]/]) 17:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Relevant article:
			:*{{al|An Orange from Jaffa}}
			:OP possibly using multiple accounts:
			:*{{checkUser|Mohamugha1}}
			:*{{checkUser|MohammedAlmughanni}}
			:] (]) 17:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{noping|MohammedAlmughanni}} blocked as a sock. ] (]/]) 17:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Khabib Nurmagomedov French page modified by 92.184.106.82 to edit origin as Algerian ==
	Hello WP:AN, I'd like to report ]. As some of you may be aware, this is an IP adress (some school, or group of schools it seems) with many users; including vandals. Has anyone thought about contacting whomever owns and runs this IP adress, and informing them that one of the students is vandalising this site. I'd've thought that a little "scare" from the owners or someone of authority (A headteacher or whatever) should help to sort out the behaviour of any scoundrels (as it did for another ex-Misplaced Pages-vandal who shares an IP Adress with many others *cough*.) It is a suggestion. --]]] 19:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
			{{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:
	:: Sounds like you want ] :) ] 19:06, 14 May 2006 (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 ==
	== ] and copyvio tags ==
			{{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)
	] has uploaded a number of images that were subsequently tagged as copyright violations by ] and myself. Both of us tried to explain the copyright policy on his talk page.
			::@] 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 ==
	He then stated that he received permission to publish some of the images and removed the copyvio tags from those that he says he got permission for. I understand that like AfD tags copyvio tags are to stay up while the image is under review and explained this to him.
			{{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)
	Could someone explain what the procedure really is and if necessary put the tags back - I don't want to get into an edit war over half a dozen copyvio notices. ] 19:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
			:{{midsize|(Will abstain as I hope no one will require sanctions and I am pretty clearly involved again despite hoping I wouldn't have to be, but just wanted to make clear on my own edits that if I made any errors on the sweep-up, please let me know and I'll fix them. Thanks.)}} <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 06:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Unless the user provides verifiable proof that they have the right to publish the images and release them under ], the tags have to stay, and the user should be blocked if they continue the behavior. ]|] 20:48, 14 May 2006 (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)
			::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 ==
			{{atop
	I request my ] be fulfilled and ask the first admin to see this message, to delete my user and user talk pages. (you may also want to delete all my redirected sub-pages too). Thanks, and goodbye friends! ] ] 22:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
			| result = Warned, then sockblocked. <small>(])</small> ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 21:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
			I recommend issuing a warning to ], as their actions appear to be ]. Despite previous warnings, they have continued this behavior. --] (]) 21:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I'm working on the user pages, but I won't delete the the talk page. Someone else might, but it isn't covered under ], so I don't feel comfortable doing it. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== G7 request by a blocked account ==
	:I did it. ] | ] 23:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=G7'd. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			Can an admin take a look at ]? It appears to be a "]" request for ]. -- ] (]) 01:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Qualifies for G7. Deleted by me. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 02:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	Thanks to all deleting my pages. I hope to return one day, but for now goodbye! ] ] 23:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	:You still have quite a few pages under your old username. Delete those too? ] ] 23:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
			== Sapo.pt ==
	::I undeleted the talk page just under the assumption that it had been deleted by an administrator who didn't know that many disapprove of deleting user talk pages. I tried to cancel my deletion but it was too late. I came here to report it, but see there's already a section. I do believe that user talk pages should ''not'' be deleted, but will leave it to others to decide—it is not my intention to wheel war. Was I incorrect to do this? — ] ] 23:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
			*{{articlelinks|Sapo.pt}}
			Could an admin undelete that redirect? Thanks ] (]) 08:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{done}} ] <sub>]</sub> 08:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Proxy question ==
	:::It states in Right to vanish that I can have my talk page deleted, so It's a matter if you feel it's the right thing to do. There's nothing really important in the talk history, so I don't see a reason that it can't be deleted. ''To NoSeptember:'' Yes, everything. ;-) ] ] 23:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
			I recently enabled the and have seen a number of IPs that are flagged as proxies (e.g., {{redacted}}). Would IPs being flagged with this tool warrant them being blocked? ] ] 20:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::Sometimes people want thier talk pages to be deleted to hide evidence of warnings etc. In that sort of case then clearly we should not delete thier talk page in case they return and cause more trouble. This doesn't appear to be the cae here (unless I missed something). If Moe Epsilon wishes to dissapear then we should grant that wish. I too will not will war, but urge other admins to delete the talk page unless there is good reason not to. ] | ] 23:31, 14 May 2006 (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 ==
	:::: would be a lot of pages to delete. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:36, 14 May 2006 (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)
	:::::Sorry but all of should be deelted too. (SWD316 is my old username). ] ] 23:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
			: I've undeleted the history. You can do the export process yourself then. Since it was just a dated PROD and it looks like there were prior copyvio concerns but the copyright holder eventually provided permission, there's no reason the history can't also be available here. ] ] 04:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{Done}}; ]. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Misplaced Pages talk:Help desk/Archive 19 ==
	I am unclear as to what extent ] is Wikimedia policy and to what extent it binds our activities on here ''en''. I don't believe it assert any ''right'' that one's talk will be deleted (and only mentions talk ''sub''pages), though I am unclear how carefully the procedure was discussed. A significant objection to the deletion of talk pages is that they are primarily the contributions of ''other'' editors that a user should not have the ability to have deleted. Those edits then disappear from the contributions of other editors as well (for instance, if someone undergoing a request for arbitration had made inappopriate comments to Moe, they would no longer be accessible). I re-deleted since I would rather come to a consensus first. I still feel that it should be undeleted; it can be blanked and protected if necessary. — ] ] 23:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop | result = Stray page deleted <small>(])</small> ] (]) 14:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC) }}
	:Actually blanking and protecting seems reasonable enough. Moe is there any particular reason that you must have your talk page deleted? I think the idea of a right to vanish comes from meatball wiki. But you can't really vanish since contributions are spread all over the wiki. ] | ] 00:00, 15 May 2006 (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)
			:{{done}} I've deleted it (G2, "test page" seemed close enough). - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Thank you {{u|The Bushranger}}. -- ] (]) 08:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== ] closures ==
	::Nope, nothing to hide. I figured since I was leaving Misplaced Pages for good then I would get all my pages deleted. To clarify: I ''want'' to have my talk page deleted, but it's ultimatly up to those who have the power to delete/undelete my talk page. If it's restored, I won't hold anything against anyone, it was just my request for it's deletion. ] ] 00:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
			{{Userlinks|2601AC47}} {{Pagelinks|Deb Matthews}} {{Pagelinks|Ministry of Education (Ontario)}}
	:::Based on this discussion, I will restore the deleted talk page, blank it, and protect it. — ] ] 01:24, 15 May 2006 (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.
	== ] and copyvio material at ] ==
			I have discussed with the user on ]. The user refused to change the summaries. ] (]) 19:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	A copy/paste of the article http://www.dansettes.co.uk/history.htm was created at ]. It was copyvio'd by ] and I placed a copy of the nothanks template on the user's page. The same article was then copied and pasted at ]. I copyvio'd it. Now, the identical article has been copied/pasted at ]. I'm not quite sure what the correct procedure is for addressing an issue that is obviously ongoing copyright violation, but is not eligible for a speedy because it's not from a commercial content provider. ''(See also )'' ] 23:39, 14 May 2006 (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)
	I have speedy deleted all copies of the copyvio page on the grounds that they are replicated content and we don't need more than one copy. I will have a word with User:Babolatace510. ] | ] 23:50, 14 May 2006 (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)
			::::::::::::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)
			: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 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)
			== How do we handle Israel Palestine new articles created by non ECP editors nowadays? ==
	* <s>FYI, it's back up at ] ] 23:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)</s> Well darn, you guys do some fast work ;) ] 23:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
			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?
	** It is back up at ], though. ] 23:56, 14 May 2006 (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)
	==Sexual harassment article==
			* 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)
	This is a minor matter, but I'd like some wisdom from someone. I am slightly irritated by recent edits from sockpuppets of ], as shown . I've given a couple of warnings to the IP users concerned, but I'm disinclined to get "heavy" at this point, and besides I don't want to use admin powers over a content dispute that I'm involved in. OTOH, I feel that being an admin shouldn't mean having to put up with another user's sockpuppets continually deleting sources and sourced information, adding back deleted unsourced information, or simply acting uncivilly. Does anyone want to offer a suggestion or take an interest in this article? Feel free to drop a note on my talk page. ] 00:02, 15 May 2006 (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)
			: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)
	For the moment I've semi-protected the page. The next sockpuppet revert would have been a 3RR by ]. I'll leave the page alone for now and let someone else unprotect it at their discretion. Let it stay for awhile, though, please. ] 00:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
			== Archive bots ==
	: ] helped me out after ] made a third reversion. I've just thanked her for that. For reasons that I hope are obvious, I don't want to be the person to block ] but I do note that there is <strike>now</strike> soon to be a clear 3RR violation by this person and his/her sockpuppets. Not only are the reverts all in a period of a few hours, in each case they delete sources and sourced comment while adding back dubious unsourced material. The user concerned has apparently also filed some kind of request against me somewhere. ] 02:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop
			| 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)
	::Correction - there have only been three reverts so far. The next one will be a clear breach of 3RR. We'll see what happens. ] 02:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
			:{{u|TonyTheTiger}}. Maybe you are thinking of ]? –] <small>(])</small> 09:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Note of caution on attacks on Misplaced Pages's neutrality. ==
	== Cyde, Kelly Martin and images in signatures. ==
			{{atop|1=We know to keep an eye out for "neturality police" IPs/new editors. Speculation on anything more should be left to the WMF per ] (and, indeed, ]). - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			As observed , Musk and others now in positions with Trump's admin are calling out Misplaced Pages's "lack of neutrality". At best they are current only calling for trying to defund it, but given a the craziness of the last 48hrs alone, I would not be surprised to see new or IP editors with strong conservative ideals trying to "fix" the neutrality problem. Nothing we haven't seen before but now that these people have a megaphone to state this, the quantity could become elevated.<span id="Masem:1737504211892:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
			:Do they mean anything by "defund" other than calling for people to stop donating (and haha, good luck with that one, these attacks seem to have resulted in the opposite)? Can Elon and Trump actually try and freeze the Foundation's assets or anything like that? ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Likely not within a legal framework that exists right now... but they could, for example, pressure Congress to pass a new law, or they could attempt to eliminate the safe harbor protections that the WMF (among other organizations) are given from copyright violations, which would allow people to sue for copyvios being displayed at all, no matter how quickly they're removed. And even if they don't try to make it sound legal, they could always just throw another executive order at the wall and see if it sticks - possibly as part of a "burst" like he did within the first 24 hours of his term. This strategy isn't anything new - trying to overload organizations'/lawyers' capabilities to sue to block those orders, and the courts' ability to handle those suits, during which time they can do what they want. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 00:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::There is a proposed bill going around that would allow non profits to be stripped of that status should they be considered a terrorist org or support terrorism. While what we do is clearly not that, in this new administration, anything goes. However all that is a WMF problem and I assume they are ready to fight.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>My caution here is that we might see new and IP see these calls as dogwhistles to attack WP in other ways, which we as admin and involved editors can take a ton against.<span id="Masem:1737506377400:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 00:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
			::::If the US decides to strip WMF's status then, a total and global outrage might happen. ] (]) 00:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{tq|they could attempt to eliminate the safe harbor protections that the WMF (among other organizations) are given from copyright violations}} Elon Musk definitely doesn't want to be liable every time someone posts a copyright violating image on Twitter, so I doubt that will happen. ] (]/]) 00:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I'd say that we probably shouldn't give them ] for how to attack us. Contrary to what some believe, these are very public noticeboards that are readable to anyone on the Internet. ] ] 01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Legal threat ==
	{{admin|Cyde}} and {{admin|Kelly_Martin}} are bullying me, attacking me and are both constantly incivil because I refused their demands to remove images in my signature.
			{{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)
	I quote ]:
			{{abot}}
	''However, these elements in the signature are '''discouraged''' for several reasons:''
			== Disruptive editor ==
	''Discouraged'' does not mean disallowed or prohibited.
			{{atop
			| result = ]. Level 2 warning issued. ] (]/]) 00:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
			] has been removing any reference to the term 'insurrection' in articles connected with the January 6 capitol attack. ] (]) 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	I call for a block on Cyde for his constant personal attacks and incivility (which has migrated from my talk page to his) and a warning for Kelly Martin.
			{{abot}}
			== Community assuming the block on Crouch, Swale ==
	This has gone too far and I'm seething.
			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)
	See: ] and ].
			*'''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)
	What should have started out as a polite request for me to change my signature has degenerated into incivility and personal attacks. As an admin, Cyde should know better than to engage in such behaviour. Bullying is a violation of ] thus ''against Misplaced Pages policy''. He is antagonising and provoking a confrontation and I would rather post here than give him what he wants. — ]|] 15 May 2006 (UTC)
			== WMF research on admins ==
	:I reproduce here what I wrote on Nathan's talk page:
			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)
	::Nathan, you should remove the images from your signature not because it's "required by policy" but because it's the '''polite''' thing to do. Being wilfully impolite, as you are doing, reflects poorly on you as a Wikipedian and will tend to bias people against you. It's your call (for now); I'd strongly suggest that you stop thinking about your "rights" and instead focus on how you can behave in a manner more conducive to maintaining a friendly, productive environment in which to write an encyclopedia.
			:Hello, ], I am interested but busy. Is there a summary to this 70 page paper you could link to? Is this report a result of the questionnaire they sent out last autumn? Thanks for informing us about it. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I admit I haven't read the 70 pages yet either. It's on my ever growing to-do list. I don't think there's a summary that's been released yet (if there ends up being one, it'll probably be at ]). This is indeed about the mass questionnaire/interviews that were going on last year. ] ] 04:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The first 18 pages are a summary of the rest of the document. The good news is that apparently our admin corps is demographically reflective of the wider editor pool in all measured aspects except age. ] (]) 04:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Do we lean older or younger? ] ] 04:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Admins average older than editors and readers. ] (]) 04:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::An addendum: it's not in the summary but there is also a geographic bias (pages 52 and 53), with en.wiki admins more likely to be in North America than editors. ] (]) 04:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			*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)
			== Move page ] ==
	:I'm sorry if Nathan considers this a personal attack. It was intended as friendly advice. In any case, I wilfully submit myself and my conduct in this matter for judgment by my peers. ] (]) 03:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
	::I don't see any "bullying", personal attacks, or incivility here at all. And no, Cyde should not be blocked. All I see is Nathan being stubborn after he was confronted about his rather&mdash;to put it lightly&mdash;elaborate signature. This is a supreme overreaction to an exceedingly minor issue.--] <sup><font color="#FC0FC0">]</font></sup> 03:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
			Please help me move page ] to ] (currently is a redirect page), because of this airport was . ] (]) 04:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	I'm happy that Nathanrdotcom has finally removed the images from his sig. Guess I won't have to "bother" him about it anymore. --] 03:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
			== File:A Redrawing of the 5K Y.O. Graffito by NewAccount333.jpeg ==
	:Having reviewed the conversations to which Nathan linked, I must say that I am quite disappointed in Nathan's behavior, and I find neither personal attacks nor uncivil behavior from Kelly Martin nor Cyde Weys. Cyde's first comment to Nathan, as far as I can see, was "Please remove the images in your sig. One is already beyond the bounds of what is expected; three is entirely beyond the bounds of what is expected. See ]." Nathan responded quite emotionally, implying that even were it policy he would only remove the images is MediaWiki disabled them, and protested perceived blocks and orders. I see no evidence that Cyde or Kelly ever threatened a block, issued an order, or made any other statements besides requests. To me, Nathan's reaction seems quite over the top. If I have missed the incivility or personal attacks, I'd appreciate them being pointed out. — ] ] 03:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
			Can an admin take a look at ]? The most recent version of the file uploaded appears to be a ] request based on the last post added by the uploader to ]. -- ] (]) 04:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I don't know if I'm allowed to edit here, since I am not an admin, so if you need to, revert me. <br>Reply to Knowledge Seeker:<br>Cyde said, "Being wilfully impolite, as you are doing, reflects poorly on you as a Wikipedian and will tend to bias people against you.". That means that Cyde is calling Nathan "willingfully impolite" or "rude". And Cyde is saying he is not a good wikipedian. So, calling someone rude and a bad wikipedian can be considered a personal attack. Right?. Also, Cyde said, "I'd strongly suggest that you stop thinking about your "rights" and instead focus on how you can behave in a manner more conducive to maintaining a friendly, productive environment in which to write an encyclopedia.". That means that Nathan doesn't have rights, because cyde quoted them, which is implying that "rights" are a joke. Also, Cyde is saying that Nathan is not friendly or productive. Nathan is very friendy, because he has many friends. Nathan is very productive, because he has over 6100 edits.<br>Thanks, --<font size="1">]&nbsp;<sup>]&middot;]</sup></font> 03:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::George, you seem to be laboring under at least one misapprehension of the truth: the words you above attribute to Cyde were in fact said by me. I would advise that you retract your comments about Cyde's conduct, given that they are founded in falsehood. ] (]) 04:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
			== Topic ban appeal from ] ==
	==Nathanrdotcom blocked for persistently flaunting a stupidly large and garish signature==
			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:
	Enough is enough. I have blocked Nathanrdotcom for twelve hours for "Persistently flaunting a stupidly large signature with multiple image inclusions". --] 04:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
			# The bans are both over a year old.
			# I am simply not sufficiently interested in this field anymore to engage in the sort of impassioned hostility and unsolicited clerking that got me sanctioned in the first place.
			# The ambiguous nature of the scope of what XfD “boradly construe” has prevented me from doing useful work that no-one had objected to, including discussing redirects/categories and nominating unfree images for deletion.
			# I do not want the negative stigma of an editing restriction on me for something petty I no longer care about.
			For these reasons I believe it is acceptable that my two topic bans be lifted. ] (]) 08:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Note''' Links to discussions . ] 08:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Thank you ] (]) 08:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 12:56, 23 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

• 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	14	14
TfD	0	0	0	6	6
MfD	0	0	0	4	4
FfD	0	0	2	18	20
RfD	0	0	0	96	96
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 12 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 6 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 8 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 6 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 67 sockpuppet investigations
• 12 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 2 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 1 requests for RD1 redaction
• 104 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 22 requested closures
• 30 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 21 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.

Tulsi (unblock request)

User unblocked. arcticocean ■ 12:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

• Tulsi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Blocked (indef) on 3 April 2024 (9 months ago) by Rosguill during an AN thread (archived thread) for undisclosed paid editing
• Subsequent unblock request was also considered at AN before being declined (archived thread)

Tulsi has now submitted an unblock request which I am copying:

Dear Sysops,

I sincerely apologize for my past actions, which were problematic and deceptive. I fully understand the concerns raised, and I deeply regret my involvement. On April 3, 2024, my account was blocked by Rosguill in relation to undisclosed paid editing associated with the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive361 § DIVINE and Tulsi: COI/UPE/quid-pro-quo editing, association with threats and harassment. However, I want to clarify that my involvement in these matters was minimal, with only minor interactions in the past. I have never written articles for payment, and I do not support paid editing.

The issues in question occurred in 2020 or 2021, prior to the block. At that time, I admitted my conflict of interest (COI) and disclosed it on the relevant article talk pages. Following discussions, my global and local rights were removed, but the block was not enforced until two years later. Many of the articles in question were deleted, so I did not find it necessary to disclose anything further. Moving forward, I have no intention of creating or editing COI-related articles. However, if I am ever in a situation where I am required to contribute to such an article, I will ensure full disclosure on the article talk page and submit it for review, as I did with the article Talk:Ghero.

While I respect Rosguill’s decision to impose a block after the two-year gap, I understand that a block serves to prevent disruption rather than punish. I have learned valuable lessons from this experience, and my contributions over the past two years reflect this growth. In this time, I have created over 80 articles, all without any undisclosed paid editing or COI involvement. Additionally, I have contributed to patrolling, as seen in the Twinkle and Draftify logs, and I have reported several violations on WP:UAA.

I acknowledge that I was not fully familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies in the past, but I have since taken the time to understand them better. I have been an active and committed user since October 2014, with significant contributions across various Wikimedia projects. I have also served as a sysop on Wikimedia Commons, Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki, and the Maithili and Nepali Wikipedias.

I am requesting an unblock because I am fully committed to abiding by all the established policies moving forward, and I am eager to contribute here in a constructive manner. Please kindly allow me a second chance.

Thank you for your consideration. I humbly request your reconsideration and the restoration of the editing privileges on my account on English Misplaced Pages.

Sincerely,

Tulsi 24x7 14:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Having had discussions with the blocking admin, we would like to seek community comments on the unblock request.

Tulsi was blocked after UPE allegations that had been outstanding for around 2 years essentially caught up with them. They have now attested to having never edited for pay, which was the question they originally failed to answer twice (first thread, second thread), leading to the block. In the unblock request, they give a sincere undertaking not to engage in any more UPE.

They have created several dozen articles about Nepalese politicians but these seem to be innocuous. I have identified only a handful of articles where Tulsi could have edited for pay. Given the amount of other contributions Tulsi has made, it would be appropriate to give the benefit of the doubt. arcticocean ■ 15:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• I cannot find the link for "A related meta-wiki discussion". killer bee  15:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I've deleted those words. I had decided not to include them in my post, but accidentally left them in. For interest, the discussion was this one: m:Requests for comment/Tulsi advanced permissions and UPE. arcticocean ■ 15:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per WP:SO. I will AGF that Tulsi will keep his promise not to engage in any COI editing going forward. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
• Question: We are all volunteers here, so the applicant's comment if I am ever in a situation where I am required to contribute to such an article (emphasis mine) is worrisome within the context of UPE/COI. Could they, or someone else for that matter, provide some clarification? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  I assume "required" is just poor phrasing and refers to circumstances similar to the example provided in the same sentence you quote. In any event, the second part of the sentence states I will ensure full disclosure on the article talk page and submit it for review (emphasis added). That promise is enough for me. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support, we should generally give a second chance to users who have greatly and fundamentally changed in several months. Given that the user acknowledged the block and promised not to engage in undisclosed paid editing, not to mention that the user is trusted elsewhere, I see no reason to oppose. ToadetteEdit (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support I believe in their ability to address any concern in the future, given that they served as a sysop on Wikimedia Commons, Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki, and the Maithili and Nepali Wikipedias. Kenneth Kho (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Support A second chance promises that Tulsi will not do highly undisclosed paid editing. I may partially support a topic ban on Nepalese politics against Tulsi. Ahri Boy (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support Make the most of the second chance Buffs (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support I had already been kind of watcxhing the discussion on their talk page over the last few days, and agree with an SO unblock. Beeblebrox 23:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist Edit Restriction Appeal

Unanimous consent after 36 hours to lift the restriction. Primefac (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

A bit over a year ago, with near unanimous support, I appealed a TBAN from GENSEX - receiving in its place the following sanctions 1RR restriction in both the GENSEX and AMPOL topics; is limited to 0RR on articles for organizations/activists who are affiliated with anti-transgender activism or gender-critical feminism, broadly construed; and has a PBAN from Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull. Previous discussions are linked there. I am now requesting that my restrictions be dropped entirely because I have grown considerably as an editor, both since my initial TBAN when I'd just turned 19 and since the appeal.

I translated Transgender history in Brazil (having originally wrote it on eswiki during my TBAN) and made it my first GA. I uploaded multiple colorized photographs of transgender historical figures to commons I improved LGBTQ rights in New York and wrote articles for famous trans activists Cecilia Gentili and Carol Riddell. I also cleared up serious BLP violations at Aimee Knight and rewrote the article. I also helped expand Trans Kids Deserve Better and wrote Bayswater Support Group. I improved Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy and conversion therapy. I improved gender dysphoria in children. I rewrote and considerably expanded WPATH as well as Gender Identity Development Service. I expanded the article on the Cass Review. I wrote the article on the 1970 semi-governmental report Evaluation of Transsexual Surgery. I expanded the articles on Stephen B. Levine and Kenneth Zucker. I rewrote Detransition to follow WP:MEDRS and use systematic reviews instead of primary studies. Most proudly, I wrote Transgender health care misinformation and took it to GA - this is particularly relevant as a key part of the original TBAN discussion was whether my commitment to removing misinformation from Misplaced Pages was a case of either WP:RGW or following WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE.

I believe the restrictions impair my ability to edit productively. I generally edit with 1RR regardless of sanctions. With 0RR, as Red-tailed hawk noted at my previous appeal "they can wind up restricting the sorts of partial reverts that are often a healthy part of the ordinary editing process." With 0RR, I am unable to engage in the BRD cycle properly and always second-guessing whether a partial edit to a recent edit counts as a revert or not. It also prevents me reverting drive-by SPA/IP povpushing. I don't plan to ever edit KJK's article again, but I believe that my record of neutral constructive editing shows the PBAN is no longer preventative or necessary. In the highly unlikely event I ever see a reason to edit it in future, I know my edits would be subject to heightened scrutiny which I'd welcome.

I appreciate your consideration. My best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Based on YFNS's activity since the original tban, I don't see any reason to believe that restrictions are necessary going forward. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Welcome back comrade. Ahri Boy (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Support based on their editing activity between TBAN and last year, as well as between the sanctions and now. Good work, and a great example of how this restorative process is supposed to work. May you inspire other misguided people to a path of restoration. TiggerJay (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Snow Support Kenneth Kho (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Strong support. To me YNFS comes across as a very responsible editor and I believe these restrictions are no longer warranted. HenrikHolen (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Support I remember the original ban happening due in large part to canvassing on twitter, the fact that any restrictions remained in place thereafter strikes me as a deep miscarriage of justice. Snokalok (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Query Does your reference to BRD mean that you undertake to follow it in the future? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Enthusiastic support YFNS is a perfect model of an editor who is an asset to Misplaced Pages. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Support A well worded appeal, worth giving another chance. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support This is a convincing and sincere appeal. Cullen328 (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support, Welcome. ~🌀 Ampil 02:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support as they have convincingly demonstrated change. TarnishedPath 02:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support I supported and still support the original restrictions, and the later now appealed restrictions. I think YFNS's case has shown that an editor can come back from the brink successfully and am happy that happened. Nil Einne (talk) 04:00, 16 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.

Usage of 'Notable people' vis-a-vis 'Notable person' in section headers

This is not an administrative issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

In the course of editing numerous articles, I have come across the header featuring 'notable people' when there is only one person and have therefore modified the grammar.

I recently had another editor come behind me and revert one such edit on the grounds that things have always been done this way, regardless of the number of notables for a given locale, which makes little sense to me. Is this really policy? Hushpuckena (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

This seems like a question for WP:MOS, not WP:AN as it doesn't involve administrator actions. AN isn't a general Help forum for questions about editing. You could even try asking at the Teahouse or the Help Desk. Liz 19:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Reporting Administrator Abuse

I'm going to do the OP a favor and close this with no action against them. Essentially, the OP's misbehavior was pointed out by Acalamari and the OP is trying to present it as Acalamri's misbehavior. If another administrator thinks sanctions against the OP are warranted, that's up to them.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

User:Acalamari is abusing his moderator powers in order to post unconstructive comments on talk pages, specifically when we were talking about if we should delete the US 2028 election or not, he said "that Drumpf supporters want there to be no more elections so they can remain in power forever doesn't mean we adhere to their delusions by deleting articles here". This is clearly unconstructive, and treating the talk page as a forum. I didn't know he was a moderator when I was removing his comment, and now he left all of these messages on my page and is saying I'm the real vandal here. TopVat19sEver (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

So there's two things here.

• First, TopVat19sEver, you removed other users comments from a talk page (not allowed). A user voicing their opinion is not vandalism, not in the slightest. If you have a problem with what another user has said on the talkpage, rather than removing their comment (which is only allowed in very specific situations), you should bring it for discussion at an appropriate noticeboard, or preferably ask them to change their own comment.
• Second, Acalamari, could you please refrain from calling people "Drumpf supporters" and casting aspersions on the reasons for nominating an article for deletion? While you're entitled to your opinions, that's borderline (at best) incivility, especially when you call them "delusional".

If both users agree to accept what they did wrong here and move forward, I don't think any further action is necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I'm newer to Misplaced Pages, I understand what you are saying, my train of thought was, "this comment looks like vandalism, vandalism on Misplaced Pages is removed, therefore remove". I didn't know that they don't do that for talk pages. Thank you my friend. TopVat19sEver (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism has a very specific definition on Misplaced Pages - see this page for more information on what is not vandalism. Merely calling people names and/or being uncivil, while against the rules, is not vandalism. There are proper processes for handling other rule violations (such as asking someone to edit their own comments, or asking a noticeboard for help) such as those, but they are decidedly not vandalism. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok thank you for telling me TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Where are the diffs? M.Bitton (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• This is a baseless complaint. Ater not editing for months, the OP refactored an AfD that was closed last November. Acalamari rightly warned them for doing that.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  I agree, but at the same time, I think TV19E has a right to be unhappy that Acalamari, an administrator and bureaucrat, was able to cast aspersions and call people names without it being called out at the time as far as I can see. They went about it the wrong way (removing the comment), but that doesn't mean there isn't room for discussion of that comment. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Nope. First, it doesn't rise to the level required of this noticeboard, and, second, it's not at all timely.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  To be blunt, Acalamari didn't even tell the editor when they initially reverted back in November (while the discussion was open) where they could discuss further/report if they felt the comment was not appropriate. I'm not suggesting sanctions against Acalamari at all. But to tell a new editor "someone broke the rules and since you didn't report it in the proper way at the time because nobody told you how, they're allowed to break the rules" is clear biting the newbies. I think all that's necessary is an apology from Acalamari - TV19E has already explained that they were mistaken as to it being vanadalism. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't edit for a few months because I have to do other things. I was just scrolling around I don't even remember what I was doing and I saw he put it back, I didn't know he was a mod, and it also said you can't edit archived talk pages, which he did, so I reverted his edit. TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's not true. You modified a closed AfD. Acalamari rightly reverted your edit of an archived discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  I just said, he is the one who modified a closed AfD, which is not allowed, then I reverted it not knowing he is a moderator TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  He didn't modify a closed AfD. His comment was readded while the discussion was still open, because you removed it in violation of the very few circumstances where you are allowed to remove another editor's comment. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Oh okay this is my mistake then I thought it was after the AfD was closed my bad TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Wait hold on, I just looked at it again. He added back his comment after the result was SNOW. On the page when he re added it, it said do not edit the page. TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  You removed Acalamari's comment as vandalism with the edit summary "subhanAllah". You had no right to do that. Acalamari restored it, which even though the AfD was closed, they had the right to do in the circumstances.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/2028_United_States_presidential_election_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1257014612 Take a look, this is his edit. When he re added his comment, on the page in red it said Do not edit the page TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  The comment never should've been removed in the first place. It's within the spirit of the rules to readd a comment that you improperly removed, even if the discussion had been closed in the meantime. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) There's no admin abuse here as no admin tools have been used. In case you missed "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below" with the bright red "Please do not modify it" at that AfD, I'll repeat the instructions here - don't modify archived discussions.-- Ponyo 22:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  I was saying Admin abuse because of the fact that he is able to keep his comment on the page when even if he is violating the rules. I'm not a moderator so I can't do anything about. Now I just learned from that guy that they don't remove comments even if its vandalism, now I know. But thats why I reported it here you know. TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  He is the one who edited the closed AfD. This was one of the reason why I reverted his edit. TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• It's very hard to work out what's happening without the presence of diffs. M.Bitton (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• without the presence of diffs. But Ponyo and I have contributed, so you're in the presence of greatness; isn't that better than diffs? :p --Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Tiggerjay is bowing down in great humility before such greatness never before seen in this universe. Now.... where is the trout? TiggerJay (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Who am I to disagree with the Jedi? M.Bitton (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Okay, I've looked into this. And...surprise surprise, TopVat19sEver was the one who origially removed Aclamari's !vote while the AfD was still open . Yes, about a day after the AfD was closed, Aclamari reverted this removal , which is technically "editing a closed AfD" but I would say they were entirely within their rights to revert a bad removal. And now, suddenly, today, two months later, as their first edit after having done that improper removal, TopVat19sEver goes back to the AfD and removes Aclamari's !vote again , which Aclamari - entirely rightfully - reverted , and then TopVat19sEver comes here to cry "admin abuse", when no administrative abilities were used at all in this whole mess. Could Aclamari have used more moderate language in their initial !vote? Yeah maybe, but it was no violation at all, and the only thing needed here is a WP:BOOMERANG or at least a {{trout}} for TopVat19sEver. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:27, 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

Category:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards