Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:35, 9 July 2006 editIrpen (talk | contribs)32,604 edits →Quick jumping to blocks← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:06, 23 January 2025 edit undoSimonm223 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,209 edits →Community assuming the block on Crouch, Swale 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
<references/>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}
|algo = old(7d)
<div style="float:right;">Visual archive cue: ]</div>
|counter = 368
<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-4 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive49--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
|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
}}
--><!--


----------------------------------------------------------
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
__TOC__
----------------------------------------------------------


--><noinclude>
== Tasks ==
<!-- Please add new sections to the bottom, not here. -->
<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;">
The following ''']''' require the attention of one or more editors.
<br>
''], ] and ]''
</div>


==Open tasks==
= General =
<noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}}
<!-- Please add new sections to the bottom, not here. -->
{{Administrators' noticeboard archives}}

{{Clear}}
==Felicity4711 and smartquotes==
{{Admin tasks}}
] has been or directed quotes, but, as far as I can see, is unilaterally imposing them, as in and . I don't know enough about the technicalities, but I think someone who does ought to check this out. ] 23:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
__TOC__

</noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove-->
:Ugh, to me this is borderline vandalism, unilaterally imposing a style that is widely disagreed with on dozens of articles without discussion. It makes the source impossible to read. - ] 23:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

::I’m unsure whether it is my place to post my opinion here (as I am not an administrator); however, apart from the html v. unicode argument, what objection could anyone have to the use of ‘smart quotes’ over the use of " & '? It seems to me an entirely irrelevant issue (as long as the unicode, rather than the html versions are used). Personally, I am lukewarmly in favour of the use of ‘smart quotes’ - they are typographically correct, and somewhat more æsthetically pleasing - though I am not as zealously committed to the cause as ] is. If she wants to go around, doing the mammoth menial task of swapping " for “ & ” and ' for ‘ & ’ in the many myriad articles of Misplaced Pages, then good luck to her - it’s not a negative thing to do (although, I '''could''' think of better things to do with my time). It would be inappropriately authoritarian for Misplaced Pages to impose the exclusive use of one form over the other (particularly the less correct " & ' over ‘, “, ’ & ”); slight differences of style are to be expected in an encyclopedia with so many editors. Please, tolerate some inconsequential diversity of style, and allow ] her harmless pedantry. ] 03:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Thank you, Doremítzwr. I’ll be careful to use Unicode directed quotes from now on. ] 14:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:::I agree with Doremítzwr, especially this part: '''as long as the unicode, rather than the html versions are used'''. The &amp;ldquo; and &amp;#8221; nonsense has got to stop, but other than that I see no problem. —] 03:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Unicode it is, then, from now on. ] 14:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Yes, the unicode is fine, but the HTML stuff is rubbish. If she modifies any more articles in that way I'm going to exercise my right to harmless pedantry to make then readable again with the unicode. - ] 06:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::As long as the end result is still directed quotes, you will in fact have my gratitude for changing them to a more-agreed-upon standard while maintaining their directedness. In the meantime, I am also going back through all my contributions and changing the HTML directed quotes to Unicode directed quotes. ] 14:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::Changed to unicode smart quotes or keyboard apostrophes and primes (I presume that you mean the former; however your meaning is rather ambiguous)? If you do the latter, she’ll probably just go back and revert your changes; however, if you coöperate and change them to the former, it may encourage her to do so as well, and agree to only use unicode smart quotes in future. Shall I send her a message on behalf of you all, asking her to do so? ] 14:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

::::::Exactly, Doremítzwr. I am going back through all my contributions and changing the HTML directed quotes to Unicode directed quotes. ]

:::Doremítzwr is only partially correct: typographer's quotation marks are correct in a ''printed'' document. Misplaced Pages is not a printed document. Typographer's quotes have absolutely no place in the content of Misplaced Pages articles which are not themselves about typography, and Misplaced Pages policy should be revised to make this fact explicit. -- ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and should therefore strive for the same professionalism as a printed encyclopedia. If Misplaced Pages outlaws directed quotes completely, I might as well not even bother having an account. ] 14:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::That Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia is irrelevant. Typography is a matter of the '''medium''', not of the subject matter. Typographer's quotes are appropriate to '''printed matter''', regardless of the subject. They are ''inappropriate'' to HTML or XHTML documents delivered over the web, again regardless of the subject. (As with anything else, there are exceptions to both cases, but Misplaced Pages is not among them.) Every medium has its differences, and (as I would have hoped you would have learned by now) it is counterproductive to try and force the norms for one medium onto another. As for "not even bothering to have an account", that would be entirely your decision. I am the last person who would try to convince ''anyone'' to spend their time editing Misplaced Pages. -- ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Her work is going to be changed, as has already happened with . - ] 15:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

:I’ll take that as a yes. ] 18:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

For reference, I have posted showing how the quotes added by ] to the article ] appear on the latest version of Internet Explorer for the Macintosh when the user is logged in in Japanese. The quotes are double width because IE renders them in a two-byte Japanese font. I suspect that similar problems may occur in many Chinese, Korean, and other non-English computer systems. ] 22:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

:I don’t mind if my work is changed from HTML directed quotes to Unicode directed quotes. If the quotes are made undirected, I will change them back to directed, but this time in Unicode. ] 14:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:Does this happen with html smart quotes only or with unicode ones as well? Either way, it’s the final nail in the coffin for html ones. If this also happens with unicode smart quotes, then perhaps it is best that smart quotes in general are discouraged; I personally find an extra space where it shouldn’t be more obtrusive than primes used in place of quotation marks. However, if unicode smart quotes do '''not''' cause this phenomenon, then I reïterate that it should be a matter of personal choice. I don’t see the validity of Bblackmoor’s distinction betwixt a printed document and Misplaced Pages - both are read, and users (including me) often print articles. I think it best that Misplaced Pages does not legislate on this matter; it is not important enough, and to do so is simply creating another point of conflict. ] 20:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

::Well said. ] 14:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:::I don't see any reason why they wouldn't render identically: it's like "&amp;amp;" vs "&amp;". <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—] <sup>(])</sup> <small>] 07:30Z</small></i></span>

::"I don't see the validity of Bblackmoor's distinction betwixt a printed document and Misplaced Pages..." Search Google for the phrase, "the web is not a magazine". -- ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

:::I still don’t see your point. The only relevant stuff those twenty-eight websites mentioned were encoding problems, which we all agree are important. However, nothing I read convinced me that the web ought not to use directed quotation marks and apostrophes ''due to them being directed.'' Furthermore, the fact that twenty-eight websites all make the same point doesn’t sway me in the slightest; a thousand people all arguing the same bad point doesn’t make that point any more convincing than had it been advanced by but one person — that’s democracy, and I’m not a democrat. ] 11:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what this discussion has to do with administrators. The discussion should be at ], though please bear in mind it has been discussed many times before. (], ], ]). ]] 12:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

== Sockpuppet block of ] ==

I have indefintely blocked ] as a sockpuppet of blocked user ]. I have also extended ]'s block to 1 week for repeated 3RR and for using a sock. Rationale behind the sock:

# Usernames.
# Edit pattern. I blocked Giovanni @ 16:22, June 29, 2006 for violating 3rr . At 16:25 Professor comes in and to Giovanni's preferred version .
# They edit similar articles in similar ways. ] , ]

Professor has indicated that he is not a sock and that he intends to mail admins about the issue . I'm bringing it here for full disclosure and review.

]<sub>(])</sub> 17:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

:I've reviewed checkuser evidence in this matter and I do not believe that there is any sockpuppetry going on. The secondary evidence is also weak. I strongly urge an unblock and an apology. ] (]) 05:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::Kelly, there is extremely strong linguistic evidence, combined with the fact the we know that Giovanni has a record of using puppets, and there is a long history of new users turning up, supporting Giovanni, reverting to his version, following him from one page to another, and using the same linguistic idiosyncrasies. I will e-mail you the linguistic evidence. Obviously, I do not want to make it available in public, as that will alert him to what he should avoid with future puppets. The admin who blocked was not aware of the linguistic evidence, at the time of blocking, though I have since e-mailed some of it (not all, as I was changing from one computer to another). Deskana and some other admins are also aware of it. I will also post a fuller statement here when I get time. I would urge that nobody consider unblocking without reviewing the evidence, which I am willing to e-mail to any administrator on request. When he first arrived at Misplaced Pages, he did not know about userchecks. Now that he does know (having been caught out after putting on a pretence of not knowing BelindaGong, while she was following him around, reverting aggressively to his version, taking advantage of our reluctance to report new users), he is unlikely to make that particular mistake again. By the way, Giovanni is claiming on his user page that I'm not a linguist, and don't have any degrees in lingsuitics yet. I'm also willing to e-mail evidence of my bachelor's and master's degrees and several diplomas in language studies and linguistics. ] ] 08:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::AnnH is entirely correct that the linguistic evidence alone strongly indicates that these posts, as well as those of MikaM, Kecik, etc., propagate from one real-world user. Please do accept her offer of e-mailing the details. Combine this with the editing patterns, and the presumption of reasonable doubt is no longer tenable.] 08:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Giovanni also claims that he's never used sockpuppets before. To be frank I'm getting sick of cases like this. It's clear that at the very least Professor33 is a meatpuppet, due to certain things which I've observed which cannot be just random chance. I refer to the evidence that AnnH speaks of. --] <sup>]</sup> 08:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:::: I endorse this block as well. ←] <sup>]</sup> 09:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::::: I also endorse this block. I stumbled across this incident via IRC and upon looking at both accounts contributions, it seems evident to me that both accounts are being controlled by the same person per the extremely similar writing styles and tone ]] 10:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::::::While we're at it, can we also indef block puppets ] and ], to whom all these lines of evidence equally apply? I have no problem with this user editting Misplaced Pages, so long as he sticks to one username.] 10:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:I do ''not'' endorse this block. Kelly Martin has performed the checkuser and there is little solid evidence (read: something that you can prove) to that these two are related. Professor33 sent me a polite e-mail last night asking for help in this matter, and I agreed to look in to it. In addition to the checkuser showing negative results, the "linguistic evidence" that was used was sketchy at best. I am not convinced that these two are the same. I am going to look into this further, but I am heavily leaning towards unblocking this user. ] (]) 13:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::In the interest of full disclosure, here is the e-mail that I sent to Professor33 in response to the e-mail he sent me. I will not post the e-mail he sent me unless he gives me permission to do so. ] (]) 13:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


Hello, Eugene,<br>
First off, I would like to note that a "CheckUser" has been performed on both your account and
Giovanni33's account. The results were not similar at all, so there is very little "solid" evidence
that you and Giovanni are one in the same. If you wish to provide further evidence of who you are,
such as some type of identification, feel free to email me and I will forward it as necessary.<br>
Secondly, in the interest of full disclosure, I am a devout Christian. That, however, does not
affect how I edit articles. I intentionally avoid most Christianity-related articles, and therefore
I can not say anything one way or the other in regards to any Christian-focused cliques, extreme or
otherwise.<br>
Reviewing your edits, I must say that you could have made better usage of the talk pages. When I say
"better usage", I am refering to the multiple reverts that have taken place. It appears that you
have been involved in a few edit wars which could be viewed as disruptive. Although you are probably
not connected to Giovanni, edit wars are bad. Try to seek a clear consensus before doing something
that a number of people disagree with. If this fails, I suggest that you seek mediation. Also, don't
be afraid to walk away from an article for a while. If you let things cool down a bit, you'll find
that people are easier to deal with.<br>
At this point, I will suggest that you are unblocked pending any concrete evidence of sockpuppetry.
My suggestion is to tread lightly when you are unblocked, and do not be afraid to ask for advice
and/or help if and when you find yourself in a dispute.<br>
If you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to e-mail me.<br>
Regards,
Alex Schenck
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Linuxbeak</code>

Hello, Linuxbeak. First of all, I wonder what you mean by saying that "the results were not similar at all". Have you ''seen'' the checkuser results? I thought only people with usercheck privileges saw checkuser results, and Kelly didn't say that they "weren't similar at all". She said she did "not believe that there is any sockpuppetry going on". She didn't say that they were in completely different areas. I never expected Giovanni to be caught a second time with a checkuser &mdash; he ''knows'' about it now. He didn't know at the time when he either registered a second account as BelindaGong or got his wife to join in order to get an extra three or more (often more, as we didn't want to report newcomers) reverts per day, and to follow him around, support him on talk pages, and vote on issues he was voting on. Do the checkuser results show that it's so far away that it couldn't be his work address, or another place that he drives to in the morning? The receent pattern has been that the last edit as Giovanni33 each morning is around the time that he would be leaving the house for work (according to his time zone), and then Professor33 logs on about an hour or two later, logs off around the time that he'd be finishing work, if he's in Giovanni's time zone, and doesn't edit at weekends. Giovanni then logs on as Giovanni33 around the time that he'd be getting home from work, and then edits in the evening and the night. Also, if his story that Freethinker99 is a separate person is true, we know that he's capable of getting a friend to join in order to revert to his version (which is still a violation of ]. When he accidentally signed while logged on as Freethinker, he claimed that he was over at his place, and was showing him how to use Misplaced Pages (i.e. showing Freethinker how to revert to Giovanni's version while Giovanni was blocked).

Secondly, what do you mean when you say, "The linguistic evidence that was used was sketchy at best"? The linguistic evidence has not been made public, and can't be, as it would alert Giovanni to idiosyncrasies that he should avoid in future, so how can you know that it's sketchy? I will e-mail you the evidence if you send me an e-mail requesting it &mdash; on condition, of course, that it is not made available to anyone other than an administrator. Please note that Giovanni has a history of puppetry, gross violations of 3RR (I mean REALLY gross violations, continuing defiantly after warnings &mdash; on one occasion making 11 reverts within 19 hours, despite warnings &mdash; not the kind of accidental fourth reverts that could happen to anyone), and gaming the system, taking advantage of our reluctance to report a newcomer; and that several new users have started reverting to his version and supporting him on talk pages straight after registering.

Please note, as well, that Giovanni publicly acknowledges his IP, and on any occasion when one of the suspected puppets made a not-logged-on edit and acknowledged it, it was '''''always''''' geographically close. Please see also ] and ]. Also, when he was blocked after the BelindaGong puppetry was revealed (they had put up an active pretence of not knowing each other while she was reverting to his version and following him to different pages, voting for what he wanted), {{User|Freethinker99}} arrived at the Christianity, talk page, said he was new but had read the talk page and agreed with Giovanni (first edit) and then reverted back to Giovanni's version (second edit). He was asked to review ], and said, "I have. Thanks." Giovanni was asked on his talk page (the only page he could edit) to state frankly whether or not he had any connection with any of the new users who were reverting to his version, and he denied it &mdash; but forgot that he was logged on as Freethinker99! He then changed the signature but we had already seen it.
Various explanations were given &mdash; he was married to Belinda, and had not wanted to make that public. He was a friend of Freethinker, and was at his house, showing him how to use Misplaced Pages. When he denied having any connection to any of the editors about whom he had been asked, he had not seen Freethinker's name, which had been added to the original question later, but had been on his talk page for fifty minutes when he answered, and was '''''DIRECTLY''''' above the first words of his denial while he was typing.

It is extremely disturbing that Kecik has 40 reverts to Giovanni33 out of a total of 45 article edits, that his seventh edit was a vote for something Giovanni wanted at a page he'd be unlikely, as a new user, to find by chance (and he didn't have "e-mail this user" enable), and that he was here for nearly four months before he made his first edit to an article that Giovanni was not looking for support at (and then only after I had commented so many times on the pattern of his contributions) &mdash; and that nothing has been done about this. MikaM's contributions are similar &mdash; vote is his/her ''sixth'' edit, and as with Kecik, e-mail was not enabled, and it's unlikely that a brand new user, who was supporting Giovanni at ], would find that page just by chance.

And yes, I stand by the linguistic evidence linking Giovanni33 not just to Professor33 but also to eight other users. I strongly urge admins to e-mail me for the evidence before they consider unblocking. ] ] 14:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

* I brought the block here so that it could be reviewed. Personally, I believe he's a sock, and don't have access to checkuser. Kelly and Linux are respected admins, and if someone decides to reverse the block I'm not going to be upset. However, even if ] is unblocked, I do think that ]'s block should stay, and have said so to him in reply to him via email. This was his 5th unique 3RR block by 5 different admins. and perhaps a week will be a wakeup call. I considered a ], but the notices at the top gave me the indication that I should not do that given the evidence I had. If people are interested in the emails I have sent to both the Professor and Giovanni, I will happily post them, but they don't say anything I haven't said in public. ]<sub>(])</sub> 14:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, '''I''' have seen the checkuser evidence, and it's certainly not inconsistent with the idea that they are sockpuppets. Moreover, I've seen the other evidence as well, and some of it is quite compelling. Please remember that checkuser is not a magic crystal ball; it can certainly be helpful in proving or disproving sockpuppetry, but ultimately decisions about sockpuppeting are made the old-fashioned way. As has been the case in the past with Giovanni33, there's either standard sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry going on here, and the evidence indicates to me that it's far more likely that it's plain old sockpuppetry. In my view the block is justified. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 14:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comparing the edits, it's clear to me that Professor33 is Giovanni33. The writing style, word choices, and habitual errors are all consistent. His timely arrival to support Giovanni just when he 'runs out' of reverts is icing on the cake. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:I'm certainly totally satisfied that they are sockpuppets, or perhaps meatpuppets. You can't really accuse me of sharing a Christian POV either. Although I attend a Catholic college and was born and raised a Catholic, I am most certainly an atheist. The linguistic evidence is far too compelling for it to '''not''' be a sockpuppetry case. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::I've seen the linguistic similiarities, which can't be made public, and it seems clear that the Giovanni and Professor accounts are connected. IP evidence is only ever a part of the total evidence, because people can use different IP addresses for different accounts, but the linguistic evidence would be hard to explain away. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 05:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur that ] is a sockpuppet account of ]. This should be no surprise looking at the edits and the fact that Giovanni33 has used sockpuppet accounts in the past as in the case of ], ], ], ] and ]. Those most familiar with editing patterns of articles are certainly able to be the best judge of similarity of edits in terms of word choices, POV and sudden appearances in the "nick of time" to avoid a three revert rule violation. Is there an Rfc on this matter yet? And if not, why not?--] 17:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
:I endorse the block. It seems highly likely that ] is a sockpuppet account, or at the very least a meatpuppet, of ]. I see no need for an Rfc if the block is upheld. If not, then an Rfc would be strongly indicated. Checkuser does not help with all socks - consider HollowW aka Eternal Equinox, who edits from a variety of IPs. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that Giovanni33 has evaded his block. He acknowledges in of his talk page that his IP is {{User|64.121.40.153}}. That's a static IP. He acknowledged a recent post from that IP by logging on and replacing the signature as recently as 1 July. On 3 July, while blocked for 3RR and sockpuppetry, he logged off as Giovanni33 (presumably the autoblock was cancelled at that stage), and made post in defence of Alienus. In case anyone doubts that it's Giovanni, compare it with , , and , where he comes to the defence of Alienus.

He was asked in ] if he had evaded his block. (Note that he had evaded it by using an IP on a project page.) He replied,

:Since im blocked and I'm not supposed to edit '''''any articles''''', I have not. Not even a single '''''article''''' even when I've run into several mistakes on a few of them. I've also not editing '''''under any other usernames''''', have not edited '''''any talk pages''''' except my own, despite what you think. It that clear enough?

It's not the first time that Giovanni has evaded a 3RR/Sockpuppetry block. See the contributions of {{User|Freethinker99}}, especially

As I'm involved in a content dispute with Giovanni33, I'll leave if for other admins to decide how this should be dealt with. ] ] 03:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

:Since {{User|64.121.40.153}} is Gio's account, and since he used that IP to evade his block by making this edit , I have reset Giovanni33's 7-day block from that date, four days from today. -] 09:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:And I have blocked ] for the same period. -] 10:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

::Giovanni33 has agreed to stay away from chritianity articles for the time being. As long as he does that I see no reason for further debate.] 14:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

==Hello I am experiancing Personal Attacks; I have asked th users to stop but there is persisistnace==

I am sorry. I do not want to look like I am spamming. I contacted an admin directly a while ago, but I guess he is not there and I contacted one today, but I also think he is not there. I just want this behaviour to stop.

They are making unfounded attaacks and accusations against me. As show here for example.]. The user who made this also did not sign which put together with an anoymous comment is not a good sign. I would like to know on what grounds ] and ] are making these claims. I have never made any negative comments on contributions. They continue to make these claims without any proof. ]

Here is more examples; Once, again can he please provide proof for these claims, especially the anti-Azari statments he keeps claiming I made???

The ] iscontinuing to make unfounded accusations and attacks against me. As shown here. I left him a polite warning, but noticed that this has been a discourse of behaviour and that he has been warned for uncivil behaviour in the past. I told him once on his talk page to '''be polite and keep all comments directed towards edits and that he has no right to make such accusations and additionally no grounds; I said I will let it pass as a warning and act in good faith and consider it an honest mistake on his part.''' But after looking at his talk page and contributions I have noticed he is making accusations to other editors about me and is still continuing to do so as you can see above. Any comment I make on a talk page is labelled POV and attacked right away? It is automatically lablled anti-Azari! I have no idea how saying every human being is equal and that we are all brothers and sisters is bad or anti-Azari? These comments are groundless, uncivil and simple attacks.

Can you please talk to him as an administrator. I do not appreciate this harassment. Like I have said, I am not here to fight, I am here to edit and to enjoy editing. User:Grandmaster continues to accused me of being anti-Azari when I myself am a Azari!? I do not know what makes him an authority to make such attacks or conclusions? He is basing some of his rationale on articles I have edited and continuing to claim I am another user, which is okay as long as it is civil, '''but it is not civil these wrong assertions are expressed through actually uncivil attacks.''' I would like him to stop making uncivil comments about me to other users and on article talk pages. Can you please get him to provide proof about the anti-Azari statments I have made! I am pretty sure I would be blocked if I made any anti-anything statments! It is easy to make such assertions, but can he provide proof before attacking my name on talk pages?

His claims does not make personal attacks legitmate or okay nor do they allow uncivil behaviour. He continues to make them and say I am anti-Azari! I do not appreciate this type of trolling and personal attacks. Regards ]

:Have you posted anything to the ] yet? ] 20:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

==Satchel Cohen hoaxer==
It looks like a ring of sockpuppets and hoax articles. List is being compiled on ]. It has been listed on ]. ] 09:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
:Does anyone have a problem with a slightly creative application of G3 (pure vandalism) here? ] 15:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
::Not I, especially since on AfD an avalanche of pure white snow is building against retention! - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 15:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
They're all starting to come up now on AfD with unanimous "delete", and, bearing in mind the background research into them, I don't think anyone is going to object. ] 16:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
:It is done. A Wikiquote admin will need to do the needful as well. ] 17:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Nice work. Thanks. Saves wasting any more time. I've left a message on Wikiquote. Will the sockpuppet aspect be dealt with via ]? ] 17:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
:You want them blocked? I don't mind doing that. ] 09:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for swift and effective action. ] 03:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

== I'm really getting fed up of death threats now... ==

While the person in question is probably just trolling for a reaction, I have a right to be f**king pissed off with the sheer amount of death threats I've been receiving lately for being an admin on this site. is the most recent of a line of threats I have received. I would like to make an official report of it because I don't believe that kind of thing should be allowed. However aside from going the police who probably won't do anything anyway what can I do to follow this through and report this troll for threatening me? -- ]<font color="green">]</font>] ] 22:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
:Yep, it's bullshit. The IP tracks to Chicago, Illinois. Here's the IP provider:--] 22:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
:: This seem to be happening more and more is it not? From the 8 months or so I have been on[REDACTED] this kind of stuff seems to become more common. (including the "outing" business recently). Which really is too bad. But besides reporting it to the ISP and perhaps the police, I don't see any other way. ] ] 22:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
::: Here's . -] (<small>] ]</small>) 22:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

::: I've removed the threat from Francs2000's talk page. Now can a developer deletethe offensive revisions from the text?? --<tt>''']]''' </tt> 22:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

::::Actually, a developer isn't required for that anymore. There are 17 users with the ability to hide revisions like this and they are listed ]. --]<sup>]</sup> 22:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Can you not do that for the moment please? I have emailed my friendly local copper with an enquiry as to what they can do about it, and so the entyr would need to remain for the time being so that they can see it. Many thanks for your message though. -- ]<font color="green">]</font>] ] 23:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
::: Why would you "destroy the evidence"? ]]<sup>(])</sup> 22:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
::::People don't like stuff like that hiding in their talk page history. I say oversight it... but I guess what I think doesn't really matter. --] (]) 23:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::I don't mind it lurking there, and if I really had an objection to it as an admin I can get rid of it easily enough without poking oversight people with a stick. -- ]<font color="green">]</font>] ] 23:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Apologies for deleting it, I thought I was doing right. Sorry. Well, Libellous revisions were removed from GWB by developers. --<tt>''']]''' </tt> 23:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::It's still there in the page history. -] (<small>] ]</small>) 23:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::Sorry Francs2000, I thought you were requesting it to be oversighted. Sorry, I misread it. Don't apologise Sunholm, you've got nothing to apologise for. Reverting it was the right thing to do. --] (]) 23:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::I am trying to help where I can. --<tt>''']]''' </tt> 23:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::My enquiry was ways that it could be reported, not "can someone please remove it"? It's an easy misunderstanding to make. -- ]<font color="green">]</font>] ] 23:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to take up dedicated responsibilities of contacting the ISPs of people who threaten physical harm to an admin. How this would work I'm not sure, but a go-to place for admins who feel threatened is needed. --]] 01:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

:Threatening death or rape is a felony in virtually all U.S. jurisdictions (and probably most other countries). This psychopath is hopefully only a slight physical threat to any Wikipedians but he is likely a dangerous presence in his local community. I doubt his antisocial behavior is or will always be confined to Misplaced Pages. Even if he never acts on threats, this behavior is chilling to people when made by someone locally -- that's why the law treats even threats of this sort as serious crimes. He should be reported and I'd be happy to do so. Does ] still apply in this sort of case? I hope not. --] 01:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

::I don't think anyone's going to block you under ] for reporting a death threat to the police. In fact it could be a crime to do so as it would be obstructing justice. However, it may be time for wiki to set up a dedicated service for automatic reporting of such things. There's no reason why they should be tolerated. ] 01:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

:There is already ISP reporting via ], no reason this couldn't be done there as well. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 07:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If the police acted in the episode that troubled Phil Sandifer I would think they would respond when direct threats as these are made. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—] <sup>(])</sup> <small>] 08:29Z</small></i></span>

:Yeah, hand the offending revisions, the IP adress and a Whois trace of the IP and the timestamp of the edits to the apropriate law enforcement agency and charge him with death treats. That should be enough for the police to get a warrant to get his identity from his ISP. No reason to write it off as trolling, even if it is just hot air (wich is likely) it's not something that should be tolerated, and a visit from the cops should make him think twise about doing it again at the very least. --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 12:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Just so that you all know, I reported this incident to the police in the UK yesterday. It will now be investigated under the crime of threatening with the intention of creating fear (or something like that). -- ]<font color="green">]</font>] ] 08:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:I hope the threats against you stop. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—] <sup>(])</sup> <small>] 08:29Z</small></i></span>

Another today against ], this time by ]; that IP address is registered to a US radio station. (I suspect it may be another zombie PC being used by the same guy that threatened RHaworth and ] a few days ago.--] 19:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

<br>
(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct-
-- (a) which amounts to harassment of another, and
-- (b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.<br>
''and a more serious crime:''<br>
4. - (1) A person whose course of conduct causes another to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against him is guilty of an offence if he knows or ought to know that his course of conduct will cause the other so to fear on each of those occasions.
--- (2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it will cause another to fear that violence will be used against him on any occasion if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct would cause the other so to fear on that occasion.

] 03:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

==]==

:''Please note that part of this is what I put this on on ]'s userpage, I'm copying it to here as I want some opinions. If that's alright with you all, that is.

So here's the story. This guy likes to remove everything from his userpage, and that includes warnings. I stumbled into it from RC, I think, and put the warnings back. We got into an edit war, as he didn't want them there. I tried to tell he they have to stay, but he didn't listen. After going back and forth, he told me that reverting the removal of warnings from his userpage put me in violation of the 3RR rule, and then said editing without a username . Ha. Anyway, ] somehow got involved and blocked him for 24 hours. After those 24 hours passed, he removed the warnings yet again, for around the seventh time. I had obviously removed his 'warnings' from my page, and he said that that meant he could remove others from his page. Confused? It gets worse. Going back through his talk page history, I found he's been warned for vandalising, personal attacks, and blanking sections of pages. I told him that, and he responded by saying that the only person who warned him . He was, for a while. But he's not now.

But wait! The plot thickens. This is what I said to Titoxd last night. It is addressed to him and explains my confusion.

After he was given all those warnings and blocked he I said he should . So Irishguy . ER then responded to me by saying everything on his page . I told him . He claimed that and that his block was for deleting things in unimportanat articles. He proceeded to before again. So he . I once more that he shouldn't remove warnings. So he about how he can delete whatever he wants, then . So what did he do? . He went on to . Irishguy , and ER promptly . Kungfuadam, aparently in RC, . ER wrote himself a . I was upset he would consider my a vandal and thought because I removed his warnings he could remove all the others. So I and have not yet recieved a response. I'm at a loss here. Since you were involved (and just so happen to be an admin) could you please help out? Thank you. <b>] <small><sup> ]</sup></small></b> <font color="blue"> Monday, July 3, 2006, 22:38 (]) </font>

That was yesterday. Today, I , and told him that if he didn't stop, I'd come here. Not surprisingly, he and proceeded to say he's going to change his IP and start a new account. So far as I know resetting your router won't change your IP... Anyway, what do you all think? This is a basic summary of what happened; I'd flip through his contributions and talk page history to see all the warnings he removed and people he yelled at.

Man that took a long time to type.

<b>] <small><sup> ]</sup></small></b> <font color="blue"> Tuesday, July 4, 2006, 07:04 (]) </font>

:I agree the warnings should not be removed (they could be archived after a while). Resetting the router ''would'' get a new IP if the ISP uses dynamic IP, which, for example, most DSL and dial-up providers in the US do. If he is on good behavior in his new account and stops using the old one (and thus avoids sock puppetry) then it would be okay for him to "start over" without the bad history. Hey, you stand for rights for anons, he could stand for "right to start a new account". :) <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—] <sup>(])</sup> <small>] 08:21Z</small></i></span>

::Can do. <b>] <small><sup> ]</sup></small></b> <font color="blue"> Tuesday, July 4, 2006, 17:54 (]) </font>

:::Well, except for this, which he added to his talk page a while ago, removing the warnings ''again''.

::'':::::Yep, here I am with a new IP already...(see edits). No wonder I had so much difficulty talking with 69.145.123.171. The guy does not know what he is talking about. Him and Irish Guy are complete retards... with the continued reverts of the talk page. To what end? To what benefit? Do people think about what they are doing or saying before they do or say it? I can only presume that these are the people who do it the way they are told to do it. The ones that can't think for themselves. I guess I have to give up my nice login and go for something a little more anonymous.... ] 09:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)''

::::...Also, here's his , where he removes warnings and flames Irishguy. I'd put the warning back in, but I'm getting sick of this. I think an admin really needs to be involved. :( --] 18:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::And under his new IP, there's a , , which was then , followed by , and finally, his . --] 18:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

::::::Okay, I'm on my knees begging for help here. I'm gonna lose it with him if we don't do something. He is using and IP to and I'm afraid I because I'm sick of this.

::::::::Okay, he ... . I . Go ahead, yell at me-I can't deal with sick people like this. >:( --] 20:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

I have asked that assertions of fact be cited. This is in accord with[REDACTED] policy. Rather than address the policy and why it is being ignored, my request has been removed from the ] talk page for this article by user ]. Please address. ]


This is an established user who does not want to be identified and is just engaging in disruptive behavior by placing <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> all over the article because he/she does not support the assertion of evolution. Other editors have reverted this, but user failed to stop and discuss on talk page. &mdash;] 08:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

RJN is an established user who should know better than to ignore the most basic[REDACTED] policies all over the place in an attempt to hide blatant disregard for[REDACTED] policy regarding citation of facts and verifiability. ]

(Ahem). ]. ] 08:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You were disrupting the process of that article. You were reverted by numorous users, not just me. I am neutral to whatever is going on in this article because I have no past or present involvement in editing ]. Please do not drag me into this mess&mdash;I was only reverting your disruptive behavior. In addition, this user has been reverting way past the 3RR and has been changing IPs to circumvent the 3RR as well. &mdash;] 08:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


The person using the ] appears to be a creationist troll engaging in vandalism of the ] article. He/she seems unwilling to actually read the article itself, which actually deals with his/her objections, and is instead inserting nonsense into the article without engaging in proper dialogue on the talk page. It is apparent from their knowledge of Misplaced Pages that they are an existing user who is masking their identity in order to engage in said vandalism. ] 15:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)



== An idea ==
I'm bringing forth an idea brought up on ]. Should we have a separate page for bad usernames? A few times a day, we have people posting "xxxxxx is in violation of the username policy". The problem is that it's not really appropriate for AIV since it is not vandalism just to have a bad username. On the other hand, we probably need a board where non-admins can post usernames that possibly violate policy without having to clutter up AN or AN/I any more than we already do. It could be similar to AIV and WP:PAIN. Thoughts? --]<sup>]</sup> 08:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
:I'm all for it; go ahead. ] 08:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
::I, too, feel that this is a great idea. It would help me keep Misplaced Pages from being disrupted by various violators of ]. ] 09:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
:Oppose. I see no reason why obvious ] violations shouldn't be posted on ]. They're even simpler than vandalism - with vandalism you have to check the contributions, whether the user has been warned, and then block, whereas with offensive usernames you just need to look at the name. The outcome is the same - quick check, then block. Where it's not sufficiently clear for an immediate block, the user can simply be asked politely to change his name and/or the account can be posted on ]. Further, those who create offensive usernames usually vandalise anyway, so ] is definitely where they belong.
:There's just no need to have a separate board, making our processes even more complicated, and resulting in slower response time (as not all admins are going to immediately watchlist the new page). I'll add a note to ] saying where apparent violations should be posted, as it seems to be lacking there. --]<sup>]</sup> 09:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
::What we're seeing right now are not "offensive usernames" being posted. Instead, we're getting alot of email usernames listed. Usually when offensive usernames are posted, the person is a vandal. But these are not vandals that I am talking about. is what I am referring to. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
:::People who use their email for thier username should get a polite note. They do not need to be blocked at all. I don't see why we would need a page where we can list user's like this. The people who are adding them to AIV shouldn't be doing so, they should simply advice them of our policies on thier talk page. ] | ] 15:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
::::And people who haven't ever contributed, as seems to be the case with Woohookitty's example, aren't usually worth bothering about unless it's likely that vandalism is forthcoming (i.e. deliberately offensive usernames and obvious sockpuppets- not email addresses). I would be more inclined to ask ] to stop trawling for email address user accounts and suggest RC patrol instead, rather than setting up yet another new process. --]<sup>]</sup> 15:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::Fair point. Mind you, it would probably be worth having at least a short summary on the Register page of what constitutes an acceptable username. Especially as it seems using an email address is a common newbie error, and move the "your account should not contain" section ''above'' the fields where the account name is entered. With luck we could stop most of the problems at source. ] 18:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::: Makes sense. But going back to the original question: creating an extra page would just create an additional backwater to check. Just like ] isn't as well-known as AIV, and things there are usually handled by an admin on IRC. Non-vandalism usernames can be dealt with on the same manner than non-vandalism activity reports are. ]]<sup>(])</sup> 18:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I tend to agree with the general gist that we don't need something new for this. If someone has a "bad" username and is making bad faith edits, or they have such an awful username that it must have been chosen in bad faith, then I would consider either case to be vandalism so go ahead and list on ]. However, if someone is making good faith edits but has inadvertently picked a "bad" username, blocking them will simply alienate a possible good contributor. Just mention it on their talk page, or, if you can't get through to them, list it on ] Either way, we don't need something new. ] // ] 23:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::: Agreed: we don't need something new, but we might need to stop the problems by tweaking the registration screen per my suggestion above. Who do we talk to? ] 12:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: No one, just edit ]. ]]<sup>(])</sup> 00:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

=={{vandal|The pen is mightier}}==
I want to apologize for this vandal; it was my live-in cousin, who apparently edits Misplaced Pages under another username (unknown to me) trying to get me blocked by collateral damage. I walked in on it, however, but not before he got blocked. I've undone the collateral-damage block (which is why I'm here; I wanted to mention that I was unblocking myself) and made sure that he spends the next month grounded from the internet. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 08:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

:ZOMG ADMIN ABUSE! DESYSOP! DESYSOP! Oh, wait, nevermind... <tt>;)</tt> <span style="font-family: Verdana">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 08:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

::Hey, at least it's not because somebody thought I was a Plautus Satire sock. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 08:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Now imagine if you lived with Willy on Wheels. :D ] <small>]</small> 09:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Well, there is ]... - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 09:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::Apparently your cousin loves pokemon. Anyways, it's your cousin's fault, not yours.--] <sup>(])</sup> 11:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::I still think an immidiately desysop is in order. RIGHT NOW. RIGHT.... NOW. Whenever. --] (]) 11:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::And this Misplaced Pages moment has been brought to you by...the letter S. --]<sup>]</sup> 14:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

== Aaron Walton ==

Please undelete this article, Aaron Walton.] 20:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
:It was deleted per ], which states that non-notable people or music groups may be removed from Misplaced Pages. ] 20:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look at the deletion review log. ] 20:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
:Then please wait for DRV to finish before posting here. Thanks ] 20:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
:Alw4416 appears to be perverting the DRV with sockpuppets... nice. - ] 23:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

== Color/colour move without consensus ==

The article ] has a long history of being edited, without consensus and against Misplaced Pages's policy on national varieties of English, to substitute "colour". This just gets reverted, but today someone did a page move from color to colour. If I understand correctly, this cannot be reversed except by an administrator (because of the redirect created). However, someone did step in and did a copy/paste revert, unfortunately breaking the edit history. Anyway, we now have colour redirecting to color, but there is also an article http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Col%D0%BEr&redirect=no, and I really don't know what that is doing there. It would be good if an administrator could resolve this mess (with color being the main article, with all of its history). I have marked ] with an <nowiki>{{inuse}}</nowiki> tag in the hope that people won't add good faith edits in the mean time. If I could have fixed this, please let me know how! ] 22:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
:By the way, to get to Col%D0%BEr, go to ] and follow the link that appears (apparently to talk:color again, but not), then click on Article. ] 23:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
It should be fixed now. ] 23:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

==Personal attack/threat==
Alright, I don't particularly like reporting such crap, because I prefer talking things out with users, however...have a look at the last few anonymous comments on my ], and if anyone believes action needs to be taken, please let me know what would be most appropriate. Note that although the edits are from anon IP, this is registered Misplaced Pages user. Thanks. <font color="#8b4513">]</font><font color="#ee8811">]</font> 23:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
:I've warned the IP concerned. If it re-occurs a short block would be appropriate. Unfortunately because this is an IP supplied by an ISP the user behind this will likely just come back on a different IP address if he's blocked. ] 00:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
::OK. If you look at the anon's last message, he linked to ] created by a registered user, for the sole purpose of attacking me (look at the image edit summary). I'm an admin, and I could delete the image, but I'd rather not use my privileges to affect a dispute in which I'm involved. Could somebody take care of it for me, either by deleting the image, or removing the reference to me, whichever you feel is most appropriate. <font color="#8b4513">]</font><font color="#ee8811">]</font> 00:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

:::I have deleted the image and warned the uploader ]. He also redirects his User page and Talk page to ]. I have no idea if it is a mixup trying to change name to Lobo or an attempt to circumvent blocks and messages. ] 02:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

In my opinion this user is bound for trouble and being uncivil, along with a NPOV username. --] ] 00:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

*I have given him the UsernameBlock ] 02:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

== Should we link to possibly-illegal sites? ==

] currently links to , which supplies files that arguably (]) violate the ]. Do we have a policy about whether to provide such links? If not, do we need one? Is this the right place to ask? Interrogatively yours, ]<small>]</small> 13:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
:In this specific case, the link does not improve the understanding of the subject. Rather, it provides an incoming link and free publicity to that site. ] applies. More generally, I'd say that there may be cases where one wants to link sites that could be illegal, for example an article about one of these sites. (], ]). 13:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
: Misplaced Pages generally operates under the laws of the United States, given that servers are hosted in Florida. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to try and interpret the DMCA, but in general, I don't find the link useful to the article. ] (]) 13:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks for those helpful responses. I'll delete the link.
::]'s comment that "there may be cases where one wants to link sites that could be illegal, for example an article about one of these sites" strikes me as a pretty good guideline. Perhaps ] should say something about this?
::Thanks again, ]<small>]</small> 14:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
:::I removed the other external link, which was to a site with instructions on how to crack Amiga games. They may be old, but it is still illegal. -- ] 17:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

==Highly inappropriate username==
Someone should probably ban this user indefinitely. ]. ] 14:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

== Vandalism of ] ==

Over the past weeks since the AfD success of ], the article's contents merged to ]. Since then, there was continuous vandalism targeted at that single passage. I've requested a semi-protect at ] but was denied due to "inadequate vandalism activity". However, that inadequacy was, in fact, an illusion. Consider the edit history of the article for the past week:

# (cur) (last) 2006-07-05 23:41:57 Deryck Chan (Talk | contribs) '''rv/v'''
# (cur) (last) 2006-07-05 18:14:59 203.218.124.219 (Talk) '''vandalism'''
# (cur) (last) 2006-07-05 15:01:32 Deryck Chan '''rv/v'''
# (cur) (last) 2006-07-05 00:10:16 219.77.113.65 '''vandalism'''
#... (subsequent edits in "clean state")
# (cur) (last) 2006-07-04 23:27:06 Deryck Chan '''rv/ previous vandalism'''
# (cur) (last) 2006-07-03 17:13:07 Tawkerbot2 '''rv/ further vandalism'''
# (cur) (last) 2006-07-03 17:13:01 82.110.221.72 '''further vandalism of another passage'''
#... (subsequent edits after the vandalism was done but not spotted)
# (cur) (last) 2006-06-27 22:43:33 222.167.114.37 '''vandalism'''
# (cur) (last) 2006-06-27 22:07:54 Misza13 '''rv/v'''
# (cur) (last) 2006-06-27 22:06:59 218.103.166.54 '''vandalism'''

If checked carefully, since 27 June, the article has 188 hours in vandalized state but only 6 hours in clean state. Apparently this is a terrible ratio, '''meaning that for a random visitor coming to the article at any time, he has only 3% of chance to see a non-vandalized article'''.

I admit my fault for not being able to sweep the vandalism in that 7 days (27 June to 4 July) due to my short wikibreak, but even after I've come back, the ratio is still terrible. Since 4 July, there are only 5 hours that the article is clean but 20 hours that it is in vandalism. It still accounts for a 80% ratio for a random visitor to se a vandalized passage.

The problem is severe and was underestimated by a lot of people. I want some admins to take note of this and help me watch out the vandalism, or do a semi-protection. Thanks in advance. --]] 15:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

: I see no reason why this is needed. This seems like a content dispute. The anonymous users are removing a section that really pertains to the principal, and not so much to the college. While the blanking without comment may be disruptive, it's by no means vandalism, and certainly is not worthy of semiprotection. ] (]) 13:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

::Inclusion of that passage was agreed per ]. The anon editors also made no edit summary over all the edits (I suppose they're the same person or the same bunch of persons, because all the IPs come from Hong Kong ISPs). I'll seek negotiation when I revert next time. --]] 14:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

===Addendum on 9 Jul 2006===
The anon editors have refused to discuss despite a message on the talk page and two messages on edit summaries. Hereby I request an action on these (or this) disruptive anon editor(s). --]] 02:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

== Deleting libellous revisions ==

(Continued from ])

It appears that that more (allegedly) libellous material was added to ] on 1 July . An anonymous IP has again contacted me requesting this information be removed, so I'm forwarding that here. Cheers --] 15:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{user|MatthewFenton}} is insisting that the use of ] on this userbox violates our policy on fair use images in userspace. I'm of the opinion that this is bollocks. I've just reverted it for the third time, so I could do with some confirmation that I haven't gone completely mad. — ]] 16:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

:You're correct. The image is copyrighted, but not every copyrighted image we use is a "fair use" image. In this case, the image is copyrighted by Wikimedia (because of the Misplaced Pages logo), and is used with permission. ]]<sup>]</sup> 17:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
:I agree with Mangojuice. Seems like a violation of ] by ]. ] 17:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
:::On ], I raised the point that this shouldn't even be an issue. Only one editor supports getting rid of the image while at least 7 have supported keeping the image or questioned why it was deleted. Seems like consensus to me. And I agree with the above comments that this seems like a case of ].--] 17:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
::::I personally like the ] that Herostratus has on his userbox. --] <sub>]</sub> 17:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

The case has closed.
* ], ], ], and ] are placed on probation and may be banned by any admin in case of disruption of highways related articles.
* Consensus encouraged
*Until a formal naming convention policy regarding state highways is reached, no page shall be moved from one controversial name to another.
* JohnnyBGood and SPUI are warned to remain civil at all times.
For the Arbitration Committee. -- <small> ]</small> 16:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

==Suspected banned user sockpuppet==

I have strong suspicions that ] is a sockpuppet of ], who has been for ban evasion, POV editing, and various other violations of Misplaced Pages policy. My suspicions are based upon the fact that this week-old user has been that Hogeye was previously , making very similar changes. Further, this user has a surprising knowledge of the use of Misplaced Pages after only one week. Moreover, in recent days, Hogeye has been attempting to evade his ban by using anonymous proxies or by creating sockpuppet accounts.

I would greatly appreciate it if someone with the right tools could explore this in greater detail. Thanks. --] 18:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

:] would be the right place to ask for a checkuser, ] for a non-checkuser sock investigation. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 08:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

== Speedy deletions ==

FYI, ] has eleventy billion pages in it, some of which have been there for 3+ hours. ] 19:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

== En masse addition of Military History WikiProject tags ==

{{userlinks|Grafikm fr}} has been using ] en masse to add a Military History WikiProject tag to dozens of article talk pages. I stopped him when he had just finished off on articles starting with numbers and had gotten to "A6". I wanted to get invite further discussion on whether this is a good idea outside of the Military History WikiProject; hence why I am bringing this up here. It is my opinion that an automated en masse addition of what is essentially a WikiProject advertisement to hundreds of article talk pages, chosen solely because they occupy a military-related category, isn't a good idea. Some previous discussion is located at ], but please keep new discussion here in this centralized location. --] 19:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

:A few thoughts:
:* WikiProjects, despite being informal, are generally regarded as a basic and quite legitimate form of editor collaboration within Misplaced Pages. Further, the use of talk page templates to advertise WikiProjects is a long-standing practice.
:* The question of WikiProject scope is somewhat tangential to this. I cannot recall any limitation on the potential number of articles a WikiProject can deal with, and cannot fathom why such a restriction would be beneficial, in any case.
:* Aside from advertising the existence of the WikiProject to editors in the applicable subject areas (which is quite important in its own right, since projects that fail to recruit editors effectively tend to wither and die in short order), the tags also serve to introduce articles into the ] run under the guidance of the ] project.
:* The question of whether AWB is used seems rather unimportant, in my opinion. So long as the tagging itself is legitimate&mdash;and I'm not aware of any complaints in that regard&mdash;the use of a tool to make the admittedly monotonous task easier seems perfectly acceptable. ] 19:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

: To what Kirill said, I'll add a few things to explain:
: I've just went through ~300 articles of a military-related category. Only 61 were tagged and 2 ignored because they were not military-related. Meaning there was ~240 articles in this category that were '''''already tagged''''', through infinite pains, by hand, before that (and not by me). So it is a matter of being methodic: why ] was tagged and ] was not? What is the logic?
: I'm not a bot and I'm not applying tags blindly. If an article is really out of scope, I don't tag it.
: I do '''exactly''' the same job as was done before, only it goes 10 times faster. I '''really''' don't see what the problem is. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 20:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

:Unlike most of the project tags kicking around, these ones are preset to allow for notes about quality rating, completeness, importances, etc. The project is pretty active, and seems to have a good deal of ]; it seems to me that this sort of thing is greatly helped by identifying and tagging articles for people to get to, since it allows category sorting, report generation, etc. (In many ways, it's probably better than slapping "This x-related article is a stub..." in the main namespace)
:(Yes, indiscriminate bot-adding is a bad idea, but it's hard to distinguish between indiscriminate and eyballing-and-approving each time. Were any of the marked pages inappropriate?)
:To my eyes, it's not "advertisment", it's infrastructure for the development of articles. Yes, it's not much use to start with, but people can't go and work on articles before someone's found them... It seems to be working fine; I say leave them to it. ] | ] | 20:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
:: It was '''not''' bot-adding. I check the title carefully and if needed, open the article. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 20:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Apologies - I was caught by an edit-conflict and hadn't seen your reply. ] | ] | 20:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts) The problem is there are so many different WikiProjects out that if all of them went around tagging related articles en masse, the average article's talk page would be flooded with half a dozen advertisements for various WikiProjects. Look at the huge list of WikiProjects ] and tell me it wouldn't be a bad thing if even 10% of them went around tagging all articles that were possibly related. It's just not a good idea. Quite literally it is spamming namespace 1. --] 20:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

:Most of the WikiProjects on that list don't use tags. Most of them are also quite catatonic. Care to guess at the relationship between the two? ;-)
:(This aside from the fact that even double-tagging tends to be rare, and is becoming increasingly rare as smaller WikiProjects are being absorbed into larger ones. I don't believe I've ''ever'' seen a talk page with more than two WikiProject tags on it.) ] 20:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

:The "spamming" problem from having five or six tags seems more due to the size and style of the templates. If this *does* become an issue, reformatting the project tags might prove a good idea... but this is useful infrastructure, and people do seem to be using it to build an encylopedia. So why make their lives harder for something that isn't a problem yet? ] | ] | 20:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

*The addition of the tags seems proper to me. This is a very active project and the scope of the project seems to be all pages that have a military topic. As such, then all these articles should probably be tagged as such. I do note, however, that looking into the far future, we may have problems with articles tagged by a dozen different wikiprojects. (E.g. As it stands today, a military war-ship made by a prominant manufacturer in Texas could conceivably be tagged by wikiprojects on Military, Ships and Texas. How many more wikiprojects might the same ship fall into next year or ten years from now?) Just the size of the cumulative talk page tags could theoretically be a problem. My opinion is that this hypothetical problem is not serious enough to attempt to solve ahead of time before it actually exists. Let's let these projects grow and tag articles and see what happens. ]\<sup>]</sup> 20:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
**"The scope of the project seems to be all pages that have a military topic" -- hrmm, yes, because they're defining their own scope. What happens when WikiProject United States comes through, with an acknowledged scope of the United States, and tries to tag hundreds of thousands of articles? I just don't see why it is necessary that every single article in the encyclopedia dealing with military history (we must have over 10K such articles) needs to have a tag advertising this WikiProject. --] 20:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
*** For assessement purposes for instance. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 20:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
****How about they put the tag on once it's actually assessed, rather than putting up thousands of these tags that will doubtless remain blank (and useless) for months? --] 20:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
*****They ''won't'' get assessed until somebody knows they exist (usually not the people with enough time to do mass-tagging, either). ] has been getting reduced in size quite consistently. ] 20:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
*** The United States WikiProject has a large number of child projects (many of which ''do'' tag things); it's likely that a most-specific-project tagging rule would be adopted by them should they desire to add tags. (In any case, creating current restrictions based on hypothetical problems seems somewhat questionable.) ] 20:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Might we think of a better infrastructure than having each WikiProject tag each article they have identified as being somewhat related to their topic area? This just doesn't scale well at all. That's the reason I brought this here ... for community review. I still don't think that having WikiProjects tag each article they're even tangentially related to provides enough benefits to outweigh the signal to noise decrease inherent in adding more colored boxes to the top of talk pages (once it gets past two, does anyone even read them?). I've thought this for a long while and haven't said anything, but when I ran across the massive addition of tags today, I felt like I had to say something. Hopefully we can come up with a better system. Why not have all of the article assessment ratings on a centralized page? Why should it all be scattered around on individual articles? WikiProjects are project-space stuff ... can't they do it in project space and project talk space rather than spreading their colored boxes all across ''article'' talk space? --] 20:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
:It was tried. It really doesn't scale for any more than a few hundred articles. ] 20:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
:Take a look at ] for instance to see that there '''are''' alredy such cases of pages having a lot of templates. And people live with it. Don't know where the problem is... -- ] <sup>]</sup> 20:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll point out that nobody has really offered an argument against the fact that advertising relevant WikiProjects—even in the absence of any other purpose for the tags—is a very useful thing (assuming that you like having active WikiProjects around, obviously). WikiProjects that fail to recruit editors die; there's simply no way around that fact. That's why the idea of talk-page tags was developed in the first place. ] 20:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts on the subject - it wouldn't be a horrible idea to restrict the WikiProject tags to those articles where either (a) your project makes up a substantial portion of the editors of the article, (b) the article is obviously inextricably linked to your project (eg ] and ]), or (c) the article is an abandoned stub or short article relevant to your project that you intend to improve. There was one case a few weeks back with ] and ]. The issue more or less dropped because it was really just two of us arguing and the the project basically has such a broad definition of what "Charismatic Christianity" is that if you have ever met a Charismatic, you probably qualify ... it really wasn't worth it to me to continue debating the issue. Still, I would use this as an example of something that should NOT be tagged. Nobody from ] has contributed to the article itself. The link between the two is tenuous (] was once involved in a charismatic movement, therefore ] must be a charismatic church, even though they never self-identify as such). At any rate, this is more along the lines of a policy proposal than an administrative issue, but I would definitely suggest restricting tagging in some fashion. If nobody from your project is going to touch the thing, it doesn't need to be tagged as belonging to them. ] 20:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

:I think that might be more of an issue with the particular WikiProject you mention having a somewhat unusual (or controversial?) scope. Is it your impression that it's a more widespread issue? ] 20:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

::That's a good question. Looking at the ], there aren't that many where inclusion is overly debatable. Most of the ones that could be contentious (for example ], if they wanted to be annoying, could tag every living thing saying, "well, it evolved didn't it") seem to exercise restraint. ] is one I imagine could get really annoying really fast if they did article tagging. So really, the answer is probably no, I don't see a widespread problem now ... but it could be and, as we have another incident here, some standards wouldn't be a bad thing. ] 21:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

: It seems to me that there are two opposing risks to allowing projects like MILHIST to tag the approximately 11,000 relevant pages they estimate exist. If this is permitted, there is a risk that some pages might eventually have several tags from several projects. If not, it's likely that more pages will be orphaned than if not. I tend to think that allowing an active project like MILHIST to tag thousands of pages will do more good than harm, although maybe there needs to be some procedure to remove tags from dead projects. A lot of projects are doing great work, and MILHIST is one of them. ] 20:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

:: A way to remove dead projects in general might be helpful; the only way I've seen any disappear is by getting absorbed by a more active project. ] 20:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

:In case of WPMILHIST, we're in cases (b) or (c) in 99% of the articles. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 21:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think these wikiproject tags are almost always useless and almost always harmless; if it makes people happy to add them, so be it. But I would like to see the people who design the templates trying to make them as small as possible- no pictures, and directions to the project page rather than using the template to add lists to every talk page. ]] 21:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
:The design of the template is different story - if a page is tagged, the initial template can be changed at will afterwards... :) -- ] <sup>]</sup> 21:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
* Cyde, the assessments are centralized. You can try having a look at ]. However, a system where there isn't at least some sort of distributed rating will fail to work, as prior experience has showed the ] and ] projects. It is impossible to ''edit'' a page with 10,000 entries, so that's why you have a bot filling them out automatically. If there are several WikiProjects that could have "jurisdiction" over an article, And yes, Cyde, I really don't see a problem with all of them tagging the article (which won't happen, because not all WikiProjects tag pages, and not all WikiProjects are even active). More eyes looking at one article → better article. If it truly annoys you, you can always turn off the coffee roll templates on your personal CSS. ]]<sup>(])</sup> 23:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
**Ooh, is there a standard div id I can use to turn off all WikiProject notices? Granted, this just solves the problem for me personally, and not for anyone else out there who doesn't know how to do it, but I might as well solve one problem. --] 23:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
***They all currently use class="messagebox standard-talk"; that's the same as all the other talk page banners ({{tl|featured}} and so forth). I suppose we could introduce a distinct class just for the project notices, if people want to turn ''only'' those off. ] 00:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
****It's a good idea to standardize on a separate one for WikiProject banners, methinks. I'd want to hide WikiProject banners but not the usual talk page stuff. --] 00:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
*****I was thinking of going through with a bot and giving every header in ] an id of "t_{{PAGENAMEE}}", as honestly I hate seeing all of them. Adding a class="...wikiproject" or such (even if it doesn't have a class defined by default) would be useful too. ] 05:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I was a bit surprised the first time I saw these templates, but I like the idea about rating articles on both quality and importance. True, many articles have only been tagged and not rated yet, but a large number of articles have already been rated. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

*This discussion seems to be related to ]. ] ] 05:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
** If it's just about talk page color, I can ignore articles with an empty talk page. How's that? -- ] <sup>]</sup> 18:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it would seem that no one is really against this tagging, or am I missing something? :) -- ] <sup>]</sup> 18:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is the correct venue for this discussion; if there really is disagreement about this practice we should find a better venue for discussion and seeking consensus. That said:
*WikiProjects do some great work and help foster community. I'd be very reluctant to impose any restrictions on them unless absolutely necessary. I don't see any such necessity right now.
*I'd fully support using a special div type for WikiProject banners. It's never occured to me before, but if some folks don't like seeing those tags then I have no objection to making those editors happier by making such a simple change.
*WikiProject banners are essential for Mathbot-based article assessment, as pointed out above.
*I believe the banners are useful to WikiProjects and therefore to Misplaced Pages in other ways, which I won't list here.
*"Turf wars" and which articles "belong" to which WikiProjects and how this is determined are some things which ''might'' at some point need to be talked about, but not here. We've (]) had a few disagreements in the past and some of our articles are also tagged by the Albums and Films WikiProjects and probably others. ''However'', different Projects tagging the same article doesn't even break the Misplaced Pages 1.0 assessment, especially for "]" because the importance is importance within the WikiProject, and then the enyclopedic importance is assessed by also factoring in the importance of ''that Project''. Having multiple gradings therefore doesn't break the system at all. --] 18:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Freakofnurture brought up an interesting point on IRC. Whether or not the talk page tab at the top of the page is red is useful feedback to the reader. Oftentimes I find myself wanting to know if a page has any discussion on it; if the tab is red, I don't even have to load a separate page. However, if all of these articles are going to be tagged en masse with this WikiProject banner, then none of the tabs will be red any longer, and some reader feedback will be lost. Also, I question the value of putting a banner on a page with so little traffic/interest that it doesn't even exist. What do you guys think about only putting the banner on talk pages that already exist, and not creating the ones from scratch that don't? --] 20:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
: See what I suggested above :) (18:21 UTC). -- ] <sup>]</sup> 20:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::Okay, that sounds acceptable then. Since no one else seems to be objecting I think I'll bow out. --] 20:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:Well, there would be three main reasons why we would prefer the banner even on empty talk pages:
:* The article rating component of the tags applies regardless of whether there's any other discussion going on.
:* Many of these pages are ''extremely'' low-traffic in terms of actually having discussion (some manage to make it up to FA status without any comments there). The banners still provide useful links for both the editors of those pages and other people (who are often more likely to get assistance with the article from the project than merely by posting to an empty talk page.
:* This will require a dedicated effort of trying to keep track of newly created talk pages so that we can tag them, rather than tagging everything in one go.
:Whether you find any of these arguments convincing is, of course, up to you. ] 20:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::::(edit conflict) Indeed. The reasons ''for'' such taggings seem to heavily outweigh the reasons against (one or two folks don't want to load a talk page to find just a WikiProject banner). I reiterate that since this is currently the way things are done, and we're quite deep into Misplaced Pages 1.0 assessment now, this isn't the correct forum either. If this is a genuine issue affecting many editors (and I don't think it is) let's have a policy debate. --] 20:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::The article rating component only applies if you're actually ''rating'' the page. I don't see the point of turning a red talk page blue with an empty rating slot. Yes, if you want to take the time to also make an assessment of the page then it's a different situation. Also, I can't believe that an article has made it to featured status with a red talk page. Can you give me any examples? I still don't think the questionable benefits of having a WikiProject banner on a previously nonexistent talk page outweigh the loss of feedback provided by that talk page's nonexistence. --] 20:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Well, aside from the project banner and the fac template, obviously. In any case, if you want an example, ] had three tags and not a single word of actual commentary on its talk page when it was featured; does that count? ;-) ] 20:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Hrrmmm ... I didn't think such a page existed. Anyway, nice article. I shall read it soon. --] 20:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::Thanks! ] 21:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Then you don't (or more likely don't want to) understand the assessment system (and indeed the WikiProject system). Knowing which articles a Project is watching over, and which are unassessed, is an important part of how the average WikiProject operates. This is the way things are done (and for the benefit of the wider Project); and admin action isn't going to stop it. Make a policy debate out of if you don't like it (<s>that's an invitation not a threat :)</s> but please don't, we have enough to do with W1.0 assessments), but for now it's ''status quo'' and ''c'est la vie''. --] 20:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Edit --] 20:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Please, let's not have any "not-threats" here either. ;-) ] 20:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::Happy now? :) --] 20:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::::I know how the assessment system works (when the assessment is left blank it's put into a "to be assessed" category, right?). I just don't think it's worthwhile creating talk pages out of nothing to put them into a blank category. You could save yourself a lot of page edits if you just compiled a simple list of pages to be assessed. --] 20:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::::: Well, I do find it useful. Every now and then, a lonely article pops out into ], and that is picked up on ] (and the summary), so I know a new article was created, so I can go assess it. So, useless to one doesn't mean useless to all. ]]<sup>(])</sup> 21:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
(Sorry, me again) Actually, I would like to add that prior to the W1.0 assessments scheme I would, in the case of very large Projects, agreed to you. I remember creating new articles on albums and shortly afterwards a {{tl|Album}} template would appear saying "this is part of WikiProject Albums". I remember thinking at the time "who the hell are they, why are they taking credit for work they had no part in, and what use does that tag serve appearing on thousands of talk pages?". I do believe that the W1.0 assessments changes things considerably, however. --] 20:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind having these ratings for every article but I don't see why they should have to get there through a single very active project - the importance and quality of an article aren't tied to a particular project. And, as others have mentioned, things are being tagged that seem rather marginally related to military history - I noticed '']'' was tagged. It could just as well get a tag from a WikiProject on Norway, or on the Middle Ages or on literature. Couldn't we just have one generic talk page template for people who want to rate articles for quality and importance? We could still have a parameter allowing us to specify individual projects or "task forces" that could help with the article. ] 21:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

:Quality: perhaps. But importance, at least the way it's set up, varies from project to project. Something very important within the topic of "Norway" might not be that important within the topic of "Middle Ages", and vice versa. And there are also other things like project peer reviews/collaborations/etc. being listed in these tags. I think that trying to combine them all would be far too chaotic to bother (not to mention resulting in a template that would freeze the database anytime it was edited). ] 21:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I am supposed to be on wikibreak, and about to be away from the computer for a week, but I thought I should chime in, since I wrote a bot (]) to maintain a watchlist for a project. I was inspired by ], and used it for ]. The bot can also tag all articles in a category as belonging to a project. This feature worked well for the main Numismatics articles (not Exonumia), but it ran into trouble in the Exonumia directories so I'm not using that feature now. I started this because I wanted to be able to watch what was happening in the Numismatics project, and had no awareness of 1.0. You can see the ] if you want. The {{tl|Numismaticnotice}} does not include a rating, but I find it useful anyway. As a new user, I had no idea that there was anything to Misplaced Pages beyond the articles and talk pages until I followed a link in a template. ] 22:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sadly ] failed miserably. --] (] - ]) 11:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
:I would say "fortunately" rather than "sadly" as that essay is a terrifically bad idea. As I said in the talk there, tagging articles, including tagging by multiple projects, is terrifically valuable, and the advantages, short and long term, far far outweigh any minor inconvenience that having them might entail. The fact that ] has taken an amazingly large number of articles under its wing, and is steadily improving them, is something to marvel at, not something to consider harmful. And the idea that these project boxes are "spam" seems to show a fundamental misunderstanding of projects and how things get done. ++]: ]/] 11:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

== Fair use image on a user page ==

See ], which has ] on it. I don't think this user is any friend of administrators, as seen by . And actually, that whole thread on ] seems like the work of... no, I can't say it. I'm not supposed to say it. Just deal with the fair use image on a user page. --] - ] 23:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
:Removed (he also had one on his talk page). --]<sup>]</sup> 00:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==
I think this user has an inappropriate username. Is that right? ] 00:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:I don't think it's that bad. We have this page: ]. ] 05:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::I'm borderline on it, but I will not block it. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:If you look at ], it could be inappropriate as "...it alludes to excretory functions of the body.."; you left a message on the user's talk page, let's see how it goes. ] 05:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::Somehow I doubt that they're going to be the next great admin, though. --] <sub>]</sub> 15:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:::It was a puppet show aired in the UK, hosted by ]. See ]. ] 22:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

== SEO spam ==

From my Talk page:

:''']'''

:You nominated a pair of articles by ] to AFD today with an "is there an echo here"? type comment on the second.

: Demonstrates that there is a company by that name involved in search engine optimization. One of the two companies you AFD nominated is specifically listed as an SEO client. I'm not sure what more to do, so I'm alerting you. ] 03:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As you'll see form the contribs of {{user|HayMeadows}} this is pretty transparent stuff, but I'm wondering whether any less blatant examples have crept in. Anyone who wants to take a look is welcome. ] 06:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

== Please delete 'Boss Hoss' article ==

The ] article was nominated for deletion and then deleted. The user ] created it again.

Please delete it per the ]. --] 07:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

: Done, and on my watch list. --] (]) 07:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:: Mine as well. --]] 10:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Btw, next time if you see such recreation of content you can simply tag it with <nowiki>{{db-g4}}</nowiki> and no need to post in WP:AN. --] <sup>(])</sup> 11:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

==]==
Per ], is there a "rough consensus" that this is an inappropriate username? ] 12:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:As you can see in contribs, only a trolling account to harass an admin. I support. --]] 12:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

::Already indefblocked by Andrew Norman. ] 12:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:::It's pretty clear who this "new" user is. --] (]) 12:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

He has now been blocked. ]]\<sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 12:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

==Admin without email enabled==

] does not have an email address enabled, even though all admins, especially those involved in blocking users (as Karada is ), should be contactable outside Misplaced Pages. From what I've seen an RFA is extremely unlikely to succeed if the candidate does not have a valid email address. I have asked Karada twice on his talk page to enable his email or explain why he hasn't, but he hasn't yet responded (he responded to my first query on the 26th June which regarded a blocked user, but did not address the question of his email). I've checked his contributions and he has edited since I asked him last. Can someone please reinforce my request? --]<sup>]</sup> 13:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:I'm going to stick my neck on the line and say that I strongly disagree with this "requirement". If s/he has their email turned off, that's their business; not least because replying reveals one's own email address. I can't say I've received a single adminship-related email ''ever'' which I got any value out of reading and which couldn't have been discussed here. Furthermore, if it's needed for appealing against a block that can be done on the blocked user's talk page. (I'm expecting a flame or two now, so let me just point out ''my'' email ''is'' enabled, albeit reluctantly). --] 13:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::There is also ]. ] <small>(])</small> 13:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::(edit conflict) There's nothing wrong with enabling email. When I get an email from someone who I'd prefer not to have my address in possession, I simply reply to that person's talk page. --] ] 13:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Sorry to disagree, ]. I think that there are some situations and issues that need to be discussed off the site. Read Misplaced Pages Review and the similar sites and you see that trolls and banned users love to see us talk about them. Also a quick direct conversation between two users, admins or editors, can be much more effecive than a massive discussion. ] ] 13:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::The user talk pages of blocked users are sometimes protected, e.g. due to abuse of {{tl|unblock}}, and that just leaves email. I'm not familiar with the mailing lists, but I distrust all off-wiki public fora, including mailing lists and IRC, given the Blu Aardvark fiasco et al. The point is that you should be able to contact the same admin that blocked you directly. If revealing your email address bothers you, just get a free one and use that. --]<sup>]</sup> 14:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:::I use a gmail address for Misplaced Pages, which strips my IP from the header, and have set it to only display my username as the sender (not my real name). So, it's no big deal if someone sees my email address. -] (<small>] ]</small>) 19:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no requirement that an admin have an available email address, nor should there be. ]|] 02:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
<br>
'']] chimes in that he has email, AIM, and IRC "enabled"''

==user:Logologist==


I am writing due to inappropriate sock puppeteer ], which was identified as such in June 23 . This user should get punishment because:
# He used 3 sock puppet accounts. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=60172140&oldid=60171126
# He used these 3 sock puppet accounts (together with his main one) in voting on very sensitive issue – naming the main article of ruler: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:W%C5%82adys%C5%82aw_II_Jagie%C5%82%C5%82o/Archive_5#Sockpuppetry
# Violate "one person, one vote" principle casting 4 voices: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:W%C5%82adys%C5%82aw_II_Jagie%C5%82%C5%82o/Archive_5#request_for_move
# Misplaced Pages policy on sock puppetry during the vote is strict: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Voting
# Due to his united votes as ”oppose” consensus was not reached on article naming , if not these 3 votes the consensus could been reached than.
# Due to his voting, the weeks spent on talks gone in rubbish. ] 14:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

:The sockpuppets were blocked and their votes discounted. The user hasn't edited for three weeks. There is no need for any further "punishment". ] 14:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::I believe his voices were not discounted (vote ended in June 13, he was identified in June 23). Only blocking sock puppets is an encouragement to other misconducts (not necessary by this user), because there was no outcome to the puppets master. But if you say its ok... ] 15:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

*Please take the matter to ]. <font color="#007FFF">]</font>''']'''<font color="#007FFF">]</font>|<sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 15:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

== My block of ] ==
I have revoked the editing priveleges for this account after following clear instructions in both that article's edit summary history and on the article Talk page that unfree image cleanup should not be reverted. Per ]' to be strict about fair use abuse, this account should remain blocked until the user commits to not interfering with unfree image cleanup. One such a commitment is received, any admin should return editing priveleges immediately. I am cross-posting this here for review and to be clear that any admin considering lifting this block after receiving such a commitment should not hesitate to do so. ] 18:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:You did the right thing, in my view, and I note that he has now given his commitment and been unblocked, so the whole thing was cleared up in just a few minutes. ] ] 18:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::You shouldn't have blocked him over this. First off, the photo is a copyrighted by the Canadian government and is the official picture of the Canadian prime minister. A strong claim could have been made that the use of this photo to illustrate an article about the prime minister is valid under fair use. In short, this wasn't a nonsense fair use claim and you should not have blocked the user for disagreeing with you over it. In addition, I find it distaste that you blocked an editor over what was an editorial dispute you were involved in. You should have gotten another admin to do that.--] 18:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:::You seem to be confused about two things here. The first is that I didn't block someone for a lousy fair use claim. I blocked an account that was replacing a free image with an unfree one. The strongest fair use claim in the world wouldn't matter -- ]. The second point is that there was an editorial dispute. My first edit was to revert back to the free image -- I'm not involved in any sort of "editorial dispute", unless enforcing ] and our ] is now an editorial decision. ] 19:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Aside from the (admittedly not very applicable in this particular case) general point that determining whether a free image adequately replaces a fair-use one is, in some respect, an editorial decision, I am uncomfortable with the fact that we're handing out indefinite blocks to editors in good standing without even a warning. Unless the editor is actually refusing to follow image policy when asked to do so, there is no need for an indefinite block to be imposed. Indeed, in a situation like the above where the violation is very limited in scope (a single image on a single article) and the editor is not causing any substantial damage, I am unconvinced that we need apply a block at all ''before'' asking/warning/instructing them as to the relevant policy. ] 19:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::::: is the Talk page note I left. Assuming that is insufficient warning that reverting image cleanup is not okay, what would you suggest? What is better in these situations? Revert-warring, page protection, or blocking? ] 19:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::Leaving the same request you did on the editor's talk page, but ''without'' imposing a block; there's always time for that if they refuse. ] 19:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::We should all note &ndash; in general, and not just specific to this situation &ndash; that there is a distinction between an ''indefinite'' block and a ''permanent'' one. While both are implemented the same way technically, they can be handled very differently in practice. A permanent block is imposed on an editor who has exhausted the community's patience or by decision of the ArbCom; such a block is accompanied by the sentiment 'Good riddance, you're not welcome back here' (if not those precise words). Other indefinite blocks may be placed to mean 'You're doing something that you shouldn't be doing, after you've been asked to stop. Once you agree to stop, you'll be unblocked; I had to block you to get your attention.' Such blocks are meant to be lifted quickly and by any admin as soon as &ndash; but not before &ndash; the appropriate condition has been met. Particularly since we have the {{tl|unblock}} template, such 'indefinite' blocks should represent a small inconvenience for the blocked editor. ](]) 20:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::Except that such subtle semantic games are rarely a consolation to the target of the block, particularly when we use overly formalistic languaged like "revoked the editing priveleges for this account".
::::::In general, requests and suggestions should be preferred to warnings, which should be preferred to blocks; not because it's any more difficult to remove blocks from a technical standpoint, but because of the effect of harsher measures on (usually) well-meaning volunteer editors. ] 20:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I actually agree with you &ndash; and with Jkelly's revised opinion &ndash; that the block was hasty in this case. But I don't think that any 'subtle semantic games' are being played here. Jkelly provided clear conditions for the lifting of the block, and was clearly monitoring the situation&mdash;Jkelly attempted an unblock eight minutes after Michael Dorosh agreed to abide by the policy. (I also applaud Jkelly's decision to post a notice on ''this'' page, so that other admins could review the situation.) If we're going to talk about the language editors use, I'd say that the intent and meaning of Jkelly's &ndash; particularly the part that reads "One such a commitment is received, any admin should return editing priveleges immediately." &ndash; are clear. ](]) 20:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand why you replaced the image and I agree it was the right move (assuming a better quality version of the pic can be found). The problem is that ] made what appeared to be a good-faith edit, reverting the image for a better looking one which had a valid claim at being fair use. Since you originally replaced that image, you were free to revert his edit and explain to him why he shouldn't have done that. Blocking an editor for one apparently good-faith revert, especially when the editor reverted your own edit, is not justified. If ] had reverted that image over and over, the block may have been justified but it would still have been better for another admin to block him since you were involved in the edit in question. Best, --] 19:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:This is still not the correct sequence of events. ] was the one who was doing image cleanup . Thivierr was then reverted, reverted back, and posted at ] about image policy. That's how the matter came to my attention. I reverted back to the free image, and left a strongly-worded at ]. Your argument seems to be based on the idea that I have some sort of personal investment or conflict of interest here. That's not the case. ] 19:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

::I just noticed that ] is complaining on his talk page about still being blocked despite agreeing not to revert that image again. I thought his block was lifted.--] 19:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

:::I think I've cleared the remaining autoblock now. ] 19:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::::This was a clear over-reaction and a violation of ]. Please engage in discussions with user before issuing blocks. ] (]) 19:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::Nonsense. There was discussion. Assume good faith towards admins, please. ]|] 02:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Unrelated to the rightness or wrongness of anything, I hope that a better, useable picture can be found. ] is truly terrible (it is not the fault of the photographer, the picture was taken during a speech, which is bad enough for a portrait, and then it was cropped to show just the head). As an interim measure, the picture could be made far better with some simple editing (use the original and then recrop, of course). We should encourage this to be done ''before'' uploading the picture, if we don't already. :-) -- ] 19:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::::I totally agree. After all, this is the prime minister of Canada. If someone had replaced Bush's official picture with something like this people would think it was vandalism. While we should not use non-free images when a free image is available, if the free image is of horrible quality then (perhaps) the non-free image has a decent claim to still being used under fair use (notice I said perhaps, I'm still not sure on this).--] 19:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::Sorry for the confusion. I didn't mean to suggest that the original picture should be used, just that a freely useable picture should be found that is better than the current one. I suppose if there was a valid fair use claim that it would be preferable to use the original, but I don't know at what point quality is so bad that it cannot be considered an alternative freely available picture, or if there is no such point. I guess that we should be grateful that it isn't a child's drawing. ;-) -- ] 19:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

], I'm glad to hear that you don't have an editorial stake in this article, although the issue of which image to use does appear to be an editorial decision and since you edited the article to use one image that seemed to me to have involved you in the dispute over the image. I still believe, though, that there was no need to block the editor over this one revert. Simply explaining the situation to him would have been enough. After all, we block people for a pattern of abuse after giving said editors sufficient warnings. Best, --] 19:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:I agree that he should have been warned first. I don't know if it is true in this case, but people frequently don't read edit summaries or the talk page before editing or reverting. Also, if he was aware of the message(s), he may have thought that he had a legitimate fair use claim when he reverted. That makes it a disagreement over whether an image is fair use and not a willful violation of policy (deliberately using an unfree image that is not fair use). -- ] 19:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

::No "fair use" claim justifies replacing freely-licensed content. See ] for more details. This is perhaps where some confusion lies. ] 19:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

:::There was a discussion ] where it was argued that up to date information was more important than license. Also, ] was argued that, if the free image was not "suitable", a fair image should be use instead. Useful reading. -- ] 20:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

::::It has also been argued that we should get rid of ], ] and ]. ] 20:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::I was referring to the conclusion both talk reached, not whether the discussions had any valid point for changing the policy. Discussion is good, especially in a topic that is easily "abuseable" by a casual user who happens to be browsing around. -- ] 20:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

:::That there is confusion is the point and we should consider that users may not have read things like Misplaced Pages:Fair use criteria. ''I am not arguing that the content should have not been removed''. I am arguing that an indefinite block without warning was a bad idea. A user may think that he or she is correct in replacing poor quality free content with high quality unfree content that he or she thinks it can be used under fair use. It does not matter if the content cannot be used under fair use because that only tells us that the content should be removed. It does not tell us whether an indefinite block without warning was the correct thing to do because that depends on the user's intentions, not whether they are right or wrong about a fair use claim or a policy. That is why I think a block without any warning, especially an indefinite block, is a bad idea in this type of case. -- ] 20:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

:Consensus does seem to be that a note at the article Talk page was insufficient warning that blocks might happen. I'd like to invite further discussion about whether page protection or revert warring are better alterantives. I'm concerned that there seems to remain some confusion about whether or not reverting unfree image cleanup is some kind of individual judgement call, and that we should treat replacing freely-licensed content with unfree content casually. All of that said, if consensus is that blocks shouldn't happen without significantly more warning, I'll commit to not blocking for image use violations without a warning on the user's talk page, and consider this to be a bad block on my part. ] 19:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

::I think that part of the issue is confusion over the meaning of "alternative" in the criteria; this can be interpreted as meaning either ''any'' free image, or ''only'' a free image that is a suitable replacement within the context of the article. In other words, it may be unclear whether we should prefer free images even where there are concerns that their quality is so deficient as to make them useless; or whether we can temporarily retain the fair-use images (in places where we have legitimate claims for such, obviously) until a ''suitable'' free image can be obtained. ] 19:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The non-free image was re-added by ] , and re-removed by me. I request admin action on this. --] 04:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

On the general issue of use of the free image, I feel the standard should be: would we use the free image as the lead photo, if there was no alternative? If the answer is yes, we should only use a free image. The free image does not have to be as good as the non-free image. That's an impossible standard. Very few people/organizations are going to donate professional studio quality photographs to Misplaced Pages, and we shouldn't pretend they ever will. Also, I concede the low quality of the free image. But that's fixable by a industrious Wikipedian either taking a new photo of Harper, or getting somebody who has a photo, to donate it (e.g. a supporter who wants their leader to look good). There's no incentive for such hard work, if we're unwilling to give preference to free images. ] is demanding the free image be as good as the non-free image. But that's unreasonable. It need only be "good enough". Also, I note there's ] option as well. --] 04:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

== Links to racist sites & anti-Islamic POV ==

The article on ] was edited by an anonymous user, who inserted links to the far-right, racist British National Party and included POV statements like "claims to be a moderate but revealed himself to be a born jihadist." It also included unsubstantiated claims of death threats made by Bunglawala to the anti-Islamic far-right weblog Little Green Footballs, which have not, as far as I'm aware, been discussed anywhere but on the aforementioned weblog.

I request that the administrators look over the edit history of the article, investigate the links to the British National Party and Little Green Footballs, and take appropriate action against the user: ].

] 18:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

::Looks to me like simply inputting information that isn't reputably sourced. As offensive as you may find it, in my (non-admin) opinion, its no worse than any other article being edited with nonverifiable content and this user shouldn't be punished more strictly simply because what he input was pov and sourced to a weblog, or deemed anti-islamic. ] 19:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Actually, logging in as anonymous user to input links to racist organisations (namely the ], which has leaders convicted of race-related offences as well as links to Holocaust denial and violent groups) in order to support Islamophobic comments, I believe, is significantly more than just using "nonverifiable content." It's vandalism and abuse. ] 21:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

::::I still don't understand though. In this edit ] inserted initially the information that you're reporting ] for. It was subsequently deleted and readded by several users on quite a few occasions. You're claiming that ] "logged in from an anonymous user to input links to racist organizations" is not in keeping with ]. You'll notice here that the page was blanked by ] and then the user you are claiming is pushing an anti-islamic pov (]) merely reverted the page blanking without adding anything that was not present before the blanking. The only vandalism I see on this page is the intentional blanking of all content by ] which is covered on the ]. What you have here is a content dispute between yourself and several other users. It should be discussed on the talkpage civily and all users should try to work towards a ] on the content of the article. As is now, there is nothing that ] has done on that page that warrants any action by an admin. The IP user was reverting the blanking of a page, not pushing his/her own agenda. ] 22:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

::::'''SIDE NOTE''' ], the user who intiated this report, added the semi-protection tag to the article. ] is not an admin and does not possess the necessary permissions to protect/unprotect pages. I about falsely representing adminship. ] 19:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

== Hipcrime ==

] is a page that seems to be repeatedly subject to image vandalism. The changes are repeatedly reverted and then the reverts are reverted by the vandal. The reverts usually come from open proxies so a vandalism alert template is useless. The page was semi=protected but an admin removed it a while ago. I'd like to request that the semi-protection be reinstated. ] 20:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

==]==
This article is undergoing an edit war - just keeping under the 3RR. Can someone do something else to solve it? ] 23:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

::I have contributed to this article, as have a number of quality editors... The other person reverting, has made no contributions to Montanism whatsoever, but just waded in out of nowhere a couple days ago, and announced that he says the article is no longer "allowed" to start off with "Second century AD" - but rather, must say only "Second century" - leaving the reader to figure out from the context that it is AD and not BC. He has made all kinds of ultimatums to me, including on my talk page, and when I don't answer all of his petty arguments quickly enough or to his satisfation (I really have several much more important tasks than minor details like this), he starts reverting again. Unfortunately, none of the other actual contributors to the article beside myself seem to have noticed, perhaps they are all on vacation this summer. I would love to see what some of the other people who actually wrote the article think about this. ] (]) 01:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Misplaced Pages (and this article in particular) is not of your property. This means that a right contribution made by anyone has the same value as your long-standing contributions. Your complaint, however, shows the way you work. You immediately revert my edits, but "have several much more important tasks than minor details like" answering my comments. Only recently, and after reverting your reverts, I got some kind of attention from you. You gave your points, I countered them (I would say I showed they were wrong or of lesser importance, but this is POV) and you simply told me to wait for "other people who actually wrote the article", after reverting, of course. Is this your way to settle the matter, ignoring other's comments but reverting their edits?--] 01:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't know. But the fact is I have have not "ignored", but have replied to each and every one of your comments, as the record will show. I guess I just didn't respond to your satisfaction. I consider this an minor irritating nuisance over something quite petty, that is beginning to get more than just a little out of hand. I know this article is not my property, and never insinuiated that it was. I am only asking you to please chill out until we can get a third opinion besides yours and mine, preferably from someone who has actually had something to do with the actual article. Thank you again. ] (]) 01:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:I was talking about comments on your ]. I usually avoid using edit summaries to discuss my position, they are not suited for this purpose. And I got angry for the way you had time to revert but not time to answer. You remembered a bit later to talk, and only after reverting to your version.--] 01:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

*Unfortunately, a look at this editor's contributions has shown that he has now taken it upon himself to go all across wikipedia, making sure that "AD" does not appear in any article. Is this not defeating the spirit of the rules regarding Eras??? AD is customary, traditional and explicitly allowed by the rules, it specifies what calendar is being used, even when it is obvious, that's just the way its always been done. ] (]) 21:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

:Dear Mr. ፈቃደ,
:I would like you to understand what other people are doing, before attacking them. I have been removing redundant ADs and CEs, as well as uniforming usage in the articles. I think I need to tell you (because you claim to have no time to read my posts or understand my edits, but you have plenty to revert my edits) that this means that I remove AD/CE where not necessary, inserting them where necessary, and making articles that use both AD and CE to use only one of the two formats (apart special articles that use both, of course). This does not mean that I am deleting AD from all the articles. I also noticed in your talk page, that you have several problems with dealing with others' edits about AD/BC/CE/BCE matter, so, before claiming I am going "spirit of the rules regarding Eras", understand what the MoS says, and meditate on it.
:Thanks. --] 22:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)



], of course... ] (]) 23:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

== Linkspam from user 198.187.154.33 and Robbyfoxxxx ==

] has been adding a commercial link repeatedly to ] and other Romani-related articles. It's a link to a discussion forum for a language course based on a single textbook, and looks like it's meant to drive up sales of the textbook. I've warned him three times with the Spam tags, but he persists. ] 01:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

] has gotten involved and continues to spam the link. ] 01:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:This would probably be best suited for ].--<font style="background:white">]</font> 03:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

== Request for restoration of deleted article to user space ==

Can I get the deleted article ] restored to my user space? Thank you in advance. ] 04:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

:Done - but be careful what you do with it! ] ] 07:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

== We need to scour the Image namespace ==

At ], I summarize the results of a 100-image spin through the namespace. I found that roughly 41% of our images are fair use, and of those, about 93% do not meet the requirements that a rationale and source be provided. More administrators need to be checking on image copyrights and trying to keep the namespace clean. If you don't feel comfortable with copyright issues, there are quite a few resources on Misplaced Pages to explain our policies - get informed and get involved. (])<sup>(])</sup> 06:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:And anybody who is not an admin but feels qualified to make these judgments should feel free to tag the images for deletion or list them here. There's nothing stopping folks from bagging the trash and leaving it outside the janitor's office :-) ] 09:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
::41% of images as fair use is a lot lot higher than most other estimates, which tend to give the figure as less than 10%. Granted that many free use images are now on commons, so the proportion of fair use (which are kept on English Misplaced Pages) will automatically rise. ] ] 09:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:::41% is reasonably consistent with the check of 1800 recent uploads I did back in March: I found just over 50% of new uploads had a fair-use variant license tag. Even if it was only 10% a year ago, the flood of new image uploads would be enough to raise it to 40% today. --] 18:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:Is there a Random article function for images.] 18:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
]. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

:well my servey of 32 images found 46 percent fair use and one unlabled.] 18:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

:Alot of fair use images are being uploaded now and that isn't good in my opinion ] ] 18:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Seven percent meeting the bare minimum of compliance with policy is higher than I expected, but then I spend most of my time looking at the ones that don't. Our sorting and warning about deletion projects could certainly use more involvement, and don't involve admin actions in any way. ] 18:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

:Fair use isn't the only problem though. I know ] is lieing in him image uploads but since he isn't responding to comments on his talk page there isn't much I can do without going through WP:PUI which is time consumeing.] 20:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

::With image undeletion, there's no need for PUI to take two weeks for the obvious cases. That still wouldn't change the fact that it takes longer to go through the steps to get an imagevio deleted than it does to upload it. ] 20:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

== MarkSteere ==

{{vandal|MarkSteere}} created a vanity article which was userfied but speedily recreated in main space, kicked up a fuss about ] and is currently ]. I have an email acknowledging that {{vandal|Advocron}} and {{vandal|CluePuppet}} are sockpuppets of the same user; it is also inconceivable that {{vandal|Mark_Steere}} is anyone else, and {{vandal|PearlMcPurry}} is probably the same person as well (contribs deleted with the {{article|Mark Steere}} article). According to this email, "If I have to choose one of the three names, I'll go with Advocron, since that most accurately describes how I wish to participate - by advocating for people who are ganged up on by deletionists, and whose new articles in my opinion qualify as notable and encyclopedic." In other words, the account was created to ], a point which he has started making at and . I came across CluePuppet because of participation in an AfD, ] - this article was created by a search engine optimisation company to promote a client; I thought it was a sock of the SEO spammer but Steere says otherwise. What, if anything, should we do about this user? ] 13:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
*Indefinitely block all the sockpuppets and leave the main account active. While having sockpuppet accounts is fine, using multiple sockpuppets for the purpose of having additional commentary is not. He's been using these multiple sockpuppets to participate in AfDs & DRVs, and he's also been launching personal attacks against the "evil deletionist cabal". Definitely not good faith. Note: only for accounts that are either self-admitted or confirmed (by CheckUser or whatever). --] ] 14:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
*Mark is disputing some of the sockpuppet accusations (on the Unblock mailing list). I haven't confirmed it with him, but it appears as if he is admitting to ] and ] (] and ] would be assumed). He claims not to know about any other accounts. --] ] 14:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

'''Note:''' As a show of good faith, I've deleted the user pages of ], ], and ]. I don't know if Mark actually wanted the ''accounts'' deleted, but I've explained that it's not possible, and I think he'll be satisfied with having the user pages deleted. --] ] 20:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

] has had a backlog for over 24 hours now. --] 12:10, 7 July 2006 (]]])

== Request on my talk page ==

I had a request on my talk page to take a look at ]. ] has created an individual page for the team roster of every season (], ], and so on). Now, my question is, can these be speedied (for having no real content)? Or do they need to go through AFD? I'm inclined to apply common sense and speedy them, but last time I did that, I got no end of grief. Will have a word with the creator either way. ]<I><B>/</B>/</I><B>/</B><small>]</small> 12:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

:I would say, send them through AfD as a group nomination. They do have content... I don't think the community will ''want'' that content though. ]]<sup>]</sup> 12:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

:Couldn't you just redirect them back to the main article? ] | ] 12:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
::That's what I'd do - they can be split out again if there is anything notable about an individual player list. ] 13:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

== AfD history problems ==

Hi folks, things aren't working the way I thought they would. It seems that ] is a nomination closed on 20 March 2006. When this article was renominated, the nominator didn't create a new AfD, rather, he cleared out the old page and replaced it with a new AfD. I tried to split the two versions by deleting the page and restoring all the edits from 20 March 2006 and back. I then moved this page to ], and restored the latest history to ]. However, things didn't work the way I thought they would, and after multiple attempts to delete, move, and merging histories, I am now left with the old 20 March 2006 AfD, and while the AfD says that there are deleted edits in the article history, when I try to restore the edits, it says that there are no edits in the history! Can a more MediaWiki-savvy admin take a look at this and fix it, then tell me what I should have done? Thanks, --] ] 16:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

:Clear your browser cache. I'll try to split it. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
*Ah, okay, thanks. I saw things were okay, then restored to my last "closed" version, but I'll leave the splitting to you. Please let me know how you did that so I can repeat the steps when I have to do it again in the future. :-) --] ] 16:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
::All done. Just clear your cache before checking the history, and you should be fine. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Great, thanks. It's that damn browser cache. :-P --] ] 17:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
::::In fact, it's the server that's not invalidating the proxies properly. It's a longstanding problem which happens with the history page when you have deletions or undeletions (it shows more often when you are doing a page history merge/split). --] 21:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

== please investigate vandal administrator ] ==
The following pertinent and highly researched links keep getting removed by birdmessenger. I have been blocked a few times by a rougue administrator that vandalizes by the alias: ]
* www.catholic-jhb.org.za/articles/prayers.html List of Catholic Prayers
* www.chabad.org/article.asp?AID=39909 Prayer in Judaism
* www.bahaiprayers.org/ Bahá'í prayers - a list of prayers from the Bahá'í faith.
* www.sacredspace.ie Sacred Space a daily prayer site by the Irish Jesuits, using the Ignatian tradition, a branch of Catholic spirituality dating from the sixteenth century
* www.tlpn.org Live Prayer Network - The largest prayer system on the net, in minutes add live prayer to your site
* www.epray.org Prayer Software - Get prayer, prayer for others and have it sent to any mobile device
* www.liveprayer.com Live Prayer with Bill Keller Live Prayer with Bill Keller

Someone please investigate ]'s history in reference to the ] page.] 02:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

== Third opinion please ==

As entertaining as ], I think it needs an external eye. I have also received an Email from ghirlandajo regarding is "eff off" edit summary, how necessary he is to the project and similar matters, which I will disclose if requested. Ghirlandajo has been warned before (notably in an ArbCom case) about his confrontational editing, uncivility and personal attacks. ] 18:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:I wouldn't necessarily have issued a block of any length for this, but he is being overly aggressive and confrontational. It's clear that you are not in a content dispute (in particular, you did not reinstitute your edit after blocking him), but it would have been better if someone other than the person the "eff off" comment were directed at had conducted the action, since it could be seen as an impassioned response to an insult. ] 19:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
::Actually, I didn't care much for the "eff off" (although his severe issues with WP:OWN are something else). It's really the "troll" comment for leaving a {{tl|civil2}} on his talk that triggered it. ] 19:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:::I think it's quite necessary to impress upon Ghirlandajo the fact that nobody—no matter how many articles they've started—is exempt from the requirement to stay civil. It will be regrettable if the only way to do this is through blocks—it would certainly be much easier for everyone involved if he were to change his behavior of his own volition—but, if nothing else works, I suppose there's not much else to be said. ] 19:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the regretable and totally inappropriate "Fuck off" comment was from months earlier. Please do not use it to justify anything here. Second, eyes at the talk page provided by Circeus are invited indeed. I think admins should avoid borderline actions in cases where they are involved, especially since user:Circeus admits that he ''"mostly hasn't been doing much user-related stuff since becoming an admin and that he needs guidance, so he wants to get some guidances"''. Blocking is the most serious punishment available and one has to be absolutely sure when using it, especially due to an issue where the user involves himself. I regret that Circeus lost temper. I suggest he removes his block himself and if he after ] thinks the block still may be warranted, refers it to other admin's attention at ]. --] 19:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:The Fuck off (or more exactly "eff off", occured today . Within twenty minutes, having done a single revert, I was called a "revert warrior" (see previous diff) and a . Ghirlandajo, with all his edits and experience, and having been warned by the ArbCom, should have, of all people, been aware that such comportments are not accepted on Misplaced Pages. ] 19:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I then agree the remark was inappropriate. The rest of my message stays then, see above. Your referring the case to experienced and uninvolved admins at WP:ANI would have been the proper thing to do. I think you are taking this personally. You have the full right to do so, but not to use Admin tools while at it. Is there any reason not to have others decide on the issue? Please think of it calmly. Whether you self-revert your block or not, I think this is truly a borderline case and you should have posted it to WP:ANI for others to act on it. I do not accuse you in acting unethically. I think you simply lost the temper, also judging for your entries at talk, but that's just my opinion. --] 20:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

::Seems pretty trivial to me (especially considering that Ghirlandajo is not a native speaker of English). Anyway, at least we now know that we ought not disagree with admins, ''or else''... --] 20:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Telex, c'mon. ] 20:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

::::My point is, JK, that even if it was done with the best of motives, it seems more like a revenge block than anything else. As there was interaction (i.e. conflict) in an article editing capacity, I think C was perhaps too involved to be issuing unilateral blocks. IMO he shouldn't have blocked, but asked someone else to review the situation (you maybe). --] 20:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::Actually, Telex, if memory serves, Ghirlandajo has insulted me in the past, so I suggest that your example helps demonstrate the point I was trying to make below. ] 20:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


== Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request ==
Circeus, since you were an involved party, you should take the affair straight here, and not blocking him yourself. My $.02 -- ] <sup>]</sup> 20:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
{{archive top|status=no consensus|result=This has been open for more than a month, much longer than most ban appeals, and it is basically deadlocked, both in numbers and valid arguments. This is therefore closed as not having consensus, which defaults to the block remaining in place. ] ] 21:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}
The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}:
{{tqb|I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: ] and ] (note that the two other accounts –- ] and ] -- at ] was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me.


Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (], ], ]) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at ]). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see ]). I have created over 900 pages (see ]), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance ], ], ], ] or the event ] that is barely mentioned at the English ]. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see ] and ].
:So the way to make sure one never gets blocked for incivility is to just insult every admin who warns you? That's a brilliant system. ] 20:09, 7 July 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'm sorry, I don't get your sarcasm... They were involved in an edit war over Spanish Baroque article prior to that comment. I'm fairly new to Misplaced Pages, but if memory serves, you can't be a judge and a party if you're an admin... -- ] <sup>]</sup> 20:11, 7 July 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}}


== Lardlegwarmers block appeal ==
:::It's very borderline whether there was an edit war; certainly the cause of the block is only tangentially related to the Spanish Baroque article itself. While it would have probably been a cleaner solution for Circeus to bring up the issue here rather than enacting a block personally, the block itself seems quite justified, so it's a fairly minor point. ] 20:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
{{atop
:::: OK, I see your point Kirill. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 20:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
| result = Essentially unanimous consensus to not unblock. ] ] 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


* {{userlinks|Lardlegwarmers}}
I suggest we brush the motives aside. Circeus was right to refer the case to this board. More correctly, he should have gone to WP:ANI and let others, with experience and uninvolvement, to sort it out rather than using the strongest possible tool in his disposal. There is no foul play here. We all loose temper at times. We should simply realize when this is happening and have some ] to cool down instead of pressing buttons. --] 20:17, 7 July 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 ===
*As it is, Ghirlandajo's block should have expired by now. ] 20:21, 7 July 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 ==
Too bad then. Self-reversion by the blocker would have been a useful gesture, even if a symbolic one. --] 20:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = This is not an administrative issue. ] (]/]) 20:56, 16 January 2025 (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.
If someone would be so kind as to look at . I'd prefer avoid any additional interaction with this user. ] 20:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
: I'll try and talk to him... (Incidentally, I already did several days ago because of another incident) -- ] <sup>]</sup> 20:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


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)
== Copyright question ==
: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 ==
This edit shows the insertion of a block of text lifted verbatim from the Catholic Encyclopaedia. Leaving aside the fact that copy & paste of big lumps of text is almost always a sign you are doing something wrong, and the fact that it's part of a POV pushing campaign by {{User|Vaquero100}}, I'd like to know form the copyright spotters here what would be the copyright status of lifting large, uncredited blocks of text from the Catholic Encyclopaedia. I've restored the redirect for now. ] 21:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
{{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)}}


] 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)
:Our article on the ] suggests that it's public domain, so this seems okay from a legal standpoint. The issues of properly crediting the source (e.g. {{tl|1911}}) and of the suitability of such an old text for inclusion are, of course, quite separate. ] 21:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


:So there's two things here.
:Assuming there hasn't been a new version published recently aprox zilch.] 00:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
:* 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)
::Unless I've missed it, and that would mean that I *really* haven't been doing my job, the Catholic Encyclopedia, in it's entirety, is PD. It is, of course, polite to credit the source, but there should be no issue with including the information. It does, however, need to be vigorously fact-checked for accuracy, since it was published before Vatican II and the other sweeping changes of the 20th century. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 06:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
{{Abot}}
:::I'm guessing that weholesale copy-pastes of entire articles should be on Wikisource, not here. ] 12:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


== Ban appeal from Rathfelder ==
::::No we have complete copies of EB1911 articles around.] 12:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


* {{userlinks|Rathfelder}}
== ] vandalism ==
* ] 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:
The page was recently semi-protected, then unprotected. It needs semi-protection again. --] 22:00, 7 July 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)
:I was the one who protected it and subsequently unprotected it during the last disruption. The circumstances at that time involved an uncooperative editor who was ttrying to push a particular POV while attacking other editors, all the while using tons of different IPs. The past days' vandalism are just that, standard good ole fashioned random vandalism, no coherent attacks visible, so protection is not necessary. Just be vigilant. --] - '']'' - ] 08:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
*:In response to this, I ran some basic checks. There's no evidence of socking that I can see in the currently available data. ] ] 15:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Are you permitted to say what time range the available data covers? The default is only 90 days isn't it? ] (]) 16:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::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)
== Major sockpuppeting problems on ] ==
*'''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)
*: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)
*'''Oppose''' as disingenuous. {{blue|The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur}}: obviously it's reassuring to hear this, but there is no acceptance of personal responsibility. "The circumstances made me do it" is not a defence, or explanation. Likewise, {{blue|I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that}} does not do the facts justice. Rathfelder literally socked ''in order'' to be able to call a real life opponent a "]", <s>in wikivoice</s> with a misattributed ] quote. Difficult to imagine an editor of >half a million edits not knowing attribution requirements for BLPs. In fact, on investigation, they obviously do, as the ] {{tl|BLP sources}} template indicates. If there's a Holy Trinity of wrong doing of things that damage the project the most, it's socking,vote stacking and deliberate BlP violations. These things are most dangerous to the project: they erode the trust between editors and the integrity of the consensus-driven decision making process and put WP at risk of at least public embarrassment if not a lawsuit. All of which Rathfelder did. All of which this appeal seems to attempt to explain away by "circumstances". I'm the first to offer rope when deserved, but such a glossing ban appeal, combined with it all happening only a couple of years ago, sets off more alarm bells than the Great Fire of London. There's no need for groveling, just an indication of self-knowledge and actual change. ] ] 12:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I 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)
*::Thanks for drawing my attention; I've clarified my comment. ] ] 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. ] (]) 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. - ] ] 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? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 18:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Serial Number 54129 points to the quote from the piece by Sarah Baxter as the most damning part of his evidence, but Baxter was deputy editor of ''The Times'' when she wrote the article, so it was reasonable to say that that newspaper said that. It may, of course, not be the best way to word things but we don't ban people for that. ] (]) 18:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*:No, I point to far more tahn just that: I point to a refusal to adhere to neutrality in preference for an entire section reading like a hit piece; there were no redeeming features presented, or alternative interpretations suggested. Instead, a Jewish guy was literally called an antisemite, on Misplaced Pages, for Rathfelder's own ends. The quote from Baxter was merely an example, but the whole section was of that ilk. Correct, we don't ban people for poor expression. We ''do'' ban people for deliberately flaunting fundamental policy and attacking living people. It is also insufficient that they have done good work in the past, per {{u|Liz}}; it's not mitigating. Ironically their is a current arbcom case in which some of the most knowledgeable editors in the field are getting topic banned due to behavioral issues. The same principal applies here. ] ] 20:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - The attack page, undisclosed COI, and sockpuppetry were serious offenses. Sometimes it takes a long time to regain trust. ] (]) 20:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


*'''Support'''; willing to allow this editor another chance, hoping they'll understand that the community's tolerance is pretty much gone for any future problems. Rathfelder, if this is successful, when you're finding {{xt|articles in English[REDACTED] which need amendment}}, I'd advise making it your default setting to open a talk section ''before'' making edits if there's any possibility the edit could be objectionable to anyone. ] (]) 15:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
There are some major sockpuppet problems with ], leading to edit warring when even some of the most divergent interests were compromising and proceeding in a ] manner. The page has been semi-protected, but banned user ] has worked around semiprotection by creating new accounts, waiting a few days, and then delving into the fray that he created. It's highly disruptive, and this article was finally starting to see some good progress. I don't have the time to go through the administrative channels, but I would appreciate it if anybody who does have the time, and is interested, would take a look at the issue and try to resolve it in a judicious manner. --] 22:11, 7 July 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 second this post, Hogeye continues to use both open proxies and throwaway accounts to edit on this and other anarchism related articles, and it is getting incredibly annoying. ] 22:13, 7 July 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)
*'''Weak Support''' per RoySmith. It's a short rope, don't abuse it. ] (]) 18:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== Appealing April 4 2024, indefinite WP:CUP ban and indefinite 1-nomination GAN limit ==
==URGENT==
{{atopr
Someone really needs to stop this guy, he is fast deleting every single "AD" from[REDACTED] in express violation of policy. What will it take to get an admin's attention??? ] (]) 22:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
| result = Consensus to lift this ban will not develop. ] (]/]) 22:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:What guy? --]] 22:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
}}
::He is talking about me, it is a continuation to ]. I already answered there, and he duplicated his request with this "URGENT". Note that he is going to revert many of my edits. I am losing my temper with him. (written before following text, blocked by edit conflict)--] 23:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
], of course... ] (]) 23:02, 7 July 2006 (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)


:'''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)
:He was already asked by one admin to "'''STOP IT'''" On the Montanism page... Now he is enforcing his own interpretation of the MOS to decide that AD "isn't allowed" on scored of pages... ] (]) 23:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' and recommend we disallow any further appeals for another year. I'm concerned otherwise we'll just be back here in April. --] (]) 19:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''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==
::I came to the conclusion that is useless to discuss with this guy. He does not read my points, but is promptly reverting most of my edits. I hope something can be done to settle this matter. Thanks.--] 23:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
{{atop
::Lokks like Codex Sinaiticus has a friend, ], who just reverted 15 of my edits, calling them vandalism. What should I do, start reverting them, or this matter is going to be solved?--] 23:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
| 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)
Somebody do something PLEASE!!! He is edit warring with me over the article ]. He wants it to say Paul was born in 9. How is anyone supposed to deduce from that whether Paul was born in 9 AD or BC? I wouldn't even know myself. In the past 20 minutes alone, AD has disapeared from another whole slue of articles. His interpretation of the MOS is overly rigid. ] (]) 23:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:This is an example of CS way of thinking. If I write Paul was born in 9, what does it means? According to Manual of Style, AD/CE year does not require tags, and in this article no other year is BC/BCE. What should I do, stop editing because CS loves to see AD everywhere? As regards Paul, I left AD for the year of birth, as a compromise, but this is going to be ridiculous.--] 23:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


:As you can see they've already been tagged for a deletion discussion yesterday, so there is no need to have a difference notice board also working on it. ]&thinsp;] 21:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::Read it more clearly. AD is acceptable. It is also traditional practice. And the MOS makes a point of saying that crusading across the wiki invading articles and messing with it is seriously frowned upon, because it starts edit wars, as we are now seeing everywhere. Even on the Montanism page where this all started, consensus is to keep the AD. ] (]) 23:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:::This is not the place for this discussion. Let's continue it on ].--] 23:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


== Please Help Me! ==
'''THIS ISSUE IS STILL NOT RESOLVED''' Numerous Admins have pleaded with him to stop, ignoring them, he has now resumed his campaign to delete all AD's that he considers to be redundant. He is also one of thre most argumentative users I have ever seen in 1 1/2 years as a wikipedian. ] (]) 19:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


Hi there, I'm Arav200 and I'm not a new at english Misplaced Pages, Previously I'm editing from ] but due to my old account (Bhairava7) and it's attached gmail are protected from ], so, I'm unable to access my account,Please help me and If administrator transfer userright from my old account to Arav200 then It 'll be helpful for me otherwise after my old account permission will be removed due to after Inactive and I create this account through ] due to Skipcptcha restrictions.Happy editing ] (]) 12:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
==]==
:{{confirmed}} to {{np|Bhairava7}}. --] (]) 12:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Could a disinterested admin please close this discussion? All of the referenced articles besides just the ] article are clear hoaxes and damage Misplaced Pages's reputation. I wouldn't mind seeing the rescinded ] deleted as well, but if not, I'll list it for afd after completion of the George Eyre discussion. ]|] 02:38, 8 July 2006 (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)
== ] copyvio? NN bios ==


== BAG nomination ==
] refuses to respond to ] about his posting of non-notable potential copyvio (they don't look original, but I can't find a web source, I presume they're from books) bios (such as these . Would it be possible to block this user for something like 4-5 hours (he seems to come back every several hours and post 2 more, I presium he's typing them up) with a message to respond to the concerns?--<b>]]<sup>(]ˑ])</sup></b> 02:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


Hi! I have nominated myself for ] membership. Your comments would be appreciated on the ]. Thanks! – ] <small>(])</small> 14:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] and ] - who is the real guy? ==


== I need help from an admin - Urgent ==
It seems that the entries for ] and ] are virtually identical. An IP editor brought it to my attention, and he's right - we've got the same text in both these entries, with the only difference being one says 'Novak' and the other says 'Belitsky.' I think that Novak is the real guy described in the text, but I'm not sure. Someone needs to investigate, because this is kind of embarrassing for the 'pedia. ] ]<font color="darkblue"><sup>•</sup></font>] 03:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
{{atop|1=I'm not sure about oranges from Jaffa, but there's a pack of blocks from Misplaced Pages here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 17:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Dear Misplaced Pages Team,


I need an urgent help concerning a page and information about my project, I'd appreciate if a[REDACTED] admin can contact me to help.
:Well, according to , the Dooli character in the movie ''Haggard'' was played by Brandon Novak, so the Belitsky info seems shaky. ]|] 03:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


Many thanks,
:I've PRODded ]. ]|] 03:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
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 ==
== Block range against ] ==
{{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:
A number of sockpuppet IPs with Leyasu-motives have been coming in from the 86.132.13* range, after the fourth blocked with numerous edits on ]-related pages, I enacted a 24-hours range block. See also ] and ]. ] 03:19, 8 July 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 ==
==User:Robert Steele==
{{hat|1=]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
] says :
{{atop|1=No. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:"I am going to tell you this just once. If you ever again publish anything on OSINT without a reference to my web site, I am going to black ball you where it will really hurt. I consider you to be a world-class dip-shit for failing to credit my work. ] 23:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)" ] 03:30, 8 July 2006 (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)
::I'll go ahead and warn them to mind ] and block if this continues. Thanks ] 03:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
::Now if that isn't simply begging for the removal of all spam links to his website, I don't know what is ;-) ] 12:16, 8 July 2006 (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)
==]==
::@] here is another CFA imposter for you. Cheers! ]&thinsp;] 05:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd like to bring to your attention that a few moments ago, a user has vowed a revert war on the Kosovo article, even though we have discussed it. He wrote: "''Unless we find some kind of compromise, this is going to perpetuate an endless revert war.''" I'm sure you're all aware of the agreements made on the Kosovo article, and I'll paste some text from the talk page by a valued admin:
:::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 ==
''Ferick and Ilir are consistently ignoring a key requirement: '''we report what our sources tell us'''. Our sources tell us, literally without any exceptions, that Kosovo is formally an autonomous province of Serbia under UN administration. See the list under ] above, and as TSO1D says, the CIA World Factbook too. Ferick and Ilir have consistently failed to provide '''any''' reference that says that Kosovo isn't ''de jure'' part of Serbia. Their claims that it isn't are pure ] and simply aren't admissible in the article. -- ] 19:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)''
{{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)
''::Ferick and Ilir have consistently tried to push the POV that (a) Kosovo was part of Yugoslavia, not Serbia; (b) it's not part of Serbia now; and (c) it's only regarded as part of Serbia because of a UN Security Council resolution seven years ago. We've already been through this at length in ]. Neither Ferick nor Ilir have provided any evidence to support their claims and they've consistently failed to explain why they are right and every other source - encyclopedias, books, newspaper reports - is wrong. Without sources, their claims are simply unverifiable and constitute original research, which are disallowed under two of Misplaced Pages's fundamental policies, ] and ]. -- ] 22:47, 5 July 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)
To all these arguments, Ferick has acted very dismissively, and is now threatening a revert war. I say we stop this before it escalates into a full-scale revert war, lock the page or block Ferick (and I prefer that you block Ferick) --] 05:01, 8 July 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}}


==Quick jumping to blocks== == User:TWC DC1 ==
{{atop
The trend to use blocks more liberally has been here for a while and, generally, I view it as a good thing. When I came here, 3RR and ArbCom was about the only source of blocks. Misplaced Pages changed and the policies written originally became outdated. This is all fine and understandable. Admins now issue blocks at once when the bad-faith behavior seems obvious to them or even for other less clear-cut reason. Again, I don't object to this trend. With more and more editors involved in Misplaced Pages, the danger of loosing potential edits became of lesser priority but the benefit from preventing the disruption outweighs the cost. However, certain blocks alarm me and I request trigger-happy admins, as well as anyone interested to calmly consider the following case-studies below. Recently, four valuable editors have received some short and medium blocks: {{user|Lysy}}, {{User|Mikkalai}}, {{User|Ghirlandajo}} and {{user|Piotrus}}.
| 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)
The first user in the list (blocked now for 8 hours) have shown some clear head and good judgement despite his having rather strong views on the issues. The other three (each of them having their own issues no doubt) are WIkipedia's Golden Contributors, true treasures of Misplaced Pages by the amount of the exceptional quality content they add to it on the daily basis. Take out those three and perhaps 10 more people, and Misplaced Pages would lose about half of its value. Since, according to ] the blocks of users with substantial history of valuable contributions are "always controversial", proper examination of these blocks should not be taken as an offense by the admins involved.
{{abot}}


== G7 request by a blocked account ==
Let's have a quick look at these 4 block histories:
{{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)
*{{user|Lysy}} was involved in the edit war today over ] article. User:Donnog reverted there 4 times but Lysy reverted three times. Lysy was assisted by ] who reverted once, thus getting an advantage in the revert war. Lysy ] and following which {{Admin|Stifle}} (status held since March 2006) blocked ''both'' for 8 hours. Lysy, now grossly offended, requests an apology and the one doesn't seem coming. Lysy is obviously aggravated. The polite warning to him would have certainly have the effect without aggravation.
{{abot}}
*{{user|Mikkalai}} was involved into an edit conflict with {{user-full|Nixer}} at the ] article this June (see ). Nixer has been a problem user for Misplaced Pages most of the time which is not an excuse for Mikka but should have be taken into account in making a decision on acting against Mikka. Also, an extremely high value of Mikka's contributions is unquestionable. Mikka was blocked at the time by {{Admin|Samuel Blanning}} in status also only since March 2006. Mikka and the issue is closed. Mikka's previous block, much more controversial was issued by {{admin|Ronline}}, a newbie at the time. That block caused quite a stir, especially since Mikka was reverting {{vandal|Bonaparte}} who was abusing the articles though open proxies IPs to avoid 3RR. Many people remember that block, Mikka behaved as really and seriously offended and demanded an apology, which was never issued. I was very much afraid that we are loosing this invaluable Wikipedian. Thanks god, things cooled off and Mikka is around, one of the most valuable editors and no-nonsense admins
*{{user|Ghirlandajo}} was involved today in the edit conflict with {{Admin|Circeus}} over the ], an especially fine article Ghirla ]. A word needs to be said about Ghirla. For his contributions see his userpage. His value of one of the most knowledgeable, dedicated and prolific editor is unquestionable. At the same time, the user is often rather opinionated and, at times, even rude. His immense positive impact overall is no excuse for the occasionally short temper, which I am pointing out myself before someone comes here and starts to deflect the discussion into the civility issues. I do acknowledge them. Now, back to the issue. Following the edit conflict, and a unnecessary harsh reaction of Ghirla (which I don't condone) to the meaningless (IMO) edit of {{user|Circeus}}, the latter places a "template:Civil" warning to Ghirla's talk. Now, this action is easy to perceive a provocation. The patronizing templates like "test", "vand", "civil" were not intended to be used to communicate to anyone but the newbies. Furious Ghirla responded by calling the template placement "trollish" and Circeus who feels offended responds with a block(!). An ensues and more is said at ] . Judging from the reaction, several users found the block unnecessary. It is also notable that Circeus, like the admins above, is a relative newbie, who said himself on this matter "". However, the natural thing to do in such case, especially if one feels like the guidance would be helpful, is posting a notification of the problem to ]. This wasn't done. Block was issued and only then the guidance was sought. Please read the entire section above.
*{{User|Piotrus}} is one of the most prolific and knowledgeable contributor to the Polish topics, also one of more neutral ones (we can only be neutral to a degree when writing about own nation). Last April he was blocked for an edit conflict at the ]. The conflict was obviously with a Sock, a new account that did nothing but edit warred with Piotrus and quickly ran to WP:3RR with a report. was issued by {{Admin|William M. Connolley}}, not exactly a newbie Admin but known for being exceptionally stern in throwing blocks including the lengthy ones (I do not consider that bad per se, to the contrary, old policies with soft approach are outdated). However, the admin did not bother to check what was going on, to see that a conflicting party was an obvious sock, something he must have done when dealing with an editor like Piotrus. Also, why was a polite warning not sufficient?
*A little different case, but on the same topic. In April {{Vandal|Bonaparte}}, who though blocked, keeps returning through new open proxies and sockpuppets, produced a false report on myself alleging a 3RR violation at ]. Those 4 edits he produced where not within a 24 hour time frame to begin with, of those only two were reverts, and reverts were not about the content dispute, but on the POV-tag the sock was reinserting to a well sourced article refusing to give a required by the tag explanation at talk. A detailed analysis is but the overall issue is similar. There were plenty of red flags to give a complaint a detailed analysis (submitted by a non-use IP accountr, time stamps in complaint missing, etc) and still the analysis was not done.
I could see how nice it could feel to decide who to punish and who to spare, but getting into judging the issues requires an utmost responsible and careful approach. Studying the matter carefully instead of making a hasty decision should be a must. Yes, people are busy, but no one requires from any admin to frequently check WP:3R and WP:ANI and impose blocks on the problem users. If one doesn't have time to do it with care, better not do it. There are plenty of other admins. If one takes upon himself to enforce the rules whose misapplication is emotionally sensitive to the editors involved, he should take an extra time to study the matter. We've seen the aggravation of some very respected editors for being illegitimately blocked or chastised on the sock/troll provocation or by the conflict co-participant or otherwise inappropriately when the blocking Admin didn't care to study the matter or was too eager to exercise the powers, or lost his temper or because those powers were newfound or because they were acquired too long ago to remember about the responsibilities that come with them.


== Sapo.pt ==
To summarize, I do not advocate any special treatment for anyone just because of his past contributions. Violators should be punished. I also do not advocate the return to softer treatment times. Blocks by judgement are necessary. However, no block should be issued in haste or when someone's own head is hot. Such a common sense rule as studying the matter, especially when the user is established enough to be sure he knew what he was doing (perhaps there were reasons), is no less necessary as before when the blocks were more rare. I submit these thoughts hoping they would help to decrease an amount of future aggravations for all of us. --] 06:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
*{{articlelinks|Sapo.pt}}
:'''Note to admins: It's a good read''' --]] 06:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Could an admin undelete that redirect? Thanks ] (]) 08:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::Indeed. I have unblocked Lysy, but it is mostly a symbolic gesture as his block was about to expire anyway. I do not think he deserved this block anyway. In the other three cases the blocks have expired, so now we have to mend the hurt feelings of the extremely productive users. People who work more on Misplaced Pages then on their paid jobs see us, admins, as the people who owe them some gratitude and respect, it is worth to spend a few more minutes before taking an administrative action if we can make solve a problem in a more respectful way. It is easier say than done, obviously ( I am afraid I am guilty in a harsh 3RR block as well), but lets try. ] 06:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
:{{done}} ] <sub>]</sub> 08:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*I will make one comment on factual matters, that is that ] requested an apology on my talk page fifteen minutes ago, and this was the very first I had heard of it so could not be expected to make one by the time of this post. ] (]) 21:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
*After consideration, I wish to observe that blocking Lysy did not serve a useful purpose and was incorrect on my behalf. However, I remain on record as saying that he revert warred. I also wish to note that Alex Bakharev neglected to consult or even notify me about unblocking Lysy. For now, though, everything is at its desired state. ] (]) 21:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


== Proxy question ==
Your block of Lysy is only a part of the problem. Pity, there is little interest to what I wrote from others and little feedback. If others don't see the need to avoid aggravating valuable editors ''unnecessarily'' by acting hastily and enjoy feeling great by deciding whom to spare and whom to punish without due care, we will be loosing editors that we could have kept. So be it if others don't see the problem caused by simply lack of due diligence in disposing of admin duties that has so sensitive consequence. --] 04:35, 9 July 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)
== Don't like doing new article or speedy delete patrol? You're missing out. ==
:You can report IPs that you suspect of being proxies at ]. ] (]/]) 21:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
] - '']'' - ] 10:27, 8 July 2006 (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 ==
Seriously. Every once in awhile you get some priceless jems that you never want to let go of. Serve your community! =D
:''Pandaroo is a very attractive girl who is very nice and very fun. She was born on June 7th 1988 and lives in California. She has just graduated from high school and is now moving on to college. she spends most of her time photographing different sceneries and photoshopping them as well. On rare occasions, she enters 64digits.com, and leaves her mark, which is looked foward to by the guys of 64 digits.''
Speedy deletion needs YOU! --]] 09:47, 8 July 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)
I've heard rumors of a listing of new pages, but rarely see any reference to it and never a link. How would one find such a creature? ] 10:39, 8 July 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 ==
:You can find it several ways. One is that people with Cologne Blue (and I assume some of the other themes) have a link to "New pages" on the left hand side (or somewhere on the page). ] is the direct link for the page. It's also on the ] listing. I used to be a patroller of the page. Kind of gotten out of the habit recently. --]<sup>]</sup> 11:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


{{atop | result = Stray page deleted <small>(])</small> ] (]) 14:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC) }}
== Sneaky vandal to be aware of ==
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 ==
The blocked user {{userlinks|HeadleyDown}} (under whatever names he edits) is likely to be looking for another area of Misplaced Pages to attack, having been blocked multiple times in as many months.


{{Userlinks|2601AC47}} {{Pagelinks|Deb Matthews}} {{Pagelinks|Ministry of Education (Ontario)}}
This note being posted because of his extremely subtle approach to extremely destructive vandalism, and the way he gradually drives ''bona fide'' editors off Misplaced Pages. He is almost impossible to spot (appears to be "just another POV editor with personal attack tendencies") unless you have seen his "style" elsewhere before. Editors ultimately burn out either from AGF, from wikistress, or from rebutting personal attacks.


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.
Please ], to become familiar with his approach, in case articles you work on (or try to resolve disputes on) are affected in this manner.


I have discussed with the user on ]. The user refused to change the summaries. ] (]) 19:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
User has gradually tried (successfully) to destroy a number of articles, and burned out a number of administrators and article mentors, before being identified as a specific problem. With a long history (18 months+) of this activity, two RFArb's, and having just been removed from two articles, there's little doubt he plans to continue if he is able. Hence this post.


: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)
] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 12:30, 8 July 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)
:::::::::::::Consensus disagrees: ] ] (]) 17:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Consensus? The closing statement sums up consensus, and it certainly doesn't disagree. ] (]) 18:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::As a relatively new editor for 1 year with only 5400+ edits compared to the other fellows here, I have not once been blocked or had a significant conflict with a more experienced editor than me. At some point, if the community comes to scrutinize the editing and mistakes that you've made, you'll have to recognize that the problem is with ''you'', not the culture. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 04:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::You have a conflict with me and I've been editing since 2021. Your statement is inaccurate. ] (]) 16:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Note that I said "experienced", not "older". ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 16:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::What purposes does this have other than to be inflammatory? I'm not going to ] to you and other editors just because you've decided they're more experienced. ] (]) 17:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Given this response, I'd say the consensus is correct that the problem here is you, Legend. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::As has been offered to you multiple times Legend, please consider reviewing ]. You might find it helpful. ]&thinsp;] 20:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:Too much to read. Is this about the wording of the closing statement? ] (]) 16:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::And about Legend and I over that. Looks like Legend's had enough, anyway (I wish them well elsewhere). <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 16:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::They tried that stunt ]. If they're going to engage in a pattern of making disruptive edits and then retiring when anyone (read: everyone) criticizes them, someone should probably just indef. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Agreed. This user has an established habit of walking away from a conversation, only to come back a day or two later and continue the same sort of disruption. Shall we extend another inch of rope? I wouldn't be against giving a <s>second</s> <s>third </s> n-th time chance, but perhaps the next controversy should be a swift block? Or has the community already had enough? ]&thinsp;] 18:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::Yes. ] (]) 16:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*I disagree with blocking this editor when they actually haven't violated any policy that I'm aware of. I actually don't want them to leave and think they could be a constructive editor if they would spend less time policing other editors and spend more time improving articles, and avoid the drama boards.
:We can enforce guidelines about civility, ], but I don't think the "respect" you expect to receive can be found anywhere on the Internet. People are blunt and sometimes grumpy. And those of us who have been here a long time have been called all sorts of names, disputes can bring out some nasty behavior, this is not personal to you. I just think that expecting to be respected here, on Misplaced Pages, just comes over time with proving that you are a consistently productive contributor. It can take years to earn other editors' trust and respect and, if you make a colossal mistake, it can also disappear. I just think that you have an overly sensitive gauge of other people's respect for you and if you want to contribute to this project, it has to be because you like to edit, whether or not other people respect you in the way you seem to understand "respect". Remember, this is not utopia, it's just a website on the internet. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::I check back and I'm facing sanctions. I wasn't planning on making any more edits, but I guess I should. The allegations are too vague for me to defend myself. There's no policy being cited or diffs, so I have no idea what's being alleged.
::My decision to stop editing is rooted in the fact that I cannot avoid challenges to my edits, and I cannot avoid being dismissed based on either unrelated grievances when I stand up for myself and my edits.
::Timeline of how this ended up here:
::*Jan 15 I make edits to 5 articles related to content about living people
::*Jan 16 I get reverted 5 times by Adam Bishop. I go to 2 article talk pages to discuss the reverts and Bishop's talk page.
::*Jan 17 I get reverted on the 2 article talk pages by Bishop. I go to BLPN as Bishop is stopping me from using talk pages. 2 of my discussions get closed by 2601AC47.
::*Jan 21 I ask 2601AC47 to change the summaries. My request is denied.
::I've been reverted 9 times by 2601AC47. They did not explain why for 3 reverts https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:2601AC47&diff=prev&oldid=1270067565 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:2601AC47&diff=next&oldid=1270067565. My thread got closed because of "Not helpful of the editor in question". ]
::An article I made got nominated for deletion. My reasons for why the article should stay gets dismissed because the user has a list of grievances against me https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Deb_Hutton_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=1270475022.
::I got criticized on my talk page for daring to challenge a more "experienced editor". https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270062605
::I face repeated complaints for trying uphold a civil environment on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270076126 ] ]
::I get challenged, and then when I defend myself I get dismissed for uncivil reasons or ignored, over and over again. This is not an environment where I can edit, where I face endless criticism for valid decisions (like those on my talk pages), can get randomly reverted for no given reason at any time, and get threatened with sanctions if I keep standing up in the face of the uncivil comments. But, there's always a reason why nothing should be done about the uncivil behaviour. My work can just be undone, I can't defend myself or my edits, and the message of shut up or get sanctioned has been very prevalent. That's why I said I'm not wanted here and why I'm done editing. It has become clear to me that no outcome here leads to this being an environment which isn't having a negative impact on me. ] (]) 16:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You may have overlooked what I wrote yesterday to you. Either way, I'm sure that we've tried hard <u>not</u> to be {{tq|uncivil}}.
:::<small>But really: With all due respect to you (what little you've left me with), I hope one day you can let this go and begin the path to becoming a better person.</small> <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 17:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Who's we? I wasn't aware that you were authorized to speak on behalf of other editors. Please share who you are representing. ] (]) 17:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::2601AC47 simply read the discussion and said what he thinks about it. It's clear that "we" simply means all of the editors with whom you are arguing, rather than anyone they are representing. Anyway, it seems you were not telling the truth when you said "I'm done editing". ] (]) 18:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I only came back because sanctions were proposed against me. As soon as the threat of sanctions is gone, I'll leave again. ] (]) 19:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::At this rate, unless you have something to prove yourself here ''or'' you actually take into consideration what we've told you for the last 8 days and get working in peace, those {{tq|sanctions}} may include a block from Misplaced Pages, which is possible given the circumstances and, as ] as of now, can be enforced to {{tq|encourage a more productive, congenial editing style}}. If you believe that block that may come will be unjustified (and I doubt that), you can usually ] and explain your perspective as you should. Otherwise, again, I wish you well and hope you'll understand that you're not being targeted (although you should be aware ]); <small>(struggles to think of a closing sentence)</small> farewell, Legend. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 19:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::But nobody on Misplaced Pages can take away your life, liberty or money; the most severe sanction they can impose is to stop you editing one web site, which you want to do anyway. What is the point of continuing to post to this discussion? ] (]) 20:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
{{ping|Legend of 14}} recommend you walk away from the topic area-in-question, if you're not retiring. From what I'm seeing, rightly or wrongly the other editors are growing frustrated with you. ] (]) 17:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


===Proposal: ] block for Legend of 14===
*Thanks for the info, FT2! ~] <sup>(])</sup> 01:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Competence in working on a collaborative project includes being able to listen and take in what other people are telling you. Legend of 14 does not seem to be able to do that. Since they have already expressed an intention to retire, it should not be a hardship to them if they are unable to edit due to a community ban. ] (]) 19:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' As proposer. ] (]) 19:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


*'''Oppose''' The statement is false and unsubstantiated. I have listened. People didn't want me removing uncited election results, I stopped removing election results. People didn't want me removing uncited ] content from ] I listened. ] (]) 19:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
== Uncooperative user ==
*'''Support''' a short-term block to prevent further disruption and to further assist them with their claimed retirement. They continue to be disruptive to the project, and their tenacious argumentative approach here demonstrates this extremely clearly. While I previously supported giving a second chance (see above), their complete inability to drop the stick and cannot even make up their mind about retirement, other than a veiled threat about leaving. They have shown a failure of CIR when it comes to consensus building, largely because they presume bad faith and assume people are being uncivil. Without the ability to demonstrate the ability to build consensus and presume good faith, they should not be permitted to continue to disrupt the project. And of course, I am tired of their aspirations being cast against me, and others, without merit. They assert that those who disagree with their accusations are also in collusion against them. The number of experienced editors who are speaking against this editor seems to be a clear ] situation. ]&thinsp;] 20:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
If there is a more appropriate place to put this, please let me know. ] has been adding his to the ] article. I promptly removed it, citing ] because the message board has under 100 posts and fewer than 25 registered members. Before this, he made some nasty remarks on the ] that led me to believe he's more interested in advertising his website than following policy. He , saying that my revert was a personal attack on him. I do not want to engage in an edit war, but it's clear this guy will keep adding his fansite regardless of policy. What's the most appropriate action to take in this case? ] (<sup>]</sup> | <small>]</small> | <sub><span class="plainlinks"></span></sub>) 13:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''If this is still going on support''' I remember the Ministry of Education (Ontario) discussion - which I was pretty involved in - and the whole thing was quite silly. Lo14 was insistent on uncited start and end dates for education ministers in Ontario being an urgent BLP issue but, rather than finding sources for those start and end dates for four ministers under the current government, kept deleting the content and getting into long arguments about the urgency. I think, at one point, I mentioned that they'd spent longer arguing about the problem than it would have taken to properly fix it. I'll be honest that I kind of tuned out after that. But it's been long enough that if Lo14 is still insisting on their course of action then, yeah, it's time for a short block. Not an indef. Just something to give them perspective that not everything is a life or death emergency - even for BLPs. ] (]) 20:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:Upon reading the history of this page again, I think this user believes that I am operating a competing message board, and am removing his message board out of spite. I assure you this is not the case, as I often remove non notable fansites from articles (search for the phrase ''WP:EL'' in my ]). ] (<sup>]</sup> | <small>]</small> | <sub><span class="plainlinks"></span></sub>) 13:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
*:It's not. ] (]) 20:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' I have read this entire discussion and the two BLPN noticeboard ones referenced and previously at least one other AN or ANI discussion; i believe Legend is teetering close to a block, but i do not support it nor, most definitely, a ban. But, {{U|Legend of 14}}, i do urge you to take a few hours away, overnight or a day, and then reread what has been written by way of advice and try to see it that way. I'm not sure if you have had (or have) a mentor, but finding an experienced editor who is willing to answer a few questions and give a little advice on your plans and potential actions would probably be a very good thing to consider and do ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 20:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*:You might want to also have a look at their un-redacted talk page and also their constant bad faith and casting aspirations of other editors, as recently as today. ]&thinsp;] 20:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== How do we handle Israel Palestine new articles created by non ECP editors nowadays? ==
== Harrassment link on user talk page. ==


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?
Can someone look at User Chadbryant's talk page, under the Paragraph "Notice to Admins".
He has a link to what can best be described as a libelous hate site about a person he apparently has a real life issue with. This looks totally out of line with Misplaced Pages policy.


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)
Talk page in question.
* No, it doesn't. If it ''was'' (for example) a Hamas member, different admins appear to take different routes. Such articles ''should'' be deleted per ARBECR, but if it was a completely neutral well written article whose very existence wasn't a contentious one, I'd be tempted to let it slide. YMMV. ] 21:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*:It might fall under ]. ] (]/]) 22:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Hezbollah is a belligerent in the Arab–Israeli conflict, so, probably. However, per ] ¶&nbsp;A2, {{tqq|Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.}} <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 23:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::As long as the article is acceptable, this is what ] is for. Notify the creator about the ECR restrictions, template the article talk page, and call it good. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Given that they were specifically when they created another Hezzbollah-related article in November, and were advised of ] at the same time, this seems like a deliberate breach. ] ] 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::In ''that'' case, it should probably be nuked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Administrators are never required to use their tools; no ignoring of rules is needed to simply not take action. ] (]) 00:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


: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)
Link to the website itself.


*'''Delete''' ASAP and don't look back. Re: "''does this even fall under the umbrella of Israel Palestine''" An article about a leader of Hezzbolah? Seriously? Yes. ] (]) 18:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
] 14:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


*'''Delete''' and block {{np|BasselHarfouch}} site-wide for continued violations. --] (]) 19:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
== Unblock requests ==


== Archive bots ==
I've seen a few unblock requests, and no consistent way of handling them (from a simple technical standpoint, what to do with the unblock request template). I made {{template|Unblock denied}} as an idea for how to handle this - replace {{template|unblock}} with {{{{template|Unblock denied}} and add the reasons for declining. This keeps the unbblock argument intact and removes from the unblock category. Let me know if this is a good idea. ] 18:33, 8 July 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)
:Yes, this is a thorny problem. Another question is how to handle repeated unblock requests from the same user. To my mind it is reasonable for a blocked user to request a second opinion after one admin has rejected an unblock request but when two or more admins have declined it I suppose it's reasonable to short-circuit further appeals (keeping in mind that the blocked user can still post to the mailing list). ] 19:02, 8 July 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. ==
::Rather than 'number of admins' I'd suggest some sort of 'passage of time' measure. If a group of ordinary users get into a content dispute with some admins and are blocked for it they shouldn't be barred from requesting unblock because the involved admins declined their request (which I have seen done). Maybe put a timestamp on 'unblock' that expires (and removes them from the category) after 12 hours or somesuch. --] 19:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
{{atop|1=We know to keep an eye out for "neturality police" IPs/new editors. Speculation on anything more should be left to the WMF per ] (and, indeed, ]). - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
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 ==
:::That's actually an excellent idea. ] 19:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
{{atop
:I like the idea. People declining requests are often leaving the unblock template active to allow for a second opinion. If we add a category for declined requests to your template, then we can decline an unblock, use your template, and still allow for someone else to come around to give a second opinion. ] 19:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
| 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)
:That has the exact same problem - removing the {{tl|unblock}} is inviting reversion. Why not just leave it '''and''' deny it? --] (] - ]) 19:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Disruptive editor ==
::Well, sure, but we've got to remove it at some point or the category will get hopelessly cluttered. What solution do you propose to that? ] 19:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
{{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)
:::Not sure - maybe something substed by day like prod? Or you could do what some IRC folks do for {{tl|helpme}} - have an IRC bot that monitors the cat for new additions and advertises them in a channel. --] (] - ]) 19:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Community assuming the block on Crouch, Swale ==
::::Okay, now you're talking. Prod templates live for five days, how long do you think it's reasonable to let unblock templates live? ] 19:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


Crouch, Swale was for multiple accounts in 2011 and this was later upgraded to a ]. In ] they were unblocked by ArbCom with a whole string of conditions. They then become an annual appellant to ArbCom to reduce or eliminate those conditions. In ], Crouch, Swale went to ArbCom asking for a site ban. ArbCom declined. Multiple admins, including me, tried to convince him that a site ban was not a good idea. Admins, including me, told him if he wanted a break we would block him . Ultimately he asked me to block him for a few days, which I did. Yesterday, he was back at ] and after questioning on his talk page basically ] he was willing to harass and otherwise violate policies in order to achieve his ends of getting a site ban. {{u|ToBeFree}} correctly indeffed him for this. It is with no pleasure that I come here asking the community to essentially assume this block and turn it into a site ban. For reasons I don't understand, and am sad to see, this user clearly wanted to be given a forced break from Misplaced Pages. Given the long history with this user, and since there has been no mention of ArbCom choosing to assume the block themselves, I think it would be better for the community to decide if/how/when Couch Swale returns to English Misplaced Pages, rather than individual admins through the normal appeals process. Best, ] (]) 03:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::You could leave them indefinitely and simply only use the recent categories. --] (] - ]) 19:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. There are too many missing dots here. {{U|Crouch, Swale}}'s editing conditions from the 2017 unblock are listed as:
::one account restriction
::topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions
::prohibition on moving or renaming pages (except within their own userspace)
::prohibition on creating new pages, including creating articles on pages where one didn't previously exist (except within their own userspace and talk pages of existing pages in any namespace).
:That list does not on the face of it suggest a tremendously disruptive editor; and has Crouch, Swale been adhering to these rules? If so, what's the big issue with relaxing the restrictions; has the editor made very deficient appeals? He came to my attention talking kindly and constructively with a problem editor. How did we come to the point where a week or so later, he's demanding a 10-year block? I can't help suspecting a bureaucratic glitch in handling his appeals. What am I missing prior to the threat to be maximally disruptive that makes this editor a candidate for a permaban? ] (]) 04:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::'''Comment:''' I've taken a look myself and they had restrictions lessened in 2022.
::They then went to ] with an ultimatum: remove the restrictions or block me for a decade - if you don't, I'll disrupt the site (forgive me for saying this, but it feels like blackmail).
::Since the appeal didn't include any evidence (or appeal) it was rejected as insufficient.
::I get their frustration, but I'm very concerned that they dialled things straight up to 11 and are willing to cause significant problems for others (including doxxing, see the link) just to get their own way.


:: Then again, looking at the December appeal, they very clearly want to be banned and have refused every other alternative offered. I don't know what's going on in the background but I'm thinking this is something they should probably have since they're very clear and consistent in their request for a full-on ban - if they don't want to explain why, then should we be pressing for one, especially after so many people have already asked? It could be an addiction (as suggested in the December diff above) in which case they're asking for help and refusing could be causing them harm. I have personal experience in this area and this feels awfully familiar - if they're asking for help then we should give it if we can. ] (]) 04:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::What I've often seen is admins enclosing the <nowiki>{{unblock}}</nowiki> template in &lt;nowiki&gt; tags and providing an explanation of the denial rationale immediately underneath. That lets other admins see that a request was made and denied. ](]) 19:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
:::The problem is that when you do that you remove the user from the category, so if you use the category to find who is requesting to be unblocked, this user will no longer be listed. ] 19:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
::::That's rather the point&mdash;it keeps the category from getting clogged up. An editor can seek a 'second opinion' by restoring the template with an explanation why the first admin's review was mistaken, or can pursue any of the other methods of requesting an unblock (email the blocking admin, email to the mailing list, query on IRC, etc.) ](]) 21:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::That's also what leads to a revert war - the blocked editor places it back, and the admin that denied denies it again. --] (] - ]) 21:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


* I am not enthusiastic about this, can we not just let them go? --] (]) 13:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
== What are the "sandboxes"? ==
*:Likewise. I'm not convinced that the threats were something they had any intention of carrying through with, so I'm not convinced that anything more than the current block is necessary to protect the project nor that there would be any other benefits.
*:@] Crouch, Swale has made many appeals over the years to get their restrictions loosened and/or removed (look at pretty much every recent ARCA archive covering a January). The basic reason they have not been successful is that they haven't demonstrated an understanding of why the restrictions were imposed in the first place, which multiple people feel is a necessary precursor to being confident the problems won't reoccur - the only problems being a fundamental disconnect between them and basically everybody else about how Misplaced Pages should cover low-level UK administrative geography. Outside of that topic area they are a very good editor who is (normally) a very clear net benefit to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 13:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support the site ban''' that they themself seem to request. The editor appears to be a net negative to the project on account of the volunteer time absorbed by their antics. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' - Something seems really off here. What could Crouch, Swale gain from demanding a site ban and deciding to be a pain in the arse until he gets his way? I wonder if he's going thru some sort of crisis in his normal life and he sees Misplaced Pages as a distraction that exacerbates it, and doesn't realise just how difficult it would be to come back from a full siteban as opposed to an indefinite block. Blocks on request is one thing - you can at least quickly request a return with a convincing unblock request. If he wants to come back from an unban, then he'll have to go thru a community discussion that will very likely reopen old wounds and end with him being told "no" in very clear terms. I would rather give him the option to come back as painlessly as possible as opposed to being sent off on a train to nowhere while workers rip up the tracks behind it. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 17:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*This seems like a bad idea. ToBeFree solved the problem, no need to escalate this further unless C,S escalates. Let's not back someone who is apparently hurting into an unnecessary corner. --] (]) 17:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - If he wants a site-ban, then give'em what he wants. It's that or put up with his wasting the community's time. ] (]) 17:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


:'''Oppose''' as solution in search of a problem. The block that TBF implemented prevents the threatened disruption. Crouch ‘’can’’ be a productive editor when they choose. Let’s not make it harder for them to come back when they’re ready. ] ] 17:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
I think I finally managed to find the correct place to ask this question. Basically, I'm not exactly sure what your website does and I wasn't sure it was true you could simply go edit a page. I gave it a go as a sort of test and some "messages" flagged up saying I was a "vandal" for just trying something out and got ordered to go to some "sandboxes". I wasn't linked to the said "sandboxes" and I had a look around but I couldn't seem to find any "sandboxes" or what exactly they entail.
*'''Oppose''' I refused to block him as an Arb because I felt he was seeking "suicide by ArbCom." His latest post was somewhere between manipulative and cry for help. If he had put forth a good request to remove his restrictions, I'd have said yes. He seems like someone in crisis, making bad decisions. Perhaps a reason to block them for their own good until they stabilize, but not a reason to community ban them. Crouch is an excellent editor otherwise and has contributed very extensively to niche UK topics. ] <sup>]</sup>] 17:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I'm torn because I do think that Sandstein and GoodDay have a point; the amount of time and energy he has consumed with this is already a bit disruptive. But the fact is that he's currently blocked, which has ended this; concerns that he could, I don't know, pretend to be reformed to get an admin to let him back in and then cause disruption seems too theoretical to justify action by the community. A community ban wouldn't give them what they want, anyway; it's ''hard'' to appeal, but still quite possible to do so at any time - and honestly the reaction here makes it clear that if this passed, and Crouch later came back to the community saying they've recovered from whatever and now wants to be let back in, we'd probably still grant it, it'd just waste even more community time and effort. --] (]) 18:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*:By "oppose", are you opposing the site ban or the regular block? ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 20:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - the entire motivation of this bizarre campaign seems to be no more than to waste editors' time. Requiring them to appeal to the community will waste even more. They should stay blocked, and legal should be notified about the threats of libel and doxxing. We don't owe them anything. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 18:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Those weren't really threats about libel and doxxing; they were just saying whatever they thought necessary to get blocked. Please let's not sic legal on them. Timesink or not, there's still room in this Trumpified world for a little compassion. ] (]) 20:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' This whole situation is just weird. I was reading ] for an unrelated reason and looked at the Crouch, Swale thread out of curiosity and it was one of the most perplexing things I've ever seen at WP. I haven't the first clue why they didn't just do what was suggested at AE and provide a justification for a lift of their account restrictions rather than setting an unprecedented ultimatum. Regardless I don't think it should be on the community to give assent to this silliness. ] (]) 21:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== WMF research on admins ==
I'd also like to ask what "vandalism" is in this regard. I've also envisaged vandalism to be ostensibly linked with spray cans and walls. If I caused some kind of permanent and serious damage by trying things out then you have my apologies.


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)
Any assistance will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. -- Paul Simms
:Hello, ], I am interested but busy. Is there a summary to this 70 page paper you could link to? Is this report a result of the questionnaire they sent out last autumn? Thanks for informing us about it. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::I admit I haven't read the 70 pages yet either. It's on my ever growing to-do list. I don't think there's a summary that's been released yet (if there ends up being one, it'll probably be at ]). This is indeed about the mass questionnaire/interviews that were going on last year. ] ] 04:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::The first 18 pages are a summary of the rest of the document. The good news is that apparently our admin corps is demographically reflective of the wider editor pool in all measured aspects except age. ] (]) 04:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Do we lean older or younger? ] ] 04:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Admins average older than editors and readers. ] (]) 04:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::An addendum: it's not in the summary but there is also a geographic bias (pages 52 and 53), with en.wiki admins more likely to be in North America than editors. ] (]) 04:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::Hi @], hope you don't mind my jumping in! Yes, this report is based partially on the survey we sent out in late autumn of 2024, as well as an interview-based study largely focused on former administrators as well as the collection of new metrics around administrators on Misplaced Pages. The first two sections (Key Results and Recommendations) of the report are our attempt to create a summary of the report as a whole. These two sections are also ] if you would prefer not to download the (chunky) PDF just for that bit.
::On a personal note, I'm thrilled to see the reception of the study! ] (]) 14:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*I like this line {{tq|1.2.3 The RFA process is routinely characterized by administrators as stressful, opaque, and something to be endured.}} That was my experience! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*:], you may want to read pages 47 onwards then. In particular, I found page 50 an interesting elucidation of some factors affecting RfAs. ] (]) 04:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
* There's lots of interesting tidbits in there and I do think it's worth a read. For example, some depressing figures on abuse and harassment (pp. 62, 66–68), and the information (pg. 45) that en.wiki has relatively low enthusiasm from non-admins towards becoming admins <small>(although this result may be skewed by en.wiki's relatively lax ''formal'' requirements, which would widen the pool of surveyed editors of lower experience considerably compared to projects with more stringent formal requirements)</small>. However, for those short of time (and perhaps already familiar with the situation on en.wiki), I would encourage a look at comparisons of the unbundling of core admin actions across different projects (pp. 36–38) and the comparison of admin tenures across different projects (pp. 39–40). ] (]) 04:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*It's good to see recommendations 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 and I hope the WMF takes the recommendations seriously. I tried to be clear when I took the survey that I don't think the Foundation takes harassment seriously. They say all the right words, but when it comes down to it, in situations such as the current incessant MAB harassment, I don't see much support at all.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== Move page ] ==


Please help me move page ] to ] (currently is a redirect page), because of this airport was . ] (]) 04:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:See ] for the sandbox you've been pointed to. See also ] for more details about what is considered vandalism on Misplaced Pages. --] 22:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


== File:A Redrawing of the 5K Y.O. Graffito by NewAccount333.jpeg ==
:Sandboxes are test pages where you can test things without affecting "real" articles. There's more than one because there are many users, if they'd all use the same page for tests there would be conflicts. Registered users get a user page, and then they can use this (or subpages) for tests. As long as you have no account go to ] - that's a shortcut for "Misplaced Pages sandbox". At more or less regular times a program automatically cleans the sandbox, removing all old tests.
:BTW, this is not exactly the correct place for questions, check out ]. Be bold in updating pages, --&#160;] 22:51, 8 July 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)
==Possible illegality==


:I've done this, but this isn't really something that needs to go to AN. ] (] &#124; ]) 20:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
I was working on the George W. Bush article in the discussion pages. I noticed that Queen Of Sheba left a remark calling for the death penalty for the president. I believe that is illegal and should be removed from the discussion.


== Topic ban appeal from ] ==
] 23:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)BMIKESCI


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:
:You need to fix your signature by signing <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> Quen of Sheba should be blocked. I'm going to take a look now. <font color="blue">]</font> | ] | ] | ] 23:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
# The bans are both over a year old.
::It also wouldn't hurt to run a quick checkuser on BMIKESCI and Queen Of Sheba--] 23:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
# I am simply not sufficiently interested in this field anymore to engage in the sort of impassioned hostility and unsolicited clerking that got me sanctioned in the first place.
::*Sorry, minor correction, "User:Queen Of Sheba" doesn't actually exist, thus any checkuser should be directed at User:Shereen and/or User:BMIKESCI--] 23:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
# The ambiguous nature of the scope of what XfD “boradly construe” has prevented me from doing useful work that no-one had objected to, including discussing redirects/categories and nominating unfree images for deletion.
# I do not want the negative stigma of an editing restriction on me for something petty I no longer care about.
For these reasons I believe it is acceptable that my two topic bans be lifted. ] (]) 08:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Note''' Links to discussions . ] 08:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Thank you ] (]) 08:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*::@], please provide specific examples of constructive contributions you would have made but could not because of the ban. Please also explain in your own words the reasons for your ban and how, if unbanned, you would change your editing so as not to give rise to the same concerns. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Weak oppose''' pending answer to Sandstein’s question. If there’s no interest in editing in the area, there’s no need to lift the ban as a “stigma” does not strike me as a reason nor does an amount of time having passed. However should DB make the case of good edits they’re prevented from making, that might be a reason. ] ] 17:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I !voted in so I’m an involved weak oppose. I’m not going to continue tpo break formatting to add that, but noting it here. The discussion about how limited the ban should be in that discussion is timely as, as per noted here, the disruption just shifted. ] ] 19:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Involved oppose'''. While topic-banned from XfD here, Dronebogus has merely gone a level up, making a number of nonsensical wiki closure requests and wiki creation oppositions on Meta, persisting even after they were made aware that their idiosyncratic standard for closure was not the standard established by policy. (The last of these is in response to a proposal of mine, which is why I'm calling myself involved. To be clear, the issue isn't that they opposed, but that they knowingly opposed based on a reason disconnected from the actual community-established standard.) I'll grant that they seem to have mostly stopped after ], but there was a lot of disruption to get to that point, disruption that slowed or discouraged actual useful crosswiki work. And look what they're still doing? , which was a major issue here in the past. If this is the kind of behavior we have to look forward to in the event of an unban, then we're definitely better off leaving the ban in place. If anything, Dronebogus has made the case that they should not be editing any Wikimedia wikis. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Sandstein's observation that if Dronebogus doesn't intend to work in XfD then the ban doesn't need to be lifted, and Tamzin's observations about Dronebogus' contribs on other wikis. I'm not convinced by their third bullet, considering that redirects and categories are discussed in an XfD forum, and their original sanction that was limited to MfD had to be expanded four months later to a full XfD ban because they just became disruptive in the broader area. And not wanting to have a sanction on their record is something they ought to have thought of ''before'' being sanctioned. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 18:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' not convinced the pattern of behavior here has changed. ] (] &#124; ]) 18:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I have concerns that while this appeal is ongoing, there is ] at AN/I reagrding Dronebogus where there is evidence of a "my interpreation is the only possible interpretation" mindset as evidenced ] and ]. I feel the EL issue tends towards the same combativeness (or, "impassioned hostitilty" as they call it in the appeal above) demonstrated with their participation in XFD, so I don't believe now is the right time to remove the topic bans.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', in general I don't buy the "Ban isn't needed because I no longer want to edit those topic areas anyways" argument... And in this specific contexts a year doesn't seem like near enough time to figure that out. I also don't buy the negative stigma argument, I've got an IBAN with the sock of a long term abuser which I don't consider to carry any stigma... Because blocks and bans are all about their context. ] (]) 20:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*As regards point 4, I think the stigma is often overplayed on Misplaced Pages. I didn't even realise, despite coming into contact with Dronebogus quite a bit, that they were subject to any editing restrictions, and I'm sure the same goes for many others. As far as point 2 goes, if it doesn't apply any more then I don't see how it matters whether they are banned or not. I haven't thought about points 1 and 3 yet. ] (]) 20:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:06, 23 January 2025

Notices of interest to administrators
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

    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
    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
    XFD backlog
    V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
    CfD 0 0 0 13 13
    TfD 0 0 0 2 2
    MfD 0 0 0 3 3
    FfD 0 0 2 17 19
    RfD 0 0 0 92 92
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0


    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)
    • 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)
    • Support. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose basically per JoelleJay, particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get WP:AUTOPATROLLED without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). FOARP (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since WP:NSPORT was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.
      Support. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Moscow Connection: Your comments are as valid as anyone else's, if you explain your reasoning, but please note that this is a discussion, not a straight vote, so just saying "support" doesn't tell us much.It has been pointed out to that they did do that, I guess the break threw me off. Beeblebrox 21:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Conditional support unblock (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use WP:AFC for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support I can't repeat what Beaniefan11 say enough: "Come on – it's been nearly seven years since the ban – why can't we give another chance? And he admits that he was too focused on quantity, rather than quality, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on mass-creating non-notable stubs." This should assuage any doubt in the mind of the reviewing administrator. Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose Claims of "It's been seven years!" fall on deaf ears when you find out he's been socking all along and as recently as a year ago. Fram and PMC have good points as well. Show some restraint and understanding of your block and WP:SO is yours. Buffs (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support with a little WP:ROPE and conditions suggested by Joseph2302. Yeah, given the timeframe, I'd say having to submit their creations to AFC for the time being is a sufficient middle way for the yes and no camps. ミラP@Miraclepine 00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose - Large-scale sockpuppetry is very harmful, and was continuing for years after the ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Lardlegwarmers block appeal

    Essentially unanimous consensus to not unblock. RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    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)
    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)
    • 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 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)

    • Question during the January 2024 unblock request Rathfelder said they would be willing to accept a restriction on editing articles related to BLPs or healthcare orgs. Are they still willing to accept those edit restrictions if they are un-banned? Furthermore, in January 2024 there was, at the time, no evidence of any further socking. Can we confirm that good behaviour has continued? Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support They have been a very productive contributor at the Simple English Misplaced Pages, and it has definitely been long enough for the standard offer. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      To opposers: Would a TBAN from BLPs solve the issues you mention? I understand why some may be hesitant to unban, but they have been a very productive contributor on other wikis. I think that they would be a productive contributor if we simply give them a second chance. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose as disingenuous. The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur: obviously it's reassuring to hear this, but there is no acceptance of personal responsibility. "The circumstances made me do it" is not a defence, or explanation. Likewise, I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that does not do the facts justice. Rathfelder literally socked in order to be able to call a real life opponent a "swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist", in wikivoice with a misattributed op-ed quote. Difficult to imagine an editor of >half a million edits not knowing attribution requirements for BLPs. In fact, on investigation, they obviously do, as the adding of a {{BLP sources}} template indicates. If there's a Holy Trinity of wrong doing of things that damage the project the most, it's socking,vote stacking and deliberate BlP violations. These things are most dangerous to the project: they erode the trust between editors and the integrity of the consensus-driven decision making process and put WP at risk of at least public embarrassment if not a lawsuit. All of which Rathfelder did. All of which this appeal seems to attempt to explain away by "circumstances". I'm the first to offer rope when deserved, but such a glossing ban appeal, combined with it all happening only a couple of years ago, sets off more alarm bells than the Great Fire of London. There's no need for groveling, just an indication of self-knowledge and actual change. Serial (speculates here) 12:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
      I haven't yet looked into this enough to express an opinion, but I would point out that the "swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist" quote was attributed in text to The Times, so was not in wikivoice. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
      Thanks for drawing my attention; I've clarified my comment. Serial (speculates here) 16:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose insufficient contrition and reflection on their frankly very serious misconduct. As Serial has said, they created an a attack page with very serious BLP vios using sockpuppets, you can't just handwave that away. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose - My opinion is that editing pages to attack one's real life opponents isn't something you can just come back from, especially when you abusively socked and votestacked in addition. Please stick to editing other Wikis. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 15:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support I don't often choose to comment on unblock requests but every day I come across past productive work done by Rathfelder when I'm working with categories which is how I'm familiar with their immense contributions to this project. They are responsible for a sizeable percentage of our category creation and have over a half million edits credited to this account. If it has been over a year since their last appeal (check), they haven't been socking (check), they have been productive on other Wikimedia projects (check) and they acknowledge their mistakes (check), then I believe they should be given another chance. It sounds like this was a specific incident in their life that happened several years ago that is unlikely to be repeated. Remember, indefinite is not infinite. And if you reject this appeal, I'm just wondering what exactly are you expecting to see in a future request that would lead you to accept it? Or is this indefinite block actually a forever block? Liz 18:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support. Serial Number 54129 points to the quote from the piece by Sarah Baxter as the most damning part of his evidence, but Baxter was deputy editor of The Times when she wrote the article, so it was reasonable to say that that newspaper said that. It may, of course, not be the best way to word things but we don't ban people for that. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
      No, I point to far more tahn just that: I point to a refusal to adhere to neutrality in preference for an entire section reading like a hit piece; there were no redeeming features presented, or alternative interpretations suggested. Instead, a Jewish guy was literally called an antisemite, on Misplaced Pages, for Rathfelder's own ends. The quote from Baxter was merely an example, but the whole section was of that ilk. Correct, we don't ban people for poor expression. We do ban people for deliberately flaunting fundamental policy and attacking living people. It is also insufficient that they have done good work in the past, per Liz; it's not mitigating. Ironically their is a current arbcom case in which some of the most knowledgeable editors in the field are getting topic banned due to behavioral issues. The same principal applies here. Serial (speculates here) 20:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose - The attack page, undisclosed COI, and sockpuppetry were serious offenses. Sometimes it takes a long time to regain trust. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support; willing to allow this editor another chance, hoping they'll understand that the community's tolerance is pretty much gone for any future problems. Rathfelder, if this is successful, when you're finding articles in English[REDACTED] which need amendment, I'd advise making it your default setting to open a talk section before making edits if there's any possibility the edit could be objectionable to anyone. Valereee (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support. The arguments to maintain the ban seem to be mostly "He did some really bad stuff". I agree that he did. Personal attacks are bad. Socking is bad. Using[REDACTED] to prosecute real-life battles is bad. But I'm concerned about statements such as Hemiauchenia's "insufficient contrition and reflection" (although they are certainly entitled to express that opinion). We're not looking for self-flagilation here, nor are we looking for great works of literature as apologies. Our criteria for re-entry into the community isn't "Has never done anything really bad". It's "Understands what they did that was bad and has given credible assurances that it won't happen again", and I think we have those. Robert McClenon says "Sometimes it takes a long time to regain trust". Which is true, but this has been a bit over two years. That's a long time in my book. And it's not like they've gone away for two years and come back out of the blue; they've been contributing productively on other projects, so we have tangible evidence that they're capable of producing good work. RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      People implicitly understand that Jytdog will probably never be unbanned from Misplaced Pages because his act of phoning up a fellow user he was in conflict with was a severe and inexcusable breach of decorum. I think that Rathfelder's breach was on par with that of Jytdogs. People using their position on Misplaced Pages to write attack pages of living people is a huge violation of Misplaced Pages's standards. It's not just some minor misconduct like youthful vandalism or minor socking where someone can just brush it off as "whoopsie, my bad" and be relatively easily unblocked. Stuff like this brings the whole encyclopedia into disrepute. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      If I’m not unmistaken User:Jytdog was banned by ArbCom, not by the community, and was also a self-admitted serial offender. And yes their apology does come across as “whoopsie, my bad”. And they haven’t edited constructively anywhere else as a counterpoint to their destructive editing here. I personally would never support letting them return, but that’s because their situation (at least to me) seemed like it was a case of a charismatic unblockable actually getting a well-earned block. This current situation seems like someone making a single terrible decision and realizing how terrible it was. Just compare their block logs— Jyt was blocked multiple times indefinitely by arbcom; this user only had a single 48 hour block before getting banned despite being here longer. Dronebogus (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support I find RoySmith's articulation much more convincing. We don't need to have a concept of unforgivable sins here. And this applies to everyone. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support per Pppeery-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support per Liz and Roysmith. While Rathfelder's misconduct was quite severe, it was an anomaly in a long, active, and productive editing career here; and his activity at Simple as continued that pattern. Unlike Serial, I do see understanding and regret, which they are *amplifying* rather than *replacing* with the assurance that the circumstances under which the misconduct arose are unlikely to repeat. So - worth another go, I think. No opinion whether a TBAN of some sort should be imposed; if I were Rathfelder, I would stay away from BLPs for some time anyway. Martinp (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support Justice on WP is supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Once years, plural, have passed I think it’s reasonable to assume genuine remorse. There’s no such thing as a permanent lifetime ban on Misplaced Pages, even if some bad actors who have well and truly exhausted the community’s patience have received a de facto one. This is a feature, not a bug. Dronebogus (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Weak Support per RoySmith. It's a short rope, don't abuse it. Buffs (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    Appealing April 4 2024, indefinite WP:CUP ban and indefinite 1-nomination GAN limit

    Consensus to lift this ban will not develop. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    At User_talk:TonyTheTiger#Topic_bans, I was instructed by closer User:Ingenuity that I could appeal these in a year and it has been 9.5 months. I am appealing because the CUP entry deadline is traditionally January 31. See Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/2020 signups through Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/2024 signups. This year the Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/2025 signups verbiage says "The competition will begin on 1 January 2025 and signups will continue throughout the year". I am just noticing the new language as I am putting this appeal in. Nonetheless, I am requesting time off for good behavior on the ban.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Oppose The utter cluelessness of this appeal is more than enough reason not to do this. I was going to write more but decided that coaching you on how to be less clueless is not in the project's best interest. You've been here long enough that you should be able to see for yourself how terrible this appeal is. Beeblebrox 19:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oppose and recommend we disallow any further appeals for another year. I'm concerned otherwise we'll just be back here in April. --Yamla (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oppose for now It's pretty clear that most people in that discussion were supporting an indef ban from the Cup, not an 8-month ban. This appeal doesn't address people's concerns with Tony's editing relating to the Cup, so should be denied. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oppose The original discussion wasn't linked, it can be found here. At that place it is very clear that here is almost unanimous support for an indefinite ban on participation in the WikiCup, so, no, this appeal should not be passed. It is, honestly, astonishing that TonyTheTiger has been here very nearly two decades but hasn't taken on board the way the community works ~ Lindsay 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oppose for no rational that they understand why they were banned or what even led to their ban, and rather simply a sentiment of "I really want to participate". Please understand that your ban was indefinite, so the one year appeal opportunity is your potential opportunity "time off for good behavior". TiggerJay (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oppose. Appealing early on the basis that you won't be able to sign up to do the thing you were banned from doing is certainly a unique take. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Requesting info

    Steve Quinn is trout 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 ca@wikimedia.org from the e-mail address you have used for the Bhairava7 account. Please describe the problem and request the removal of two-factor authentication from your account. See meta:Help:Two-factor_authentication#Recovering_from_a_lost_or_broken_authentication_device for details. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    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:
    OP possibly using multiple accounts:
    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)
    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) JJPMaster (she/they) 21:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    I recommend issuing a warning to User:TWC DC1, as their actions appear to be gaming the system. Despite previous warnings, they have continued this behavior. --SimmeD (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    G7 request by a blocked account

    G7'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Can an admin take a look at this? It appears to be a "db-author" request for Draft:Francesca Martí. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    Qualifies for G7. Deleted by me. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Sapo.pt

    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. JJPMaster (she/they) 04:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    I've undeleted the history. You can do the export process yourself then. Since it was just a dated PROD and it looks like there were prior copyvio concerns but the copyright holder eventually provided permission, there's no reason the history can't also be available here. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
     Done; b:Special:Redirect/logid/5236509. JJPMaster (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.
    Legend of 14 (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    To me, characterizing this statement as "shaming me for challenging your AfD" supports Tiggerjay's summary above. The other diffs show civil attempts to help you understand the culture on Misplaced Pages. Schazjmd (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    It is disappointing that the culture is talking down to editors for not being on Misplaced Pages for over a decade and daring to share an opinion, posting repetitive talk page notices for literally no reason, and replying to a request to stop posting on a talk page with a snarky comment. Thank you for clarifying that editors do not deserve equal treatment, and that merit of arguments can be dismissed based on the age of the editor making them. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    At this point I'm just going to leave, because has been made clear by this discussion and other thread, I am not going to be treated with respect. I'm not wanted here, so I'm leaving. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    So you're aware, per Misplaced Pages:Retiring § Pending sanctions, just because you claim to retire does not mean this discussion will necessarily close. Also since you have claimed to have retired previously, please be aware that if you return you will still need to edit in accordance with policies and guidelines, especially as it related to handling disputes. TiggerJay (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    You have been treated with respect, but you have shown very little in return. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Consensus disagrees: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1176#User:Earl_Andrew Legend of 14 (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Consensus? The closing statement sums up consensus, and it certainly doesn't disagree. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    As a relatively new editor for 1 year with only 5400+ edits compared to the other fellows here, I have not once been blocked or had a significant conflict with a more experienced editor than me. At some point, if the community comes to scrutinize the editing and mistakes that you've made, you'll have to recognize that the problem is with you, not the culture. Tarlby 04:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    You have a conflict with me and I've been editing since 2021. Your statement is inaccurate. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Note that I said "experienced", not "older". Tarlby 16:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    What purposes does this have other than to be inflammatory? I'm not going to kowtow to you and other editors just because you've decided they're more experienced. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Given this response, I'd say the consensus is correct that the problem here is you, Legend. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    As has been offered to you multiple times Legend, please consider reviewing WP:1AM. You might find it helpful. TiggerJay (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Too much to read. Is this about the wording of the closing statement? GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    And about Legend and I over that. Looks like Legend's had enough, anyway (I wish them well elsewhere). 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 16:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    They tried that stunt 5 days ago. If they're going to engage in a pattern of making disruptive edits and then retiring when anyone (read: everyone) criticizes them, someone should probably just indef. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Agreed. This user has an established habit of walking away from a conversation, only to come back a day or two later and continue the same sort of disruption. Shall we extend another inch of rope? I wouldn't be against giving a second third n-th time chance, but perhaps the next controversy should be a swift block? Or has the community already had enough? TiggerJay (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I disagree with blocking this editor when they actually haven't violated any policy that I'm aware of. I actually don't want them to leave and think they could be a constructive editor if they would spend less time policing other editors and spend more time improving articles, and avoid the drama boards.
    We can enforce guidelines about civility, Legend of 14, but I don't think the "respect" you expect to receive can be found anywhere on the Internet. People are blunt and sometimes grumpy. And those of us who have been here a long time have been called all sorts of names, disputes can bring out some nasty behavior, this is not personal to you. I just think that expecting to be respected here, on Misplaced Pages, just comes over time with proving that you are a consistently productive contributor. It can take years to earn other editors' trust and respect and, if you make a colossal mistake, it can also disappear. I just think that you have an overly sensitive gauge of other people's respect for you and if you want to contribute to this project, it has to be because you like to edit, whether or not other people respect you in the way you seem to understand "respect". Remember, this is not utopia, it's just a website on the internet. Liz 04:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    I check back and I'm facing sanctions. I wasn't planning on making any more edits, but I guess I should. The allegations are too vague for me to defend myself. There's no policy being cited or diffs, so I have no idea what's being alleged.
    My decision to stop editing is rooted in the fact that I cannot avoid challenges to my edits, and I cannot avoid being dismissed based on either unrelated grievances when I stand up for myself and my edits.
    Timeline of how this ended up here:
    • Jan 15 I make edits to 5 articles related to content about living people
    • Jan 16 I get reverted 5 times by Adam Bishop. I go to 2 article talk pages to discuss the reverts and Bishop's talk page.
    • Jan 17 I get reverted on the 2 article talk pages by Bishop. I go to BLPN as Bishop is stopping me from using talk pages. 2 of my discussions get closed by 2601AC47.
    • Jan 21 I ask 2601AC47 to change the summaries. My request is denied.
    I've been reverted 9 times by 2601AC47. They did not explain why for 3 reverts https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:2601AC47&diff=prev&oldid=1270067565 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:2601AC47&diff=next&oldid=1270067565. My thread got closed because of "Not helpful of the editor in question". User talk:2601AC47
    An article I made got nominated for deletion. My reasons for why the article should stay gets dismissed because the user has a list of grievances against me https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Deb_Hutton_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=1270475022.
    I got criticized on my talk page for daring to challenge a more "experienced editor". https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270062605
    I face repeated complaints for trying uphold a civil environment on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270076126 User talk:Legend of 14#Preferred Pronouns User talk:Tiggerjay#January 2025
    I get challenged, and then when I defend myself I get dismissed for uncivil reasons or ignored, over and over again. This is not an environment where I can edit, where I face endless criticism for valid decisions (like those on my talk pages), can get randomly reverted for no given reason at any time, and get threatened with sanctions if I keep standing up in the face of the uncivil comments. But, there's always a reason why nothing should be done about the uncivil behaviour. My work can just be undone, I can't defend myself or my edits, and the message of shut up or get sanctioned has been very prevalent. That's why I said I'm not wanted here and why I'm done editing. It has become clear to me that no outcome here leads to this being an environment which isn't having a negative impact on me. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    You may have overlooked what I wrote yesterday to you. Either way, I'm sure that we've tried hard not to be uncivil.
    But really: With all due respect to you (what little you've left me with), I hope one day you can let this go and begin the path to becoming a better person. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 17:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Who's we? I wasn't aware that you were authorized to speak on behalf of other editors. Please share who you are representing. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    2601AC47 simply read the discussion and said what he thinks about it. It's clear that "we" simply means all of the editors with whom you are arguing, rather than anyone they are representing. Anyway, it seems you were not telling the truth when you said "I'm done editing". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    I only came back because sanctions were proposed against me. As soon as the threat of sanctions is gone, I'll leave again. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    At this rate, unless you have something to prove yourself here or you actually take into consideration what we've told you for the last 8 days and get working in peace, those sanctions may include a block from Misplaced Pages, which is possible given the circumstances and, as that policy states as of now, can be enforced to encourage a more productive, congenial editing style. If you believe that block that may come will be unjustified (and I doubt that), you can usually request an unblock and explain your perspective as you should. Otherwise, again, I wish you well and hope you'll understand that you're not being targeted (although you should be aware that we're serious about it); (struggles to think of a closing sentence) farewell, Legend. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 19:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    But nobody on Misplaced Pages can take away your life, liberty or money; the most severe sanction they can impose is to stop you editing one web site, which you want to do anyway. What is the point of continuing to post to this discussion? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Legend of 14: recommend you walk away from the topic area-in-question, if you're not retiring. From what I'm seeing, rightly or wrongly the other editors are growing frustrated with you. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    Proposal: WP:CIR block for Legend of 14

    Competence in working on a collaborative project includes being able to listen and take in what other people are telling you. Legend of 14 does not seem to be able to do that. Since they have already expressed an intention to retire, it should not be a hardship to them if they are unable to edit due to a community ban. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    • Oppose The statement is false and unsubstantiated. I have listened. People didn't want me removing uncited election results, I stopped removing election results. People didn't want me removing uncited WP:BLP content from Ministry of Education (Ontario) I listened. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support a short-term block to prevent further disruption and to further assist them with their claimed retirement. They continue to be disruptive to the project, and their tenacious argumentative approach here demonstrates this extremely clearly. While I previously supported giving a second chance (see above), their complete inability to drop the stick and cannot even make up their mind about retirement, other than a veiled threat about leaving. They have shown a failure of CIR when it comes to consensus building, largely because they presume bad faith and assume people are being uncivil. Without the ability to demonstrate the ability to build consensus and presume good faith, they should not be permitted to continue to disrupt the project. And of course, I am tired of their aspirations being cast against me, and others, without merit. They assert that those who disagree with their accusations are also in collusion against them. The number of experienced editors who are speaking against this editor seems to be a clear WP:1AM situation. TiggerJay (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • If this is still going on support I remember the Ministry of Education (Ontario) discussion - which I was pretty involved in - and the whole thing was quite silly. Lo14 was insistent on uncited start and end dates for education ministers in Ontario being an urgent BLP issue but, rather than finding sources for those start and end dates for four ministers under the current government, kept deleting the content and getting into long arguments about the urgency. I think, at one point, I mentioned that they'd spent longer arguing about the problem than it would have taken to properly fix it. I'll be honest that I kind of tuned out after that. But it's been long enough that if Lo14 is still insisting on their course of action then, yeah, it's time for a short block. Not an indef. Just something to give them perspective that not everything is a life or death emergency - even for BLPs. Simonm223 (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
      It's not. Legend of 14 (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose I have read this entire discussion and the two BLPN noticeboard ones referenced and previously at least one other AN or ANI discussion; i believe Legend is teetering close to a block, but i do not support it nor, most definitely, a ban. But, Legend of 14, i do urge you to take a few hours away, overnight or a day, and then reread what has been written by way of advice and try to see it that way. I'm not sure if you have had (or have) a mentor, but finding an experienced editor who is willing to answer a few questions and give a little advice on your plans and potential actions would probably be a very good thing to consider and do ~ Lindsay 20:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
      You might want to also have a look at their un-redacted talk page and also their constant bad faith and casting aspirations of other editors, as recently as today. TiggerJay (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    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)

    I don't agree that that article is OK, it doesn't seem notable and uses several peacock terms. I would support deletion. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Delete ASAP and don't look back. Re: "does this even fall under the umbrella of Israel Palestine" An article about a leader of Hezzbolah? Seriously? Yes. Buffs (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    Archive bots

    This is not an issue that requires administrative attention. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Is there a way to have a bot archive articles on a page for you? I vaguely recall such a feature.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    TonyTheTiger. Maybe you are thinking of meta:InternetArchiveBot#Using the bot? –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Note of caution on attacks on Misplaced Pages's neutrality.

    We know to keep an eye out for "neturality police" IPs/new editors. Speculation on anything more should be left to the WMF per WP:NOTFORUM (and, indeed, WP:BEANS). - The Bushranger One ping only 01:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    As observed here, Musk and others now in positions with Trump's admin are calling out Misplaced Pages's "lack of neutrality". At best they are current only calling for trying to defund it, but given a the craziness of the last 48hrs alone, I would not be surprised to see new or IP editors with strong conservative ideals trying to "fix" the neutrality problem. Nothing we haven't seen before but now that these people have a megaphone to state this, the quantity could become elevated. — Masem (t) 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Do they mean anything by "defund" other than calling for people to stop donating (and haha, good luck with that one, these attacks seem to have resulted in the opposite)? Can Elon and Trump actually try and freeze the Foundation's assets or anything like that? Silverseren 00:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Likely not within a legal framework that exists right now... but they could, for example, pressure Congress to pass a new law, or they could attempt to eliminate the safe harbor protections that the WMF (among other organizations) are given from copyright violations, which would allow people to sue for copyvios being displayed at all, no matter how quickly they're removed. And even if they don't try to make it sound legal, they could always just throw another executive order at the wall and see if it sticks - possibly as part of a "burst" like he did within the first 24 hours of his term. This strategy isn't anything new - trying to overload organizations'/lawyers' capabilities to sue to block those orders, and the courts' ability to handle those suits, during which time they can do what they want. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    There is a proposed bill going around that would allow non profits to be stripped of that status should they be considered a terrorist org or support terrorism. While what we do is clearly not that, in this new administration, anything goes. However all that is a WMF problem and I assume they are ready to fight.
    My caution here is that we might see new and IP see these calls as dogwhistles to attack WP in other ways, which we as admin and involved editors can take a ton against. — Masem (t) 00:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    If the US decides to strip WMF's status then, a total and global outrage might happen. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    they could attempt to eliminate the safe harbor protections that the WMF (among other organizations) are given from copyright violations Elon Musk definitely doesn't want to be liable every time someone posts a copyright violating image on Twitter, so I doubt that will happen. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'd say that we probably shouldn't give them ideas for how to attack us. Contrary to what some believe, these are very public noticeboards that are readable to anyone on the Internet. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Legal threat

    Blocked. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Apparently my legal team can expect a letter, as announced on User talk:Jack at BTCGPU. I'm obviously involved, haha, so perhaps someone else can assess and do what they think is right. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Disruptive editor

    WP:BOOMERANG. Level 2 warning issued. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    User:The Green Star Collector has been removing any reference to the term 'insurrection' in articles connected with the January 6 capitol attack. FactsheetPete (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Community assuming the block on Crouch, Swale

    Crouch, Swale was blocked for multiple accounts in 2011 and this was later upgraded to a site ban. In 2017 they were unblocked by ArbCom with a whole string of conditions. They then become an annual appellant to ArbCom to reduce or eliminate those conditions. In December, Crouch, Swale went to ArbCom asking for a site ban. ArbCom declined. Multiple admins, including me, tried to convince him that a site ban was not a good idea. Admins, including me, told him if he wanted a break we would block him . Ultimately he asked me to block him for a few days, which I did. Yesterday, he was back at ArbCom and after questioning on his talk page basically said he was willing to harass and otherwise violate policies in order to achieve his ends of getting a site ban. ToBeFree correctly indeffed him for this. It is with no pleasure that I come here asking the community to essentially assume this block and turn it into a site ban. For reasons I don't understand, and am sad to see, this user clearly wanted to be given a forced break from Misplaced Pages. Given the long history with this user, and since there has been no mention of ArbCom choosing to assume the block themselves, I think it would be better for the community to decide if/how/when Couch Swale returns to English Misplaced Pages, rather than individual admins through the normal appeals process. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    • Oppose. There are too many missing dots here. Crouch, Swale's editing conditions from the 2017 unblock are listed as:
    one account restriction
    topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions
    prohibition on moving or renaming pages (except within their own userspace)
    prohibition on creating new pages, including creating articles on pages where one didn't previously exist (except within their own userspace and talk pages of existing pages in any namespace).
    That list does not on the face of it suggest a tremendously disruptive editor; and has Crouch, Swale been adhering to these rules? If so, what's the big issue with relaxing the restrictions; has the editor made very deficient appeals? He came to my attention talking kindly and constructively with a problem editor. How did we come to the point where a week or so later, he's demanding a 10-year block? I can't help suspecting a bureaucratic glitch in handling his appeals. What am I missing prior to the threat to be maximally disruptive that makes this editor a candidate for a permaban? Yngvadottir (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Comment: I've taken a look myself and they had restrictions lessened in 2022.
    They then went to appeal with an ultimatum: remove the restrictions or block me for a decade - if you don't, I'll disrupt the site (forgive me for saying this, but it feels like blackmail).
    Since the appeal didn't include any evidence (or appeal) it was rejected as insufficient.
    I get their frustration, but I'm very concerned that they dialled things straight up to 11 and are willing to cause significant problems for others (including doxxing, see the link) just to get their own way.
    Then again, looking at the December appeal, they very clearly want to be banned and have refused every other alternative offered. I don't know what's going on in the background but I'm thinking this is something they should probably have since they're very clear and consistent in their request for a full-on ban - if they don't want to explain why, then should we be pressing for one, especially after so many people have already asked? It could be an addiction (as suggested in the December diff above) in which case they're asking for help and refusing could be causing them harm. I have personal experience in this area and this feels awfully familiar - if they're asking for help then we should give it if we can. Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I am not enthusiastic about this, can we not just let them go? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
      Likewise. I'm not convinced that the threats were something they had any intention of carrying through with, so I'm not convinced that anything more than the current block is necessary to protect the project nor that there would be any other benefits.
      @Blue-Sonnet Crouch, Swale has made many appeals over the years to get their restrictions loosened and/or removed (look at pretty much every recent ARCA archive covering a January). The basic reason they have not been successful is that they haven't demonstrated an understanding of why the restrictions were imposed in the first place, which multiple people feel is a necessary precursor to being confident the problems won't reoccur - the only problems being a fundamental disconnect between them and basically everybody else about how Misplaced Pages should cover low-level UK administrative geography. Outside of that topic area they are a very good editor who is (normally) a very clear net benefit to Misplaced Pages. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support the site ban that they themself seem to request. The editor appears to be a net negative to the project on account of the volunteer time absorbed by their antics. Sandstein 17:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose - Something seems really off here. What could Crouch, Swale gain from demanding a site ban and deciding to be a pain in the arse until he gets his way? I wonder if he's going thru some sort of crisis in his normal life and he sees Misplaced Pages as a distraction that exacerbates it, and doesn't realise just how difficult it would be to come back from a full siteban as opposed to an indefinite block. Blocks on request is one thing - you can at least quickly request a return with a convincing unblock request. If he wants to come back from an unban, then he'll have to go thru a community discussion that will very likely reopen old wounds and end with him being told "no" in very clear terms. I would rather give him the option to come back as painlessly as possible as opposed to being sent off on a train to nowhere while workers rip up the tracks behind it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 17:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • This seems like a bad idea. ToBeFree solved the problem, no need to escalate this further unless C,S escalates. Let's not back someone who is apparently hurting into an unnecessary corner. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support - If he wants a site-ban, then give'em what he wants. It's that or put up with his wasting the community's time. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oppose as solution in search of a problem. The block that TBF implemented prevents the threatened disruption. Crouch ‘’can’’ be a productive editor when they choose. Let’s not make it harder for them to come back when they’re ready. Star Mississippi 17:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose I refused to block him as an Arb because I felt he was seeking "suicide by ArbCom." His latest post was somewhere between manipulative and cry for help. If he had put forth a good request to remove his restrictions, I'd have said yes. He seems like someone in crisis, making bad decisions. Perhaps a reason to block them for their own good until they stabilize, but not a reason to community ban them. Crouch is an excellent editor otherwise and has contributed very extensively to niche UK topics. CaptainEek ⚓ 17:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose. I'm torn because I do think that Sandstein and GoodDay have a point; the amount of time and energy he has consumed with this is already a bit disruptive. But the fact is that he's currently blocked, which has ended this; concerns that he could, I don't know, pretend to be reformed to get an admin to let him back in and then cause disruption seems too theoretical to justify action by the community. A community ban wouldn't give them what they want, anyway; it's hard to appeal, but still quite possible to do so at any time - and honestly the reaction here makes it clear that if this passed, and Crouch later came back to the community saying they've recovered from whatever and now wants to be let back in, we'd probably still grant it, it'd just waste even more community time and effort. --Aquillion (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
      By "oppose", are you opposing the site ban or the regular block? JJPMaster (she/they) 20:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose - the entire motivation of this bizarre campaign seems to be no more than to waste editors' time. Requiring them to appeal to the community will waste even more. They should stay blocked, and legal should be notified about the threats of libel and doxxing. We don't owe them anything. Ivanvector (/Edits) 18:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
      Those weren't really threats about libel and doxxing; they were just saying whatever they thought necessary to get blocked. Please let's not sic legal on them. Timesink or not, there's still room in this Trumpified world for a little compassion. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose This whole situation is just weird. I was reading WP:AE for an unrelated reason and looked at the Crouch, Swale thread out of curiosity and it was one of the most perplexing things I've ever seen at WP. I haven't the first clue why they didn't just do what was suggested at AE and provide a justification for a lift of their account restrictions rather than setting an unprecedented ultimatum. Regardless I don't think it should be on the community to give assent to this silliness. Simonm223 (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    WMF research on admins

    There's a 70 page final report over at c:File:(Final Report) Administrator recruitment, retention, & attrition (SDS1.2.2).pdf. Apparently it will be part of something called the mw:Wikimedia Research/Showcase in February. I recommend people read the report and possibly contribute to the upcoming office hours if they're interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    Hello, Clovermoss, I am interested but busy. Is there a summary to this 70 page paper you could link to? Is this report a result of the questionnaire they sent out last autumn? Thanks for informing us about it. Liz 03:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    I admit I haven't read the 70 pages yet either. It's on my ever growing to-do list. I don't think there's a summary that's been released yet (if there ends up being one, it'll probably be at m:Research:Misplaced Pages Administrator Recruitment, Retention, and Attrition#Results). This is indeed about the mass questionnaire/interviews that were going on last year. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    The first 18 pages are a summary of the rest of the document. The good news is that apparently our admin corps is demographically reflective of the wider editor pool in all measured aspects except age. CMD (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Do we lean older or younger? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Admins average older than editors and readers. CMD (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    An addendum: it's not in the summary but there is also a geographic bias (pages 52 and 53), with en.wiki admins more likely to be in North America than editors. CMD (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hi @Liz, hope you don't mind my jumping in! Yes, this report is based partially on the survey we sent out in late autumn of 2024, as well as an interview-based study largely focused on former administrators as well as the collection of new metrics around administrators on Misplaced Pages. The first two sections (Key Results and Recommendations) of the report are our attempt to create a summary of the report as a whole. These two sections are also available on Meta-Wiki if you would prefer not to download the (chunky) PDF just for that bit.
    On a personal note, I'm thrilled to see the reception of the study! CLo (WMF) (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I like this line 1.2.3 The RFA process is routinely characterized by administrators as stressful, opaque, and something to be endured. That was my experience! Liz 04:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
      Liz, you may want to read pages 47 onwards then. In particular, I found page 50 an interesting elucidation of some factors affecting RfAs. CMD (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • There's lots of interesting tidbits in there and I do think it's worth a read. For example, some depressing figures on abuse and harassment (pp. 62, 66–68), and the information (pg. 45) that en.wiki has relatively low enthusiasm from non-admins towards becoming admins (although this result may be skewed by en.wiki's relatively lax formal requirements, which would widen the pool of surveyed editors of lower experience considerably compared to projects with more stringent formal requirements). However, for those short of time (and perhaps already familiar with the situation on en.wiki), I would encourage a look at comparisons of the unbundling of core admin actions across different projects (pp. 36–38) and the comparison of admin tenures across different projects (pp. 39–40). CMD (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • It's good to see recommendations 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 and I hope the WMF takes the recommendations seriously. I tried to be clear when I took the survey that I don't think the Foundation takes harassment seriously. They say all the right words, but when it comes down to it, in situations such as the current incessant MAB harassment, I don't see much support at all.-- Ponyo 17:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    Move page Lien Khuong Airport

    Please help me move page Lien Khuong Airport to Lien Khuong International Airport (currently is a redirect page), because of this airport was changed name (and upgraded) to an international airport since June 2024. Pk.over (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    File:A Redrawing of the 5K Y.O. Graffito by NewAccount333.jpeg

    Can an admin take a look at File:A Redrawing of the 5K Y.O. Graffito by NewAccount333.jpeg? The most recent version of the file uploaded appears to be a WP:G7 request based on the last post added by the uploader to Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2025 January 22#File:A Redrawing of the 5K Y.O. Graffito by NewAccount333.jpeg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    I've done this, but this isn't really something that needs to go to AN. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    Topic ban appeal from User:Dronebogus

    I would like to appeal my two separate but associated topic bans related to XfD, as can be found at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions. My reasons are as follows:

    1. The bans are both over a year old.
    2. I am simply not sufficiently interested in this field anymore to engage in the sort of impassioned hostility and unsolicited clerking that got me sanctioned in the first place.
    3. The ambiguous nature of the scope of what XfD “boradly construe” has prevented me from doing useful work that no-one had objected to, including discussing redirects/categories and nominating unfree images for deletion.
    4. I do not want the negative stigma of an editing restriction on me for something petty I no longer care about.

    For these reasons I believe it is acceptable that my two topic bans be lifted. Dronebogus (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    • Note Links to discussions . Black Kite (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
      Thank you Dronebogus (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Dronebogus, please provide specific examples of constructive contributions you would have made but could not because of the ban. Please also explain in your own words the reasons for your ban and how, if unbanned, you would change your editing so as not to give rise to the same concerns. Sandstein 17:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Weak oppose pending answer to Sandstein’s question. If there’s no interest in editing in the area, there’s no need to lift the ban as a “stigma” does not strike me as a reason nor does an amount of time having passed. However should DB make the case of good edits they’re prevented from making, that might be a reason. Star Mississippi 17:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
      I !voted in this discussion so I’m an involved weak oppose. I’m not going to continue tpo break formatting to add that, but noting it here. The discussion about how limited the ban should be in that discussion is timely as, as per noted here, the disruption just shifted. Star Mississippi 19:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Involved oppose. While topic-banned from XfD here, Dronebogus has merely gone a level up, making a number of nonsensical wiki closure requests and wiki creation oppositions on Meta, persisting even after they were made aware that their idiosyncratic standard for closure was not the standard established by policy. (The last of these is in response to a proposal of mine, which is why I'm calling myself involved. To be clear, the issue isn't that they opposed, but that they knowingly opposed based on a reason disconnected from the actual community-established standard.) I'll grant that they seem to have mostly stopped after an RfC unanimously went against them, but there was a lot of disruption to get to that point, disruption that slowed or discouraged actual useful crosswiki work. And look what they're still doing? Removing comments critical of them in discussions, which was a major issue here in the past. If this is the kind of behavior we have to look forward to in the event of an unban, then we're definitely better off leaving the ban in place. If anything, Dronebogus has made the case that they should not be editing any Wikimedia wikis. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Sandstein's observation that if Dronebogus doesn't intend to work in XfD then the ban doesn't need to be lifted, and Tamzin's observations about Dronebogus' contribs on other wikis. I'm not convinced by their third bullet, considering that redirects and categories are discussed in an XfD forum, and their original sanction that was limited to MfD had to be expanded four months later to a full XfD ban because they just became disruptive in the broader area. And not wanting to have a sanction on their record is something they ought to have thought of before being sanctioned. Ivanvector (/Edits) 18:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose not convinced the pattern of behavior here has changed. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose I have concerns that while this appeal is ongoing, there is an open thread at AN/I reagrding Dronebogus where there is evidence of a "my interpreation is the only possible interpretation" mindset as evidenced here and here. I feel the EL issue tends towards the same combativeness (or, "impassioned hostitilty" as they call it in the appeal above) demonstrated with their participation in XFD, so I don't believe now is the right time to remove the topic bans.-- Ponyo 18:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose, in general I don't buy the "Ban isn't needed because I no longer want to edit those topic areas anyways" argument... And in this specific contexts a year doesn't seem like near enough time to figure that out. I also don't buy the negative stigma argument, I've got an IBAN with the sock of a long term abuser which I don't consider to carry any stigma... Because blocks and bans are all about their context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • As regards point 4, I think the stigma is often overplayed on Misplaced Pages. I didn't even realise, despite coming into contact with Dronebogus quite a bit, that they were subject to any editing restrictions, and I'm sure the same goes for many others. As far as point 2 goes, if it doesn't apply any more then I don't see how it matters whether they are banned or not. I haven't thought about points 1 and 3 yet. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Category:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions Add topic