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 21:12, 17 September 2017 view sourceMjolnirPants (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,673 edits →Unblock request at User talk:Hidden Tempo← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:15, 23 January 2025 view source Fathoms Below (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators19,939 edits Adding {{pp-sock}}Tag: Twinkle 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
<!-- Adds protection template automatically if page is semi-protected, inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. --><noinclude>{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp|small=yes}}}} {{Pp-move-indef}}</noinclude><noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude>__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{Active editnotice}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config <noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(6d) |algo = old(7d)
| archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d |counter = 368
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
| counter = 292 |maxarchivesize = 700K
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
| maxarchivesize = 700K
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
| archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|minthreadsleft = 0
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
}}{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude><!--S
| minthreadsleft = 3
}}
<!--
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
Line 19: Line 18:
|minkeepthreads= 4 |minkeepthreads= 4
|maxarchsize= 700000 |maxarchsize= 700000
}}--> }}
--><!--
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}<!--

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


--><noinclude>
--><noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure}}


==Open tasks==
== Pages recently put under ] ==
<noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}}
{{collapse top|Report|expand=true}}
{{Administrators' noticeboard archives}}
{{User:MusikBot/ECPMonitor/Report}}
{{Clear}}
{{collapse bottom}}</noinclude>
{{Admin tasks}}
__TOC__
</noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove-->


== Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request ==
== Willfull and persistent disruption of Draft space by TakuyaMurata ==
{{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)}}
{{atop|As mentioned by a few participants, this entire thread has gone way off-topic in a few places. None of the proposals have garnered enough support (or in some places, enough input) to be considered to have consensus. Add to that the lack of any policies officially being broken, I think for the moment this discussion must be closed as '''no consensus to do anything'''.<br><br>At the heart of the matter is a content dispute:
The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}:
*Hasteur and Legacypac are among the more vocal editors who do not wish drafts to sit unattended indefinitely.
{{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.
*TakuyaMurata creates many drafts, often leaves drafts unattended, but does not want to see them deleted.
With no proposals reaching a definite conclusion, the status quo of "] or ] old/stale drafts" will be upheld. '''''However''''', {{u|TakuyaMurata}} is reminded that they do not ] any of their drafts, and to remember that Misplaced Pages is a collaborative environment; if their drafts are nominated for deletion, it's not someone "out to get them" or "destroy their work", it's just someone working towards their idea of the betterment of Misplaced Pages. Those ''starting'' the MFDs should also remember that everyone is allowed to comment on MFDs, but no one is obligated to respond to them, and the weight of the arguments will be assessed by the closing admin.<br><br>As a procedural note, if any of the involved parties further obstructs the MFD process or otherwise becomes disruptive (be it in an MFD or through their conduct towards another editor), then this discussion can be revisited, but ''only'' the actions since the close of this case should be considered (many of the admins who have commented on this discussion have advocated for clemency for all past actions when they advocated closing with no sanctions). ] (]) 14:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
}}


Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (], ], ]) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at ]). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see ]). I have created over 900 pages (see ]), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance ], ], ], ] or the event ] that is barely mentioned at the English ]. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see ] and ].
* {{userlinks|TakuyaMurata}}
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
*
*
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


However, as I have learned from it, I will never use multiple accounts anymore and adding controversial content without doing a proper fact-check. I will always listen to users, be constructive and be friendly. I will make sure you will not regret giving me my account back. I would like to work under the account ].}}
I've tried very patiently to work with this editor trying to convince them to clean up their old, unedited, esoteric, and frankly non-viable drafts. The contents read as copy paste definitions from Mathematics textbooks (though I cannot find the text in CopyVio search) that have sat for far too long not doing anything. I (in misguided wisdom) elected to exercise the ] option of Redirecting, and Taku has proceduraly objected on the grounds of "That's not exactly what this is". Previous discussions have suggested moving the pages to Taku's Userspace so that they can work on them, Redirecting the pages to sections of a larger article so that effort can be focused in one location to potentially get a ] article, or numerous other alternatives to deletion. It takes a full on MFD to compel Taku let go of the page so I suspect some form of ] or Creation credit is the goal. Furthermore on July 27th, I formally dis-invited Taku from my talk page setting in place the remedies for ].
] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support unbanning and unblocking''' per ]. ] (]/]) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
* Quoting my SPI comment ]: {{tq2|I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of ''block'' evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as ] of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-] unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is ''banned'', and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like ].) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here.&nbsp;... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an ] unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.}}That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at ], which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ] violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per above.] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Endorse one account proviso. ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: ]. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would '''Support''' with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of ]. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they ''seem'' to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. ] (]) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. ] (]) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' User seems to have recognized what he <!-- before someone complains about my use of the gender-neutral he, this user is male per what they've configured settings to be --> did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. ''']]''' 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>'''Weak Support''', the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. ] (]) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</s>
:*'''Oppose''', I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. ] (]) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. Completely support an unblock; see my comment ] when his IP was blocked in April. ] (]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see ''clear'' evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like may well be on notable competitions, but with content like {{tq|On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.}}, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. ] (]) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
* Currently '''oppose'''; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. ] (]) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{yo|Ahri Boy }} Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. ] (]) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*::He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. ] (]) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "]"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. ] (]) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. ] (]) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::See . ] (]) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. &spades;]&spades; ] 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). ] (]) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. ] (]) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:: I think saying that {{tq|I will never use multiple accounts anymore}} and that he wants to {{tq|make constructive content}} would indicate that {{tq|the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.}} ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. ] (]) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... ] (]) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:: And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}. ] (]) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to ]. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''] ]'''</span> 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. ] (]) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Fram and PMC. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Question''': Is SvG the same person as {{U|Slowking4}}? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by ]. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">]</span> (]) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
**No. ] (]) 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' basically per ], particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get ] without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). ] (]) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since ] was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.<br />'''Support'''. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --] (]) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{yo|Moscow Connection}} Your ''comments'' are as valid as anyone else's, if you explain your reasoning, <s>but please note that this is a discussion, not a straight vote, so just saying "support" doesn't tell us much.</s><small>It has been pointed out to that they did do that, I guess the break threw me off. </small> ] ] 21:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Conditional support unblock''' (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use ] for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. ]] (]) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I can't repeat what Beaniefan11 say enough: "Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}." This should assuage any doubt in the mind of the reviewing administrator. ] (]) 15:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Claims of "It's been seven years!" fall on deaf ears when you find out he's been socking all along and as recently as a year ago. Fram and PMC have good points as well. Show some restraint and understanding of your block and ] is yours. ] (]) 23:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with a little ] and conditions suggested by Joseph2302. Yeah, given the timeframe, I'd say having to submit their creations to AFC for the time being is a sufficient middle way for the yes and no camps. ]@] 00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Large-scale sockpuppetry is very harmful, and was continuing for years after the ban. ] (]) 20:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abottom}}

== Tulsi (unblock request) ==
{{atop green|User unblocked. ] 12:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
* {{userlinks|Tulsi}}
* Blocked (indef) on 3 April 2024 (9 months ago) by ] during an AN thread (]) for undisclosed paid editing
* Subsequent unblock request was also considered at AN before being declined (])


Tulsi has now submitted an unblock request which I am copying:
Now that Taku has elected to throw the "You're vandalising Misplaced Pages" by my redirecting Draft space "content" to the closest approximations and reverting citing vandalism I ask for the following:


{{talk quote block|Dear Sysops,
# That Taku be prohibited from reverting any redirection of Draft space content to a main space topic without first securing an affirmative consensus on an appropriate talk page.
# That Taku be chastised for improperly using vandalism in the above reverts
# That Taku should apologize to me for droping that warning on my page in line with the improper usage of "vandalism"
# That Taku should be prohibited (i.e. ban) from creating any new Draft space pages until there are no draft page creations of theirs that are more than 6 months unedited and that are not redirects
# That Taku be subject to these issues indefinitely with the option of appealing after 6 months (on 6 month re-appeal) when they show that they have remedied all pages under the above mentioned ban.
# That Taku be blocked for coming back to my talk page after I had banned them.


I sincerely apologize for my past actions, which were problematic and deceptive. I fully understand the concerns raised, and I deeply regret my involvement. On April 3, 2024, my account was blocked by Rosguill in relation to undisclosed paid editing associated with the {{section link|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive361|DIVINE and Tulsi: COI/UPE/quid-pro-quo editing, association with threats and harassment}}. However, I want to clarify that my involvement in these matters was minimal, with only minor interactions in the past. I have never written articles for payment, and I do not support paid editing.
] (]) 12:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


The issues in question occurred ], prior to the block. At that time, I admitted my conflict of interest (COI) and disclosed it on the relevant article talk pages. Following discussions, my global and local rights were removed, but the block was not enforced until two years later. Many of the articles in question were deleted, so I did not find it necessary to disclose anything further. Moving forward, I have no intention of creating or editing COI-related articles. However, if I am ever in a situation where I am required to contribute to such an article, I will ensure full disclosure on the article talk page and submit it for review, as I did with the article ].
*What I gather from your description of the situation is that you have chosen to boldly unilaterally redirect drafts, which TakuyaMurata created, to articles. They then restore the content by reverting your redirection. That seems acceptable, see ]; you are free to raise the matter on the talk page of the drafts. You want them to gain consensus to revert your changes, when you have not established consensus for them yourself. That is a double standard. That aside, their description of your changes as vandalism is incorrect. We can correct that notion here; a block is not necessary for that, as they seem to have believed your edits were vandalism, which made posting to your talk page appropriate per ]. Though redirecting drafts is an accepted practice, I am not sure it is documented anywhere, the matter is arcane nonetheless. I believe this just concerns drafts TakuyaMurata created, if so, I would not oppose userfying them to their userspace. I oppose all six of your requests as undue based on what has been presented thus far, except #2 to a point, we should "inform" them rather than admonish them. <small>—&nbsp;]<sup>&nbsp;(]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">])</sub></small> 08:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
**{{rto|Godsy}} Taku has explicitly rejected on multiple occasions moving these pages into <s>draftspace</s> userspace. So that option is out. Taku makes procedural objections of "It's not really that" or other tendentious arguments. In short, If Taku wanted to actually do something about these drafts (or merge their contents to mainspace, then he could in the copious amount of time that he's spending. Heck, I'd even give him a 3 month moratorium on sweeping up the drafts if he promised that at the end of that moratorium any drafts that he created that haven't been edited in 9 months are fair game for any editor to come in and apply an appropriate disposition (Moving to mainspace, Redirecting, Merge-Redirecting, CSD-Author) to get them off the ] report. If the report is clean it removes some of the arguments for expanding ] to include all Draftspace creations. If the page is redirected to a relatively close mainspace article, attention gets focused to mainspace (which is google searchable and provides benefit to wikipedia) and potentially we get a new article when there's enough content to viably have a ] ] (]) 12:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
***{{reply to|Hasteur}} Sure you can apply what you believe is an "appropriate disposition", but that does not mean your choice is the most appropriate action. Drafts currently do not have an expiration date. ] is not something that needs to be cleared. I largely concur with Michael Hardy below. This is all I have to say. Best Regards, <small>—&nbsp;]<sup>&nbsp;(]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">])</sub></small> 20:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
* I can't speak to the specific merits, but I've seen any number of Taku's drafts turn up at DRV after a well-meaning editor tagged what looked like (per Hasteur) an unviable abandoned draft and Taku strongly objected. It's not a healthy dynamic. ] ] 11:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
*I don't know what usages and concerns exist in the Draft namespace. Possibly that is why I don't know why the existence of these drafts would cause any problems. Could someone explain why it's a problem? Barring that, I don't see that these complaints against this user amount to anything. If there's really some reason to regard the existence of these drafts as a problem, might moving them to the User namespace solve it? ] (]) 17:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
*I've come across this issue mainly via DRV listings. It seems TakuyaMurata has created a swathe of tiny pages in draftspace about obscure mathematical and allied concepts, containing little more than an external link, a restatement of the title, or a few words. He has then resisted all attempts whatsoever to improve the situation, objecting as vociferously to any deletions as to any suggestion that he might, you know, want to expand the drafts he has rather than spewing out yet more of them. <br>There is ''no benefit to the encyclopedia'' from having tiny non-searchable substubs in draft space. None. Taku needs to accept this and redirect the copious time he seems to have to argue about old substubs towards more constructive activities like researching and expanding some of them. Otherwise, they should be deleted. ] (]) 12:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


While I respect Rosguill’s decision to impose a block after the two-year gap, I understand that a block serves to prevent disruption rather than punish. I have learned valuable lessons from this experience, and my contributions over the past two years reflect this growth. In this time, I have created , all without any undisclosed paid editing or COI involvement. Additionally, I have contributed to patrolling, as seen in the ] and ]s, and I have reported several violations on WP:UAA.
:::@] I've offered to move the stubs to his userspace (specifically to a userpage he already has listing about 50 of the about 200) but he refused that. These pages are a Draft space management hassle representing a growing percentage of the 200 of the remaining 5500 abandoned non-AfC Draft pages. Frankly I can't figure out why he guards them so carefully, given he could just expand them or move the info onto one page or redirect or whatever. ] (]) 16:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


I acknowledge that I was not fully familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies in the past, but I have since taken the time to understand them better. I have been an active and committed user since October 2014, with significant contributions across various Wikimedia projects. I have also served as a sysop on Wikimedia Commons, Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki, and the Maithili and Nepali Wikipedias.
::::{{ping|Legacypac}} To respond, I for one don't get the need to delete the legitimate drafts just because they are old. The figure 200 is misleading since most of them are redirects. I agree the draftspace has a lot of problematic pages. I'm not objecting to delete them. Am I correct to think your argument is it would be easier if there are no legtimate drafts in the draftspace so we can delete old pages indiscriminately? That logic does make at least some sense (although i think there is a better way.) -- ] (]) 23:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::Only redirects after the community consensus compelled to give up your walled garden plots. Our argument is that you've created so many sub-stub pages in draft space that it's causing more problems both for patrollers who are looking for problematic pages and for those of us who like trying to get effort focused to namespace. Your reams of words to dilute and obstruct any meaningful progress on the topics (you'll argue to the end of the universe your right to keep the pages) instead of actually ''working on them to get them to mainspace'' gives little doubt as to your purpose here. ] (]) 03:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::For me, ] doesn't strike to me as a sub-stub. How is that page a problem for "those of us who like trying to get effort focused to namespace". What is the real or hypothetical mechanism having draft pages prevents the editors from working on the mainspace? Hence, I think "patrollers who are looking for problematic pages" seems to be the '''heart of the matter'''; having non-problematic pages makes the patrolling harder. Obviously the answer is not to delete/redirect the non-problematic pages? Are you seriously ''seriously'' proposing we ease the search for problematic pages by removing non-problematic pages? -- ] (]) 14:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::To respond "gives little doubt as to your purpose here.", actually I have fairly solid reputation in editing math-related topics in the mainspace. I agree if a user edits only the draftspace and no of his/her drafts have promoted to the mainspace, then we may suspect on the user's motivation. I'm not that case here. -- ] (]) 08:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


I am requesting an unblock because I am fully committed to abiding by all the established policies moving forward, and I am eager to contribute here in a constructive manner. Please kindly allow me a second chance.
* '''Comment''' How many total math-related drafts created by Taku are there? How many of his drafts are now mainspace articles? If this is a specific issue about Taku's use of draft space, analysis of editing history should give clear evidence as to whether he has an unreasonable number of drafts. ] (]) 19:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
** <small>To be clear, I expect Hasteur or Legacypac to have some data here; I'm not expecting TakuyaMurata to produce data to defend himself. ] (]) 19:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)</small>
***{{re|Power~enwiki}} According to XTools, TakuyaMurata created 113 drafts. Of these, 42 have been deleted, so we have 71 current drafts. This does not include redirects (which would include those moved to mainspace or redirected based on consensus at an MfD). There are a good 106 of those, with 42 deleted (many via G7). . I think 71 drafts being retained in draftspace, many unedited for years, is clearly excessive. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 19:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
**** Thanks! I agree something needs to be done here, but don't know exactly what yet. I think ]'s proposal below is a good start, but it may not be sufficient to resolve this issue. ] (]) 19:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
*****I'm not opposed to further restrictions; I just think my idea is a good start to at least prevent the problem from getting worse. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 20:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


Thank you for your consideration. I humbly request your reconsideration and the restoration of the editing privileges on my account on English Misplaced Pages.
From a brief glance, my guess is that there are 20 or so drafts that can be turned into mainspace articles, and 50 or so that need to be deleted or redirected to a more general topic. ] and ] are two obvious examples that should be combined into a more general article. Diffs by Taku like are extremely concerning; Taku does not own the articles he creates in draft-space, and he should not expect them to stay there indefinitely (). ] (]) 20:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


Sincerely,
]&nbsp;] 14:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}


Having had discussions with the blocking admin, we would like to seek community comments on the unblock request.
See also where after 22 days Taku unilaterally decided to pull back a page in mainspace that other editors had contributed to to that clearly violates the purpose of Draft space, the collaberative editing environment, and is the most blatant violation of ] that I can imagine. {{rto|Power~enwiki|BU Rob13|Legacypac|Stifle|Michael Hardy|Jcc|Godsy|Mackensen|BD2412|Thincat}}: Can we move forward with something that acutally improves[REDACTED] instead of the repeated hills we have to needlessly debate over and over on? ] (]) 13:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


Tulsi was blocked after UPE allegations that had been outstanding for around 2 years essentially caught up with them. They have now attested to having never edited for pay, which was the question they originally failed to answer twice (], ]), leading to the block. In the unblock request, they give a sincere undertaking not to engage in any more UPE.
Also presenting the case of Taku's disruption of ] for which they try to override an administrator's Move protection on pages promoted to main space that, while not 100% perfect, are viable. Notice how Taku does not contact {{U|RHaworth}} when requesting the reversal. Each time a new content or conduct venue is introduced in an attempt to fix these complaints, Taku seizes on it as the next life raft to save their walled gardens. ~~


They have created several dozen articles about Nepalese politicians but these seem to be innocuous. I have identified only a handful of articles where Tulsi could have edited for pay. Given the amount of other contributions Tulsi has made, it would be appropriate to give the benefit of the doubt. ] 15:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
=== Proposal: Limited restriction on use of draftspace ===
{{atop|No consensus to implement restrictions. ] (]) 21:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)}}
Let's propose something concrete that can at least control the issue going forward. I propose that TakuyaMurata is restricted from creating new pages in the draft namespace when five or more pages remain in the draft namespace which were created by TakuyaMurata, excluding any redirects. This seems perfectly sensible; no reasonable editor has more than five work-in-progress drafts at one time. Complete something before you start something new. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 17:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


*'''Support''' as proposer. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 17:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC) *I cannot find the link for "A related meta-wiki discussion". <span>]]</span>  15:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
**I've deleted those words. I had decided not to include them in my post, but accidentally left them in. For interest, the discussion was this one: ]. ] 15:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support''' some kind of warning regarding ownership behavior on draft articles is also necessary, IMO. ] (]) 20:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''', however this doesn't fix the problem of his existing pages. I'm not 100% certain, but I think they haven't created any new pages so this is effectively a wash as it doesn't do anything about the already festering piles in Draft space. ] (]) 20:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC) *'''Support''' per ]. I will AGF that Tulsi will keep his promise not to engage in any COI editing going forward. ] (]/]) 16:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Question''': We are all volunteers here, so the applicant's comment {{tq|if I am ever in a situation where I am '''required''' to contribute to such an article}} (emphasis mine) is worrisome within the context of UPE/COI. Could they, or someone else for that matter, provide some clarification? ] (]) 19:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
**{{re|Hasteur}} He made one as recently as late July. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 01:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
*: I assume "required" is just poor phrasing and refers to circumstances similar to ] provided in the same sentence you quote. In any event, the second part of the sentence states {{tq|<em>I will ensure full disclosure on the article talk page and submit it for review</em>}} (emphasis added). That promise is enough for me. ] (]/]) 21:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' re: "no reasonable editor has more than five work-in-progress drafts at one time" - I have something along the lines of 1,740 open drafts at this time. They are generally attached to specific projects, and I consider this entirely reasonable. However, in the case of this specific editor, having created intransigent drafts, I would '''support''' the proposed limitation. ] ] 20:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''', we should generally give a second chance to users who have greatly and fundamentally changed in several months. Given that the user acknowledged the block and promised not to engage in undisclosed paid editing, not to mention that the user is trusted elsewhere, I see no reason to oppose. ] (]) 20:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''&nbsp; Seems to be an attempt to discourage a valuable contributor over a non-problem.&nbsp; ] (]) 21:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I believe in their ability to address any concern in the future, given that they served as a sysop on Wikimedia Commons, Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki, and the Maithili and Nepali Wikipedias. ] (]) 21:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. The assumption that you can have more than five works-in-progress at any time is absurd. And the idea that there should be some specific time limit to how long something can be a work-in-progress directly contradicts ]. This whole idea of forced cleanup of drafts seems like a solution in search of a problem. Also, ] has been an extremely prolific and valuable editor, writing a large number of articles in a highly technical field over many years. I'll admit that his use of draft space is somewhat unorthodox, and he does seem to digging his heels in about userspace vs. draftspace. But, on balance, we need more people like him. Let us not lose sight of our main purpose here, and that's to produce good content in mainspace. Hewing to somebody's ideals of how draftspace should be organized, pales in comparison. -- ] ] 23:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
**How does refusing to incorporate a draft that's been inactive since 2014 into mainspace contribute to good content in mainspace? ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 01:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
***Just to clarify, I'm refusing to work on draft pages in the specified time frame. Misplaced Pages is not my full-time job and for instance, I'm currently attending a workshop and it is very inconvenient for me to edit Misplaced Pages. Why do I need to be asked to finish them today? Why can I finish it in 2020 or 2030? Most of my drafts do get promoted to the mainspace; so there is no such pill of never-completed-drafts. Yes, I agree some drafts turned out to be not-so-great ideas and I can agree to delete those. (I admit I might have not be reasonable in some cases and I promise that will change.) The accusation that I don't allow any deletion is false. -- ] (]) 09:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
****With absolutely no respect, Taku has known about this for over a year and a half (March of 2016, June of this year) reminders at WikiProject Mathematics talk page. Taku's pleas of "I have no time to fix these" could have been entertained if this were in the first year, but this is yet another hallmark of playing for time until the furor dies down. Even the statement "Why can I finish it in 2020 or 2030?" shows the "Play for time" mentality of "someday getting around to it". If progress is being made, then pressure can come off. If no progress is being made and delay tactics are the order of the day, then the writing is on the wall. ] (]) 16:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' the suggested restriction. Any restriction on the use of draft space should apply to everyone, not just Taku. The examples given above of alleged disruption are remarkably unpersuasive to me. ] is the first substantive case put forward. If anything, the disruption is being caused by editors improperly taking ownership of draft space by trying to enforce restrictions that are not supported by policies or guidelines. ] (]) 07:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Strong Oppose''' - The draftspace is an appropriate place to draft content and there is not and should not be a limit on the amount of drafts an editor can create there unless they are creating a truly unreasonable amount of poor quality drafts (i.e. hundreds). I completely disagree that "no reasonable editor has more than five work-in-progress drafts at one time" and oppose any sanction on individual because of largely unnecessary cleanup. Either everyone should be limited to five drafts, or no one should bar especially egregious behavior (which I do not believe has been demonstrated here), and I'm certain such a proposal for all wouldn't pass. I concur with Unscintillating. <small>—&nbsp;]<sup>&nbsp;(]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">])</sub></small> 07:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I'm not convinced that anything should be in draft space as we managed fine before it existed. But, in so far as draft space has a point, it's that it's a scratchpad that we should be relaxed about because it's not mainspace. Introducing petty, ad hoc rules is therefore not appropriate and would be contrary to ]. ] (]) 08:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per Rob. ] (]) 08:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' not a bad idea, but maybe restricts him from useful editing, which I commend him for. Leads me to an alternative proposal below. ] (]) 10:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''oppose''' per Andrew D. above and Roy below. We are trying to solve a problem that I'm not sure exists. It feels very controlling. ] (]) 17:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per Rob, displaying ownership of draft articles. ] (]) 11:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as the proposal doesn't address the one concern that actually seems to be a potential problem, that of ownership. ] (]) 22:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


:'''Support''' A second chance promises that Tulsi will not do highly undisclosed paid editing. I may partially support a topic ban on Nepalese politics against Tulsi. ] (]) 05:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' changing from eariler comment and alternate proposal that failed to get traction. The ongoing disruption is too much. It's a game to him, in his own words . A game that is more fun than content creation. Place the restriction. ] (]) 14:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Make the most of the second chance ] (]) 23:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I had already been kind of watcxhing the discussion on their talk page over the last few days, and agree with an SO unblock. ] ] 23:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}} {{abot}}


== Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist Edit Restriction Appeal ==
===Proposal: Limited restrictions/topic ban===
{{Archive top|Not a strong enough consensus for this limited restriction. Move on to the next idea. ] (]) 14:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)}} {{atop green|Unanimous consent after 36 hours to lift the restriction. ] (]) 14:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
A bit over a year ago, with near unanimous support, I appealed a TBAN from GENSEX - receiving in its place the following sanctions {{tq|1RR restriction in both the GENSEX and AMPOL topics; is limited to 0RR on articles for organizations/activists who are affiliated with anti-transgender activism or gender-critical feminism, broadly construed; and has a PBAN from Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull.}} Previous discussions are linked there. I am now requesting that my restrictions be dropped entirely because I have grown considerably as an editor, both since my initial TBAN when I'd just turned 19 and since the appeal.
Taku be restricted to voting once and making one followup comment on any MfD concerning a Draft he started. He is topic banned from starting a ] or requesting a ] to restore any deleted or redirected Draft he started. He is also prohibited from starting any more RFC or similar process or discussion on how Draft space is managed.


I translated ] (having originally wrote it on eswiki during my TBAN) and made it my first GA. I uploaded multiple colorized photographs of transgender historical figures to commons I improved ] and wrote articles for famous trans activists ] and ]. I also cleared up serious BLP violations at ] and rewrote the article. I also helped expand ] and wrote ]. I improved ] and ]. I improved ]. I rewrote and considerably expanded ] as well as ]. I expanded the article on the ]. I wrote the article on the 1970 semi-governmental report '']''. I expanded the articles on ] and ]. I rewrote ] to follow ] and use systematic reviews instead of primary studies. '''Most proudly''', I wrote ] and took it to GA - this is particularly relevant as a key part of the original TBAN discussion was whether my commitment to removing misinformation from Misplaced Pages was a case of either ] or following ] and ].
*'''Support''' as proposer. These very narrow restrictions will cut out the drama but let Taku continue productively editing. The old sub stub drafts will eventually either get improved or deleted in due course. ] (]) 10:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
::In ], which Taku started, overturn is being rather well supported, despite your multiple comments. Is this the sort of discussion you are seeking to ban? ] (]) 11:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
:::That is cherrypicking ONE discussion. See the many examples at the top of this thread. This narrow restriction should solve the disruption. ] (]) 12:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
::::It was the only DRV "cherry" listed up there. For the four MFDs listed (1) one Taku comment agreeing delete (this was an incredibly poor example of "disruption"); (2) multiple Taku comments which were not persuasive; (3) two Taku comments (and two from you) resulting in ''keep'' (!); (4) multiple Taku comments followed by ''redirect'' rather than ''delete'' and now subject of the DRV. ] (]) 12:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as ], ], ], ], and numerous MFDs and DRVs Taku's repeated comments ammount to filibustering and nitpicking in what I precieve as an attempt to dillute any consensus to effectively nothing that can be overturned with the whim of a cat. If the community has to respong 50 times on a MFD we're going to be spending 100 times as many bytes arguing about the content than was ever spent building the content. Taku appears to have the intellectual exercise of debating content rather than fixing things that have been brought to their attention as lacking. ] (]) 12:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - I have not seen any behavior I deem inappropriate (i.e. contrary to policies or guidelines) by TakuyaMuratad, and I cannot support any sanction against them until I do. <small>—&nbsp;]<sup>&nbsp;(]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">])</sub></small> 01:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': If I'm allowed to point out (which this proposal will prohibit), it is ironic that my behavior is considered disruptive while an attempt for the rogue so-called clean-up of the draftspace isn't. There is no consensus that my draftpages (perhaps all) need to be gone. See ] for example for the position of the wikiproject math: they don't see my draft pages to be causing a problem. Thus I'm not working against the "consensus". I pretty much prefer to just edit things I know the best, rather than engaging in this type of the battle. I know this type of the battle is wearing to many content-focused editors and many of them stop contributing. Obviously that's the tactics employed here. That is the true disruption that is very damaging to Misplaced Pages the whole. -- ] (]) 03:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Counter-proposal''': I can agree to deal with some of sub-stubs (expand or delete them); it helps if you can present me a list of "problematic" draftpages started by me. They usually take me 5 min say to create and I had no idea it would cause this much controversy. While I don't see a need for us to spend some min to delete/redirect them (leaving them is less time-consuming), hopefully this is a good compromise. -- ] (]) 04:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
** Taku, the time for your going through and cleaning up the pages was a year ago. Your repeated obstinancy this past month is disruptive. Want to prove to the community you actually want to fix these pages? Fix them yourself. You've spent thousands bytes defending these festering piles of bytes but not one single byte actually fixing the problem. Fix the problem and the issue resolves itself. ] (]) 11:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
***Wow, just wow. This proves you're more interested in the disruption for the sake of disruptions rather than working out some compromise. Anyway, my offer is still on the table. You promise to cease the disruptive behaviors for once and all and provide me a list of short-stubs you want me to work on; then I can try to meet you as much as I can. -- ] (]) 12:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
**** In no way did I make that promise. What I agreed to was '''you clean up the pages so they're under 6 months unedited, then I won't have anything to poke you about'''. You do that and I will lay off because I set a personal minimum of 6 months to consider if the page needs to have corrective action taken on it. ] (]) 13:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
*****You imposing the restriction like that, disregarding ], is called a disruption. -- ] (]) 14:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' attempts to restrict access to WP:DRV. Access to DRV by any editor has important governance and symbolic aspects. Taku does not have a history of disruption at DRV. DRV closers and clerks are well capable and practiced in speedy closes when required. --] (]) 11:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
:*Your rose-colored glasses should not hide the fact that DRV has no process for speedy closes.&nbsp; The DRV started by Taku is a great example of a failure of the hit-or-miss application of DRV speedy-closes.&nbsp; Nor is there a process for corrective feedback when a speedy close is improperly applied.&nbsp; ] (]) 13:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
::* Due probably to its much more tightly constrained scope, DRV management is much simpler than ANI's. DRV should not be managed from here. Bad speedy closes can be taken up at the closer's talk page. My experience is quite positive (]). There is also WT:DRV, which is very well watched. --] (]) 02:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
:*Picking up on part of your comment, if we had "DRV clerks" that could be a path forward.&nbsp; ] (]) 13:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Arguing about the right solution to the problem is silly because nobody has yet demonstrated that there is a problem in the first place. -- ] ] 11:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''oppose''' Just doesn't seem needed. Yes he's verbose. But it's a two-way street. ] (]) 18:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' he has created all these stub drafts, and if only he'd spend as much time working on them as he did arguing for them to be kept then we'd all be much better for it. Clearly there is enough disruption to prove a point going on here to warrant some kind of action. ] (]) 11:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' disagreement with an editor's position is not a good justification for banning them from policy discussions. ] (]) 15:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' the reason I support action against this editor isn't related to his objections to deletion of drafts, it's his objection to attempts to move the content into mainspace. ] (]) 21:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per ] and ]. ] (]) 19:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}


I believe the restrictions impair my ability to edit productively. I generally edit with 1RR regardless of sanctions. With 0RR, as Red-tailed hawk noted at my previous appeal "they can wind up restricting the sorts of partial reverts that are often a healthy part of the ordinary editing process." With 0RR, I am unable to engage in the BRD cycle properly and always second-guessing whether a partial edit to a recent edit counts as a revert or not. It also prevents me reverting drive-by SPA/IP povpushing. I don't plan to ever edit KJK's article again, but I believe that my record of neutral constructive editing shows the PBAN is no longer preventative or necessary. In the highly unlikely event I ever see a reason to edit it in future, I know my edits would be subject to heightened scrutiny which I'd welcome.
===Result of DRV===
Note that ] was ] in parallel with this discucssion. The original MfD close of ''redirect'' was overturned earlier today. It seems pretty obvious to me that if an action was overturned upon review, asking that somebody be sanctioned for protesting that action is unwarrented. -- ] ] 12:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
*A proper DRV process follows ].&nbsp; ] (]) 00:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
*Hardly a typical DRV conducted during an ANi where editors with a point to make took over. It's fine the page with be deleted again in 6 months after it goes stale again. I urge to keep voters to focus on improving these pages so there is no abandoned pages to worry about. ] (]) 00:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
**To say the obvious, you don't need to be worried about abandoned drafts. There is no evidence that abandoned drafts are problems solely because they are abandoned. What is the case is that among the abandoned drafts, there are a lot of problematic drafts; an editor starts a draft on a non-notable topic and left the project. But there have been a few good abandoned drafts and they should be preserved. -- ] (]) 06:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
:::"But there have been a few good abandoned drafts and they should be preserved" which is precisely what Legacypac is doing, submitting drafts he sees as having potential back to AfC. ] (]) 15:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''See also''': ] regarding the behavior of ]. -- ] (]) 05:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


I appreciate your consideration. My best regards, ] (]) 01:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
=== Draftspace cleanup ===
{{collapse top|Consensus not established for restriction. Move along ] (]) 22:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)}} :'''Support.''' ] (]/]) 01:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support'''. Based on YFNS's activity since the original tban, I don't see any reason to believe that restrictions are necessary going forward. ] (]) 06:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*]
:'''Support'''. Welcome back comrade. ] (]) 06:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*Redirecting ] while ignoring the discussion in the talkpage (I was given a week to expand it into a mainspace stub.)
:'''Support''' based on their editing activity between TBAN and last year, as well as between the sanctions and now. Good work, and a great example of how this restorative process is ''supposed'' to work. May you inspire other misguided people to a path of restoration. ]&thinsp;] 08:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*]
:'''Snow Support''' ] (]) 14:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*]
:'''Strong support'''. To me YNFS comes across as a very responsible editor and I believe these restrictions are no longer warranted. ] (]) 16:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*etc.
:'''Support''' I remember the original ban happening due in large part to canvassing on twitter, the fact that any restrictions remained in place thereafter strikes me as a deep miscarriage of justice. ] (]) 23:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*The logic "this is very appropriate until someone wants to actually write this title" is quite bizarre (not to mention a blatant disregard of the policies); how is the redirect preferable for editors to develop the draft?
'''Query''' Does your reference to BRD mean that you undertake to follow it in the future? ] (]) 14:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*cf. ]
:'''Enthusiastic support''' YFNS is a perfect model of an editor who is an asset to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Can we do something about this crusade to cleanup the draftspace? Not every single old abandoned (in fact the above are not even abandoned) need to be deleted. The only problematic ones are. To cut out the drama, I would like to ask:
:'''Support''' A well worded appeal, worth giving another chance. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
# For '''one month''', ] is disallowed from nominating draft pages solely because they are old/abandoned.
-- ] (]) 20:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC) *'''Support''' This is a convincing and sincere appeal. ] (]) 00:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''', Welcome. ~] ] <sup>「] / ]」</sup> 02:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as they have convincingly demonstrated change. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I supported and still support the original restrictions, and the later now appealed restrictions. I think YFNS's case has shown that an editor can come back from the brink successfully and am happy that happened. ] (]) 04:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Copyvio Problem ==
::Not likely. Old/Abandoned draft is well established as a deletion criteria ]. I'm just working on the oldest ones in Draft space. https://en.wikipedia.org/User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report (sort by Last Edit) You know how to reverse a redirect when you want to expand a title. ] (]) 21:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Then why aren't you using G13? -- ] (]) 21:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
::::Taku well knows G13 currently (but not for much longer) applies only to pages submitted to AfC. Taku reverses any efforts to submit his Drafts to AfC. (Diffs available). ] (]) 21:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::So you admit you don't like the rule so you're just gonna break it? -- ] (]) 21:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::Huh? There is no rule against seeking deletion of old contentless Drafts. I'd expect a math person to have better logic skills. This is exactly why there is a thread higher up about Taku's behaviour. We are talking Drafts with essentially NO Content and no improvements since 2015. ] (]) 21:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::There is a rule against the disruption; your behavior has been quite disruptive. A thread like the above actually proves this. (Note it largely concludes against your position that I need to be sanctioned in some form.) I'm asking to end the drama for time being; that'a reasonable and much more productive. -- ] (]) 21:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
:::{{reply|Legacypac}} G13 applies only to . There is an open discussion on the talk page about expanding it, but "Old/Abandoned draft is well established as a deletion criteria WP:G13" is a blatant falsehood. It seems implausible to me that you don't already know that. ] (]) 21:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


Hey all, I believe that these three diff should be redacted as copy vio's, thanks. There are several sentences which are directly lifted from the sources. Some one more experienced should likely have a look through the revision I restored as well. I didn't spot anything, but I may have missed something.
Addressing the OP, would an IBAN be appropriate here? ] (]) 21:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


Warning to VQuakr: Calling my post a "blatent falsehood" is a personal attack and if you do not retract it I will seek sanctions against you. ] (]) 21:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


] (]) 22:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:Wow. Again doesn't this prove my point: trying to push his own view, disregarding the policies as well as the community. -- ] (]) 05:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
::Please tone down your rhetoric; this is not a battleground. Continuing to attack Legacypac at every turn is not going to advance your case. -] 05:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


:To be clear, I don't think that @] is really at any fault here.
:I think most of what LegacyPac is doing is excellent. But he;s overwhelming the process. Even if he can work at that rate without making errors, admins are expected to be careful, and there are simply too many to deal with proper;y. What will get this morass cleaned up is not over-rapid, but consistent effort. If I were doing it, I know I neeed to shift tasks frequently to avoid errors, and I wouldn;t do more than 20 or 30 at a time. Assuming LP is twice as good as I am at it, 50 a day by any one editor might be a reasonable amount. ''']''' (]) 05:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
:] (]) 22:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] please see {{tl|copyvio-revdel}} on how to tag copyvios for attention. ] (]) 08:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


== Lardlegwarmers block appeal ==
::Sure, except: a) I've been mostly working the shortest most useless ones that require little time to check b) over the last month or so I've already gone through most of the 5500 pages and screened out many of the more promising ones and made a mental note which to delete. c) I ] 5 times faster than a typical university student reads, at close to 100% comprehension which really helps my processing speed. d) The admins are keeping up and the CSD cats are not clogged up when I check them. e) my accept percentages are very very high. f) I take breaks to deal with ANi, talk pages, some article building etc cause the spam/junk gets old after a while. g) There have only been a handful of tags declined like 5 Taku stubs, a few DGG liked, maybe a few more. Thanks for voicing your thought though. There is a huge pile of junk to process and I' looking forward to seeing the bottom of the pile and the new count on the bot report tomorrow. ] (]) 06:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
{{atop
::perhaps part of the reason noone else has pulled any items out of your list is because atthe spend you are going it is a great deal of work to keep up. That's basically the problem--not that yo're doing them wrong, but that you're flooding the process. ''']''' (]) 21:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
| result = Essentially unanimous consensus to not unblock. ] ] 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


* {{userlinks|Lardlegwarmers}}
=== One-month suspension ===
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)
*'''Support''' as a proposer. -- ] (]) 06:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
=== Statement from Lardlegwarmers ===
*'''Oppose''' ridiculous attempt to silence your opponents. Legacypac's behaviour is not disruptive, his cleaning out of draftspace is in fact extremely useful. If only Taku spent as much time working on his perpetual-stub drafts as he did arguing for them to be kept whilst attempting to get sanctions on those who try to stop him then we wouldn't have this issue. ] (]) 14:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I have only been very active editing Misplaced Pages for about one month, even though my account is older. I was blocked for pushing a minority POV in the talk page for Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory, which I understand. For context, this issue wouldn't have even come up at ANI except that there was this very old account making borderline uncivil comments constantly, and I took them to ANI myself and it boomeranged. One thing that I learned from that experience is that Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement, and that I am probably not going to be the one to fix it.<ref>]</ref> Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed; my edits were in good faith and I was really just attempting to talk it out with the other editors who did not agree with me. But I understand that the norm in this space is to walk away if there isn't any uptake of my ideas or take it to dispute resolution instead of continuing to try to convince people. The current ban is for making a comment on an AE thread, not a Covid-19 article. I was on the page for a totally unrelated reason and noticed that a user I recognized from the Covid thread was being discussed. My comment was mostly about user behavior and reflecting on the underlying dispute itself, not Covid-19. Also, on my user page I quoted ] discussing his view on Misplaced Pages's approach to Covid-19 , which I'd assumed was permitted because it's my own user page and it's really a comment about the state of Misplaced Pages as a whole. The admin who blocked me, @], blanked it from my user page. If the community won't let me keep that quote on my user page, then fine, we'll leave it removed, but I wish they would have just asked me to remove it and described why instead of editing my user page. A block for this stuff seems harsh. Thanks.
*'''Oppose''' You don't sanction or IBAN users who are calling attention to your problems. ] (]) 16:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
{{talk reflist}}
*'''Oppose''' as retaliatory, and I suggest a big, fat, sloppy trout to TakuyaMurata as well -- and a short block if he makes another proposal against Legacypac. ] (]) 06:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
=== Statement from Tamzin ===
{{collapse bottom}}
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)
=== Proposed topic ban for Legacypac ===
=== Discussion among uninvolved editors ===
{{atop|Pointless.And no foreseeable benefit(s) of letting the thread continue.(Esp. per the close at ] on the topic related to the locus of this very issue.)]<sup>]</sup> 2:40 pm, Today (UTC+5.5)<small>Reclosed at 15:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)</small>And drop the stick!}}
*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)
Part of the problem above is the rapid-fire MfD nominations from Legacypac, even while the AN discussion above is still open. Legacy hasn't significantly slowed down his process bludgeoning at MfD since the discussion last month at ], in which {{U|SmokeyJoe}} proposed that Legacy be limited to 5 MfD nominations per day. I propose that this restriction be enacted as a topic ban in the hopes that Legacy will improve the quality of his nominations (which are as a rule quite terrible). ] (]) 21:50, 24 August 2017 (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 ===
:::Before proposing such a thing, clean up your own personal attack. Until someone gets around to closing the G13 expansion, cleanup will continue. Anyway, G13 will be useless on Taku's abandoned Drafts. He'll immediately request a ] (a safe prediction since he goes to DRV when the pages are deleted at MfD). ] (]) 21:59, 24 August 2017 (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)
* I think Taku should move all his drafts into his userspace. --] (]) 23:52, 24 August 2017 (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)
:* Yes, I was wondering myself why they didn't do that if there was controversy about them being in Draftspace. Taku? ] (]) 00:43, 25 August 2017 (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'm he by the way). Because that would defeat the purpose of the draftspace. It's not like my draft pages never get promoted to the mainspace; they do by me or others. Policy-wise, there is nothing with them. Some minority editors don't like the drafts are not the reason to remove them from the draftspace. -- ] (]) 05:13, 25 August 2017 (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)
:::So you have a problem with people touching your drafts; why not move them to your userspace where they'll be left alone? -] 05:46, 25 August 2017 (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)
::::I have a problem with the editors disregarding the policies like ]. I don't mind a well-intentioned attempt to develop the content. I have a problem with an attempt for undeveloping (e.g., deletion) the content. -- ] (]) 14:04, 25 August 2017 (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)
*'''Oppose''' as pointless because once the G13 expansion occurs (which it will), this won't be an issue. This is an issue of policy lagging behind community standards, not of behavior. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 05:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}}
**One (or few more) user's behaviors do not equate to the community standard. I'm asking some sanction because their behavior do not seem to reflect the community consensus nor policy. -- ] (]) 05:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
***And given the wide support for the expansion of G13, you're incorrect. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 05:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
****No G13 is about streamlining the deletion process; it's about the process not about the use of the draftspace, which is now discussed at ]. -- ] (]) 06:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - per BU Rob 13. ] (]) 05:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per above. Premature. -] 05:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' ridiculous. ] (]) 14:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
{{ab}}


== Usage of 'Notable people' vis-a-vis 'Notable person' in section headers ==
=== Another disruption ===
{{atop
See ]. We need some kind of an admin intervention to stop their disruption. For example, my drafts are not abandoned. -- ] (]) 09:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
| result = This is not an administrative issue. ] (]/]) 20:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:Currently the community consensus on low-quality drafts that have been stale for 6 months are abandoned. The solution to avoid having stale unworked drafts deleted is to a)work on improving them, b)keep them in your userspace. ] (]) 09:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
}}
::The citation please. Also, here is the better solution c) do nothing to drafts that have some potential and do not have some obvious problems like copyright bio or being about non-notable topics. This actually saves everyone's time (and in fact is the preferred solution.) -- ] (]) 13:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
::: ] (]) 14:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
::::The RfC asks to expand G13 to non-AfC drafts, which I even supported. It is unrelated to the inclusion criterion for the draftspace. There is still no community consensus that abandoned drafts are problems solely because they are abandoned (only that there are many problematic drafts among abandoned drafts) and drafts started by me are not even abandoned. -- ] (]) 14:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
::::And do you agree c) is the better solution? -- ] (]) 14:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::If you cant understand that that RFC means any draft unworked for 6 months is likely to be speedy-deleted I cant help you. There is nothing restricting you from making new drafts, only that if you do not improve them and abandon them they will be deleted sooner rather than later. ] (]) 15:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::{{re|TakuyaMurata}}--Please read ] which has been explicitly modified post-RFC.And avoid a ''I don't hear it'' behaviour.]<sup>]</sup> 15:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::You need to distinguish between how to delete and what to delete. The expansion of G13 simply gives more convenient ways to delete old pages. The RfC specifically did not ask whether if we want to delete old pages. The distinction is subtle but is real and significant; perhaps this needs to be explicitly noted. -- ] (]) 19:35, 25 August 2017 (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.
Here is another instance of Legacypac (obviously the page is not a test page). I don't understand how behavior like this can go unpunished. They have the great jobs of deleting problematic pages in the draftspace. That doesn't give him to go above the rules. -- ] (]) 19:31, 25 August 2017 (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)
::That page has NO CONTENT which is a standard reason to CSD G2 Test. ] (]) 19:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
:This seems like a question for ], not ] as it doesn't involve administrator actions. AN isn't a general Help forum for questions about editing. You could even try asking at ] or the Help Desk. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I suggest you read G2 again. It applies to a page with an editor testing editing functionality. Do you seriously claim I was testing th editing functionality? -- ] (]) 19:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}}
::::I try to help save your little stub by moving it to your userspace. What gives you the right to call my move "vandalism"? ] (]) 19:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::Becuase the removal of legitimate content is vandalism. It's that simple. If you suspect the topic is not notable for instance, the right place to discuss it at MfD. -- ] (]) 20:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
A yet another instance of applying an incorrect CSD criterion: you don't get what you want? You need to get over it! -- ] (]) 19:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


== Reporting Administrator Abuse ==
===Time Out!===
{{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)}}
I've been watching this for a while (and participating a little too). One thing that's obvious to me is that neither side is 100% wrong, and neither side is 100% right. And, equally, nether side is ever going to convince the other to change their opinion. At this point, people are just venting. As {{U|Mackensen}} said, ''It's not a healthy dynamic.'' This is bad for the project. We need to get some closure here, and that's not going to happen in the current forum. I recommend we take this to some neutral third party, have both sides make their case, and everybody agree that whatever comes out of that they will comply with the decision. I'm not sure if ] or ] is the better process, but likely one of those. -- ] ] 22:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
:With respect, but this has been going on for over a week actively and simmering for over a month. 3rd Opinions, RFCs, MFDs, RMs, and many other forua of evaluating community consensus is clear: the creations are not acceptable. I am attempting to use every community method of resolving conduct and content disputes prior to going before the most disruptive form of dispute resolution so that the enablers can be disproven when asked "Did you try ''alternative form of dispute resolution''". ] (]) 01:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
::Numerous MfD discussions contradicts your claim. -- ] (]) 11:00, 26 August 2017 (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)
One Admin has removed G13 tags on five Taku substubs (some with zero content) so that is something. Note I'm just tagging as I find them in the list not targeting math pages specifically. . ] (]) 02:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


:So there's two things here.
:It's a sense this is time-out but I'm about to take an intercontinental flight so I will not have Internet accesses for quite a long time. I'm just hoping the plane Misplaced Pages exists when I'm back on the earth. The matter is actually very simple: one side is trying to destroy Misplaced Pages and I'm merely trying to delay it as much as possible. My English is quite limited and that might be a reason I didn't describe the situation. -- ] (]) 10:58, 26 August 2017 (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.
::Misplaced Pages does not need you. Misplaced Pages will still exist once your back on earth. We are not trying to destroy Misplaced Pages (despite your numerous personal attacks to the contrary). We are trying to clean up a portion of Misplaced Pages-adjecent space for which you have been reminded and nagged multiple times. That you can't be bothered to deal with issues in over a year leaves little imagination that you don't see any purpose in working on them. ] (]) 16:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
:* 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)
:::Actually Misplaced Pages needs editors like me who supply content but anyway yes in your wikigame I'm dispensable. To respond, the cleanup does not have a policy-wise support if it has supports from some users. So, people like me would see clean-up as a disstruction; see above, I'm not alone in this view. -- ] (]) 17:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
{{Abot}}
:::: '''No, Misplaced Pages does not ] you'''. Misplaced Pages doesn't need me, and for great effect, Misplaced Pages doesn't need Jimbo Wales. No editor is indespensible. If you think that content creation, or potential content creation, will excuse you from behaviorial norms, you are in for a very rude awakening as the community at large and ArbCom have (at various times) banned and blocked editors who were a net negative to the community. ] (]) 22:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


== Ban appeal from Rathfelder ==
===Suggestion for a compromise===
Keeping in mind that '''', let me suggest a possible way forward. The goal of one camp is to get these articles out of draft space. The goal of the other camp is to not have any particular schedule imposed on completing them, nor moving them to user space. What if we created ] and moved them to be subpages of that? It would get them out of sight of the people who want to clean up draft space. It would get them into the sight of the people who are most qualified to nurture them. And, they would be subject only to whatever policies the wikiproject decided were appropriate (which might well be that they never expire). Would this work? -- ] ] 13:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


* {{userlinks|Rathfelder}}
*Absolutely. ] (]) 13:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
* ] for sockpuppetry, vote-stacking and undisclosed COI writing of a BLP attack page
*+1.Happily!With the provisos (1) and (3) of {{U|Hasteur}}.Otherwise reject!]<sup>]</sup> 13:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
* ] declined by the community
*Cute and creative. ] (]) 14:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
* ] not submitted for review by the community for not complying with ]
*Anything that would stop this non-constructive bickering has my support.--] (]) 16:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
* '''Accept with provisos''': 1. Taku is not allowed to move things back to Draft namespace after they have been sent to the Mathematics draft bullpen. 2. Only pages that are not ready for mainspace get sent to this bullpen. 3. The Mathematics project endeavors to work on these pages and after some timeframe of not being able to nurture them to the point that they can be stand alone, they be nominated for deletion. The way the proposal reads simply shifts the pile of bits from one location to annother without any stick at the far end to elicit the improvement of mainspace by the content. This has already been done previously when ] was closed down and absorbed by Drafts. ] (]) 16:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
:* Comment: "A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied", and therefore the sides of the conflict should not have the veto right; and in particular, the provisos above need not be accepted; they tend to shift the point from the middle to one end. Rather, "subject only to whatever policies the wikiproject decided". ] (]) 17:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
::With respect, Your proposal only creates yet another walled garden for Taku to be disruptive in. My provisos are actually in line with generally accepted processes. We have a tool already available in CSD:G13 to deal with Taku's pages, but I would prefer not to have to use that lever to get improvement. ] (]) 17:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Also would not the best compromise be one in which both parties are satisfied? I do not agree that a single wikiproject gets to decide that they can keep embryonic pages that "may one day" be expanded. Wikiproject space is not indexed so pages there do not help further the purpose of Misplaced Pages (]). Taku gets what he wants by getting to keep the pages (for some duration), Legacypac and I get what we want by ensuring that the creations are actually improving Misplaced Pages instead of being perpetual used bits, and Misplaced Pages as a whole gets what it wants in content that an average reader can use. ] (]) 17:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
::::As for me, you are not less insistent than Taku. Maybe even more. Well, naturally, you look the right side in your own eyes. No wonder. I guess, Taku does, as well (but is now on a flight). ] (]) 18:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Question''' - What is the advantage of moving the drafts to a new Wikiproject draft space, as opposed to moving them into Taku's userspace, which seems to me by far the simplest and most appropriate solution. Articles can be moved from userspace into articlspace as easily as they can from draftspace. ] (]) 18:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
::I'm attempting to find a solution which is acceptable to everybody. Apparently, moving them to userspace has already been rejected by one party, so I'm exploring other options. -- ] ] 18:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
::Recall also the answer given at the start: "It would get them into the sight of the people who are most qualified to nurture them." ] (]) 19:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
*Is ] policy or not? There are many textbooks with esoteric details that could be used to generate hundreds of pre-stub drafts. Encouraging their indefinite storage undermines NOTWEBHOST because the community has no practical way to say it is ok to store pointless notes on mathematics, but not on, say, ]. ] (]) 00:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
::True. But "policies the wikiproject decided" could be such a practical way. WP Math can decide what is pointless in math. Do you expect that another wikiproject will decide to store pointless notes on K-pop? ] (]) 04:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
::And on the other hand, if indeed WP:NOTWEBHOST should restricts the use of the draftspace, then the restriction should be formulated clearly in draftspace-related policies. For now it is not, and the position of Hasteur exceeds even the guidelines of ]. ] (]) 04:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
::The problem is that some interpretation of ] contradicts some interpretation of ]. ] (]) 05:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Should the ] project be the arbiter of whether sub-drafts of pornography articles are retained indefinitely? What if they wanted to upload a hundred sub-stubs each based on the name and photograph of a non-notable porn star? Relying on ] is not a reasonable way to run Misplaced Pages. It is important to uphold the principle of ] and discourage the indefinite storage of things some contributors like. Per ], this noticeboard is not bound by the details that are or are not covered in the text at WP:NOTWEBHOST. ] (]) 05:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
::::OK. If so, yes, this noticeboard can make a precedent decision against Taku. In this case it is desirable to complement draftspace-related policies accordingly. Alternatively, this noticeboard can accept the proposed compromise. ] (]) 05:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
::::But now I see ] a modification of RoySmith's idea by Johnuniq: do keep them on the project space, but combined into a single page. Really? ] (]) 08:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::The application of WP:NOTWEBHOST rests on vacuous grounds, since the most page views of these drafts are caused by the janitors and their employed bots, so no essential ''web hosting'' takes place at all. ] (]) 09:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::I don't see ] applying at all. The content we're talking about is clearly intended to be used for writing future[REDACTED] articles. The point of contention is not the intended use of the material, but the speed at which those articles get written.
:::::::Even if "not webhost" is indeed not an apt name for that policy, the problem behind the policy is real: in order to be a healthy organism, Misplaced Pages needs both digestive system and excretory system! We do not like a precedent decision that makes it possible for advocacy groups to avoid the excretory system. This is the point of Johnuniq (as far as I understand ]). ] (]) 15:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
:{{rto|Tsirel}} of 04:47, 27 August 2017: That's a good one. I perceive that as a personal attack. In no way did I deal with that defunct sub-project. I'm applying ] which is policy, instead of a cherry-picked project that was absorbed into the Draft namespace. It's very simple. The drafts are abandoned because Taku hasn't done anything about them in over two years after having attention brought to an appropriate WikiProject (for which they participated in) (May 2016, June 2017). Taku contributed precisely zero bytes to improve them, however will spend thousands of bytes arguing that they should be able to keep them. ] (]) 16:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
:::You do not own a production factory called draftspace.&nbsp; Yet you want the creative-content production of draftspace to meet your production standards.&nbsp; ] (]) 23:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
::A personal attack? Just the (true) statement that your position exceeds even the guidelines of something? I did not know it is defunct, I did not know you apply something else. But even if I were knowing that, would it be a personal attack? As for me, this is your nervous overreaction. (Now blame me for the word "nervous" too...) ] (]) 16:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
::(Better late than never...) "Discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum (e.g. user's talk page or Misplaced Pages noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack." (]) ] (]) 20:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Tsirel}} I know the type of these editors. They are here to play a game; the ultimate goal of it is the destruction and getting the users blocked. They want you to get upset and make mistakes to get you banned. I'm a target since I have kept evading their attacks; so I became the last boss of the sort. I guess I'm not completely innocent; a part of me must enjoy counter-attacking their attacks (It can be quite more fun than writing terse math articles). This is just an online game a lot of Misplaced Pages users play nowadays. I know the game is a distraction and that's why I agreed with the proposed compromise. -- ] (]) 21:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
::::@Taku: You would be best advised to stop commenting on the motivations and characters of the opposing editors and start dealing with the actual issues involved, because this has been going on for quite a while now, and I can sense that some admins might be close to dealing out some NPA blocks, if only to shut it down. Boris, at least, made an effort to find a compromise, albeit one that didn't fly, but it's '''''you''''', Taku, who is at the center of this, and therefore it's '''''you''''' who is going to have to give way in some fashion or another, because your failure to do so, your digging your feet in with continued rejections of all proposals has, in my estimation, become disruptive to the smooth operation of the encyclopedia. That being the case, it's no longer going to matter who is "right" and who is "wrong", '''''someone''''' is heading for a block, and the prime candidate would appear to be '''''you'''''. You're out here practically alone, with a number of editors aligned against you, which is not a great position to hold in a noticeboard discussion. Continue holding out and don't compromise if you want to take the risk that no admin is going to block you, or start to actually '''''talk''''' to the other editors and find some acceptable common ground -- the choice is yours, and yours alone. ] (]) 23:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
:I'm not sure how I'm on the path for the block, reading from the above and below. Anyway, for the record, I have already agreed with the Roy Smith's proposed compromise that we put the draftpages at the subpage of the wikiproject math. It seems it is the other side that it never accepts anything other than '''total capitulation'''. -- ] (]) 07:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
::Indeed. ] (]) 07:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
:::I've given you my view of the situation which, despite the comment of an editor below that it was "perfectly biased", was, in fact, a neutral and unbiased take on the matter. Only time now will tell if it was correct, but certainly if Taku continues his escalation to personal attacks, it would seem to be more likely than not. Good luck with that. ] (]) 21:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''support''' as written (not with addendums). Arg, this whole thing is silly. Both sides are, IMO, out of line. There is no need for these articles to sit in draft space for months and months. But there is also no reason for anyone to care if they do (yes, I've heard the reasons on both sides and yes I still think both are wrongheaded). This solves the problems both claim exist (draft space being to "messy" and giving the drafts a home outside of user space where others are likely to find and help). So let's run with it. ] (]) 18:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - This seems like a good solution to the problem. Without this, we will surely have drafts that will never be improved sitting in the draftspace. Hopefully, we can bring these drafts to the attention of those who know stuff about the subjects. <font color="#2D3D67">]</font><sup><font color="#D7000B">]</font></sup><sub><font color="#D7000B">]</font></sub> 21:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - uh, this isn't a solution, this is just moving the problem from one place to a different place. If drafts would be fine as a project sub-page, they would be fine in the draft namespace. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 13:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


Rathfelder has submitted the following ban appeal on their talk page and asked me to copy it here:
===Copy of all content in a single page===
{{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 downloaded the wikitext (minus irrelevant stub templates etc.) from all current Draft pages created by ], and appended it to <strike>]</strike>] which already existed (skip the initial list of links to drafts to see what I added). Drafts which are currently redirects were not included. TakuyaMurata of course is welcome to revert my edit if wanted, in which case the content can be seen at ]. If nothing else, the single page allows easy browsing of the content. I should have used a level-one heading for each copy, but everything else is probably ok. ] (]) 11:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I have spent 2 years working on Simple English and Wikimedia. I have not set up any sockpuppets or edited anything where I had conflicts. I plan to continue with Wikimedia, as there is plenty there to keep me busy, but I would like to be able, in particular, to add pictures to articles - now I have found my way round the enormous Wikimedia resource. I also sometimes come across articles in English[REDACTED] which need amendment.}} ] (] · ]) 17:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:Now headings are level-one. ] (]) 13:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


*'''Conditional support''' - If there's been no socking ''during'' the ban. ] (]) 17:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::(in an airport with a patchy connection) I object to the use of a single draft page. See my sandbox page, which I use for my own private drafting use. The draft pages I started are supposed to belong to the community; that is, why I object to put them into my user-page. I can live with the proposal to place draft pages in the wikiproject math page; this way, they are still not tied to me and can be edited by the others. I have a lot to say on the proper use of the draftspace, but I will not repeat the here. As noted above, ] is not applicable since it's about the non-encyclopedic content. Are in the agreement? -- ] (]) 16:27, 27 August 2017 (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)
To heck with Taku this is absurd. see below:
*'''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)
===Propose 1 week block===
*'''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)
{{Archive top|No consensus for this idea. ] (]) 17:11, 6 September 2017 (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)
Only a block is going to stop the never ending disruption of draft cleanup that he continues to spread to pages far and wide. . Nothing will satisfy Taku ever. In a week the push will be over and he can come back and hopefully make useful controbutions.
* '''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)
] (]) 19:00, 27 August 2017 (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)


== Appealing April 4 2024, indefinite WP:CUP ban and indefinite 1-nomination GAN limit ==
:As above, I have expressed my agreement with the proposed compromise and so I have to be blocked then??? -- ] (]) 20:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
{{atopr
| result = Consensus to lift this ban will not develop. ] (]/]) 22:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


At ], I was instructed by closer ] that I could appeal these in a year and it has been 9.5 months. I am appealing because the CUP entry deadline is traditionally January 31. See ] through ]. This year the ] verbiage says "The competition will begin on 1 January 2025 and signups will continue throughout the year". I am just noticing the new language as I am putting this appeal in. Nonetheless, I am requesting time off for good behavior on the ban.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 18:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Now Edit warring to delete a redirect and wholesale modifying my talk page posts. ] (]) 21:25, 27 August 2017 (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)
:You complained about the broken links so I tried to fix them; it's hardly the modification. -- ] (]) 21:40, 27 August 2017 (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)
:'''Regretfully Oppose''' Part of the issue here is that I'm not a abstract Geometry/Mathematics expert so I can't judge alone what is notable and what is not. To block a user and then immediately proceed to delete pages so that they cannot object will only set up the case for compassionate Refunds on the grounds that Taku wasn't able to contribute to the proceedings. If Taku has the opportunity to contribute, but does not that's a ] acceptance of the proposal. If they can't respond that smacks of a star chamber. ] (]) 23:03, 27 August 2017 (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''' Taku should not be so disruptive, but the issue was sure to be ignited when drafts were nominated for deletion. However, 1 they do not have to be nominated, 2 they do not have to be deleted, and 3 they can be restored at ] request. However I will also note that putting it in userspace is a much better option. Don't expect others to stumble across the draft and improve it. Instead Taku should ask at a Wikiproject to see if there are others willing to assist, and then it does not matter if it is userspace or draft space. I would also oppose a separate Mathematics draft space, as that would still accumulate stagnant drafts. ] (]) 00:33, 28 August 2017 (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)
{{Archive bottom}}
:'''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==
=== Removal of Personal attack ===
{{atop
TakuyaMurata has been warned by many editors including recently by {{U|Beyond My Ken}} above at 23:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC) to stop making statements regarding the motivations of editors who are attempting to secure compliance with standard operating practices of Misplaced Pages. As such Taku made a bald faced personal attack on those who are trying to clean up draftspace page. I have reverted it citing the warning. I request that an Administrator give a final warning to TakuyaMurata for failure to adhere to the Civility policy and ] policy as the attacks and inuendo poison the consensus building arguments and fracture the community into an "Us vs Them" situation. ] (]) 14:22, 28 August 2017 (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)
:In his own words why he is doing this, and another attack. ] (]) 14:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
:I also name {{U|TimothyRias}} as complicit in twice restoring Taku's personal attack on the above page. What is worse? Removing a personal attack or disruptively restoring the attack repeatedly? ] (]) 14:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
::To answer your question: 1). You simply should not be removing comments in any conflict in which you are directly involved. If you feel that a some comment is a personal attack against yourself, go through through the proper channels, and do not remove it yourself. ]] 14:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
::Policy absolutely supports removing personal attacks against you. ] needs to be trouted for edit warring to restore disruptive nonsense. ] (]) 15:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Both of you need to take a long hard look in the mirror, and think about why people might get the idea that you are trolling. Maybe take a wikation?]] 17:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' to the need of a ''final warning''. I consider the valuation expressed in Taku's reverted comment as ''obvious'', and I myself share with others the opinon that the sanitizing engineers act above reasonable levels. The reverted comment contained to my measures neither insults, nor threats, nor innuendo, nor any general attack beyond tellingly describing specific behaviour. As regards the cited comment ("warning") by Beyond My Ken, this is in my perception a perfectly biased, non-neutral view of the facts, totally neglecting any possibility of a compromise, fully in line with Hasteur. ] (]) 17:58, 28 August 2017 (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)
===Request for administrator involvement===
{{abot}}
This thread has been going on for about 2 weeks now, with no sign of it being settled between the disputants in the near future. Could an uninvolved admin please weigh in on it, in whatever fashion is deemed appropriate, in order to put it out of its misery? ] (]) 21:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
:But don't we have Roy Smith's compromise? I'm not sure what admin actions are needed (block? Why?). Regarding personal attacks, I should note that my motivations have also been questioned time to time; e.g., starting a DVR is viewed a disruption rather than checking of the procedures are followed correctly. -- ] (]) 21:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
::A compromise which has been accepted by one side in the dispute, but not by (all those in) the other is not a viable compromise. ] (]) 22:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
:::{{U|Beyond My Ken}} is correct (actually, two of the three primary players here have accepted it, but not all three). If we don't have buy-in from everybody, it's not going to fly. The next thing I would suggest is to ask three uninvolved admins to write a joint closing statement. That's often a good way to get closure. Whatever they decide, everybody has to live with. -- ] ] 22:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
::::I have made this request -- ] ] 13:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
*Oh. Rats. OK, I edit conflicted with people (including RoySmith) saying my suggestion isn't feasible. I'll post it here anyway.
*:You want an uninvolved admin's opinion? OK. This has been personalized too much to lead to a suitable solution right now. So after reading this whole thing, I <s>plan on</s> <u>was thinking of</u> doing the following, if there aren't good reasons not to in the next day:
*:#Enact RoySmith's compromise, but as a temporary measure. For one thing, Legacypac and Taku have both agreed to it, and they are the main drivers (I know Hasteur hasn't). Leave the drafts there for a month, to allow the dust to settle. They could certainly be worked on while there, but this wouldn't necessarily be a long term solution, and it certainly wouldn't be setting a precedent for what to do with similar pages.
*:#Clemency for the many too-personal comments made by one side against the other. A strong suggestion to avoid people from the other side where possible, and avoid talking about the other side's motivations to anyone, for the one month period, but not a total interaction ban or anything.
*:#After a month (or sooner if everyone feels chill earlier), one or more of the following:
*:##A thread at ] about whether there is a benefit to hosting these sub-stub drafts in WP space, without resorting to comments on the other editors' motivations.
*:##A calm discussion... somewhere (]? ]?) about the benefit/cost ratio of keeping extraordinarily short pages in draft space, when a good faith editor objects to deletion, without resorting to comments on the other editors' motivations. I have not yet seen a fully persuasive rationale for keeping them or for deleting them.
*:##A calm discussion somewhere else.
*:#As a result of this/these calm discussion(s), with no deadlines, either delete the drafts from WP space, move them back to draft space, move them to userspace, or leave them where they are.
*:In other words, postpone the decision, giving people a chance to cool off, and stop edit warring / namecalling / block shopping / being angry. '''AN/ANI is about the worst place to try to solve a complicated problem'''. Let's follow RoySmith's advice and ''compromise'', and try this again in a more productive place than here. --] (]) 22:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Its not a complicated problem. Taku wants to host his unlikely-to-ever-be-worked-on-once-created stubs in draftspace, the editors who have been attempting to clean up draftspace would rather he actually work on them and/or submit them to AFC - you know, what draftspace is actually for. And have successfully managed to change the CSD criteria so unless he (or anyone else) does work on drafts, they will be deleted as abandoned. Since the solution to the problem of having unworked/abandoned stubs of little value sitting in draftspace is to not have them in draftspace, the easiest solution is just to move them all to Taku's sandbox where he can continue to not work on them to his heart's content and everyone else who really doesnt care about them can safely ignore them like all the other random stuff thats in sandboxes. Granted Taku wont be happy, but the point of dispute resolution is to resolve the dispute, not move it around the place. ] (]) 23:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
::{{rto|Floquenbeam}} With respect. The compromise has already been broken by TauyaMurata in first having the pages in Taku's namespace and then moving them to annother user's draft space. If Taku wanted to work on these, they should be in Taku's userspace. Moving these to Taku's workspace has been resisted tooth and nail by Taku. Multiple offers have been extended to Taku to show how they can get Legacypac and Myself to go away for 6 months. <strike>The change to the CSD rule was enacted by community consensus with Taku also providing feedback, so I find your claim that we changed the rule offensive.</strike> Finally I intend to hold your words up in 6 months when I predict that there will be not a single edit to any of the topics because Taku has repeatedly made the same noises without a single line of substantial improvement. ] (]) 00:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


== Please Help Me! ==
*this is pretty simple now and can be closed by an Admin, and here is a suggested closing statement "


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)
"We accept Taku's agreement to move his stubs to MathProject. Most have already been gathered into one page and any missed can be added by any editor. All Taku stubs so consolidated shall be deleted with Taku forbidden from objecting/DRVs or requesting REFUNDS on the consolidated pages. Development of the topics for mainspace is encouraged." Feel free to adjust the closing stmt or suggest improvements. ] (]) 04:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
:{{confirmed}} to {{np|Bhairava7}}. --] (]) 12:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
**Several things are wrong with the statement. In RoySmith's original formulation, there was no suggestion to consolidate draft pages into one page (thus the statement is significant departure from the original). For another, many of the drafts started by me are not really stubs; e.g., ]. "Development of the topics for mainspace is encouraged." too vague; also not in the original formulation. My understanding on RoySmith's proposal is it says that we use subpages of the wikiproject math as opposed to the draftspace. This is acceptable to me because it simply represents the change of the locations of the drafts (and not to the substance of them). It is my understanding that the substance of the drafts are not problems but the location is; somehow it is wrong to store drafts in the draftspace :) -- ] (]) 05:01, 29 August 2017 (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)


So... 70 or so little stubs? Since you oppose encouragement to develop the topics for mainspace... did you want to mandate development or forbid it altogether or just discourage development? Those are the other options right? ] (]) 05:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC) :I will transfer them over, given that it has been unsuccessful. I also think that this route is kinder. If T&S disables 2FA on your old account and you would like to go back to using it, please let me know. ] (]) 02:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


== BAG nomination ==
Taku, the consolidation is not at all a hostile act against you. Its reason was explained by Johnunique, and reformulated by me as "in order to be a healthy organism, Misplaced Pages needs both digestive system and excretory system! We do not like a precedent decision that makes it possible for advocacy groups to avoid the excretory system." (]) <small>Class hatred between these two systems is destructive (as always).</small> ] (]) 05:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


Hi! I have nominated myself for ] membership. Your comments would be appreciated on the ]. Thanks! – ] <small>(])</small> 14:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:I know but the consolidation fundamentally changes the nature of the drafts; it ties the drafts to me. The reason I use the draftspace as opposed to my user-page is to make suggestions that the drafts belong to the community not me. The closing statement I have in mind is
::''Because of the reviewing complications, for mathematics-related drafts, use subpages of ] instead of the draft namespace.
:*It is important that the statement does not refer to one particular user.
:*Equally important, the statement should not refer to any editing behavior.
:-- ] (]) 06:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


== I need help from an admin - Urgent ==
::"ties the drafts to me"? Yes, if the page will be called "Taku's drafts"; no, if it will be called "Our drafts", or "Algebraic geometry drafts", etc. ] (]) 06:41, 29 August 2017 (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)}}
:::Maybe I misssed thr point: why do we want to consolidate drafts into one page? Obviously, it's more convenient to edit ] as a standalone page rather than a section in one giant single draft page. Without consolidation, I image there will be a list of draft pages sorted by subjects so it will be easier to find interested editors to work on them. -- ] (]) 07:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Dear Misplaced Pages Team,
::::Sure, for us mathematicians it is better not to consolidate. But for admins that must resist bad-intended advocacy groups, it is safer to consolidate. I guess so; but I am not one of them, and not authorized to represent them. If you are able to resist the consolidation, do. Otherwise, accept. <small>Such is the life, and it becomes sucher and sucher.</small> ] (]) 07:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::@Taku: If the drafts "belong to the community and not ", then why are you exhibiting such powerful ] over them? You fight tooth and nail to exert your will about how they should be handled. That doesn't show that you believe they "belong to the community", that shows that you '''''act''''' as if they belong to '''''you'''''. ] (]) 08:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::No, no, I'm trying to fight against the attempt to impose idiosyncratic view of how the draftspace must be used, the view that does not have the community support and that is inconsistent with the policies like ]. Obviously, say, Legacypac's view is not always the same thing as the community's view. In fact, many so-called problematic drafts survive MfD, which implies there is a solid support for my use of the draftspace. Some editors might be verbose; doesn't mean their opinions are the majority's. I admit there does seem a tension between whether the draftspace must be reserved for the short-term use only or should be allowed for the long-term use. I have suggested we run an RfC to find the community's opinion on this and that was considered a ''disruption''... If I just want to own them, I would just use my user-page (in fact, I use my sandbox for drafts I want to own.) -- ] (]) 09:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::'''With no respect''' (because you've burned all my available AGF) you are wrong. The RFC which expanded G13 (for which you participated in extensively) clearly indicates that drafts that are unedited for over 6 months (like the ones we've been debating for the entire period) should be speedy deleted. Period, End of Line, No debate. Want to change that? Launch a new RFC making your case. Until then the community consensus provides for taking a critical view to pages that are unedited for over 6 months (like yours) because they do not further Misplaced Pages's purpose ]. ] (]) 12:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::"impose idiosyncratic view of how the draftspace must be used" I refer you to the previous linked RFC which is very clear that draftspace is not for indefinite draft storage. Please find another tree to bark at. ] (]) 12:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::I also object to the example of ] being flung around like chum to muddy the watters. Looking at the history we discover the page was created at 00:00 26 May 2017‎ (UTC) which by even the first revision makes this page less than 6 months ago so thereby is still concievably being worked on. Furthermore the most recent revision is from 08:18, 18 July 2017‎ (UTC) which again makes this page ''far too young to consider G13''. Yet another line from ''Taku's Playbook for Delay and Disruption'': Pull the debate to a topic that has a better case of getting cherry-picked support so that the generic debate can end in a "No Consensus" close. ] (]) 12:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
::Taku's accusation that I'm verbose but my opinions don't reflect consensus is one of the funniest things I've seen this week! Look in a mirror Taku! It's more than a little odd that Taku is complaining about G13 expansion after he voted FOR it. Anyway, he was fighting anyone touching HIS drafts (that apparently belong to the community today) well over a year ago. There are correct terms for people that will say anything, even contradicting themselves, to stir trouble. ] (]) 16:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
:::There is a little confusion as to what the expansion of G13 means: it is about ''how to'' delete the stuff and not about ''what to''. It was about streamlining the deletion procession; the question was formulated as such. If we were to permanently delete any page that is unedited for 6 months, we need to disallow, for instance, the refund of G13-deleted pages. There is still no consensus that there need a refund-proof deletion of old drafts. In fact, MfD, DVR, and WikiProject math if you look at anywhere else, you find this rogue "clean-up of the draftspace" does not have the strong community support. Fighting against rogue operations should not be considered as a disruption. -- ] (]) 21:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
::::Again no respect. You seem to repeatedly and willfully mis-construe the RFC to the point that I question your competency to understand and form coherent arguments in English as you have enumerated multiple times that it is not your primary language. G13 is the current law of the land, and nothing prohibits you from requesting a REFUND on those pages, however when they come eligible for G13 again (which I predict will happen) they will be deleted again for lack of editing. On a subsequent REFUND I expect the admin will see the history and see that it had been requested before and zero progress was made. REFUND is a low effort restoration, but there is an effort. An admin is also obligated to see if there is actually any progress on the page for previous requests. Furthermore this argument that it's a rogue operation is patently wrong, willfully deceptive, and very short of a personal attack. ] (]) 22:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::"Rogue operations" it's not my opinion but has been expressed broadly. There has been a wide skepticism whether it is necessary to clean-up old but legitimate drafts (there are a lot of worthless drafts and I'm not talking about them; the G13 expansion mainly concerns the latter type). "An admin is also obligated to see if there is actually any progress on the page for previous requests." This is news to me; can you provide me a link to this instruction? -- ] (]) 23:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|TakuyaMurata}} Please properly indent your messages. The standard on Misplaced Pages is to add one tab (represented by a colon) for each response, to make a pyramidal structure. You tend to go in and out and in and out, which is more difficult to read. ] (]) 00:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


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.
To those closing, here is another evidence so-called "consensus" only exists in the fantasy land: ]. The reference to a hypothetical non-existent consensus got to be stopped. -- ] (]) 22:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
:Yet annother case of willfull ] by Takuya. This real and present disruption has got to be stopped. ] (]) 22:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
::Are you again referring to the G13-expansion RfC? Again it was about streamlining the deletion process; nothing more. The question was not about the proper use of the draftspace. See also ] for the related discussion. -- ] (]) 05:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Your repeated attempts to claim victory out of resounding defeat surpasses all the markers of ] and ]. Look forward to round two in 6 months when we get the opportunity to argue this again. I challenge you Taku to prove me wrong by focusing for at least net 100k bytes on improving the text of these pages. If not then my previous assertion (that you're only interested in the topics because they're your creations and therefore an impermissible form of ]) stands and is reinforced. ] (]) 12:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
::::Hasteur, could you let this go? It's clearly gotten very personal for you. We have a compromise that only you seem to object to. Can't we just do that and move along? ] (]) 18:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::Without some form of guarantee that we won't be back here in 6~12 months re-litigating this debate and that Taku will be further emboldened at the fact that this discussion was closed as anything but a sanction to them, I think the harm to Misplaced Pages is still a clear and present danger. ] (]) 23:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


Many thanks,
:::::::All the Taku nonsense about G13 is a smoke screen. He has requested and received refunds on each deleted page and another 5 or so were untagged for him. The refund request includes the words something like "because I intend to work on this". In 6 months we shall see if Taku is true to his word or not. ] (]) 00:13, 1 September 2017 (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 ==
::::::::To be clear, I don't think the REFUND takes the editors' minds into account; in fact, there is no things like continuous-editing requirement for REFUND (there shouldn't be). -- ] (]) 02:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
{{atop|1= is thataway. → - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:::::::::Read ]. I found something interesting though. The normal G13 REFUND wording says "I, usename, request the undeletion of this ] submission deleted under ]. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it."
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:
:::::::::However and Taku did not use that for most of his REFUND requests, which may include knowingly deleting the wording. Does this indicate he requested the REFUNDS without intending to work on them? Were these refunds ] behavior? Taku - please answer yes or no - do you intend to work on all these drafts? ] (]) 04:08, 1 September 2017 (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 ==
::::::::::I do believe the template message is misleading and incorrect; for one thing, the drafts weren't created through AfC. For another, we shouldn't use intentionality as a test of whether we restore a page or not, since that can be subject to dispute and REFUND isn't an alternative venue for MfD or DVR. (To answer the question, I intend to work on any page in Misplaced Pages.) -- ] (]) 07:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
{{hat|1=]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::::::::::::So... No you do not intend to work on your notes in Draft space. That is the only way to interpret that evasive answer. The requests for a REFUND was misleading and ]y. ] (]) 21:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
{{atop|1=No. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:::::::::::::When/where did I say I don't intend to work on them? I'm questioning whether it is a good idea to ask such a question. Also, the instruction page is dated (e.g., only talks about AfC) and is not applicable to non-AfC drafts. -- ] (]) 22:48, 1 September 2017 (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)
:::::::::::Perhaps TakuyaMurata is either confused to the point of ] or ], but the procedure for ] clearly states {{tq|If your draft article has been deleted for this reason, and you wish to retrieve it '''because you intend to continue working on it''':}} (emphasis mine). The majority and spirit of the line has been in since . Taku has read the page as that is the only way they could have known the template to use. This behavior only reinforces my hypothesis that we'll be back in 6 months to nominate these again because Taku has not spent one byte improving the pages they requested REFUND on. ] (]) 12:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Move them all to Taku's userspace.''' At this point, it really doesn't matter what Taku wants in my opinion, because what he wants violates ]. Moving the things to his userpsace will at least get rid of the draftspace problem. It would be nice if an admin could close this endless discussion and make the obvious and easiest call, so that we could all go back to focusing on, you know, actually ''building an encyclopedia''. ] (]) 18:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
**What part of NOTWEBHOST does this violate? The point of draft space to to have drafts. These are drafts aren't they? ] (]) 20:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
**Besides if NOTWEBHOST is an issue, moving the pages to the user-space doesn't solve the issue since the policy applies to the userspaces. For the record, I would much prefer to work on the encyclopedic content; I'm merely responding to the other side's disruption; i.e., an attempt to remove legitimate perfectly-harmless drafts. -- ] (]) 22:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
***As far as I understand, the items are not legitimate drafts. Nor is draftspace for anything at all that is "perfectly harmless". To paraphrase NOTWEBHOST, Misplaced Pages draftspace is not your personal website or drawing board or playground. The ridiculous amount of time and contention that is being devoted to this right now, and the refusal to accept a reasonable and harmless solution, is an indication in my mind that there are serious CIR and NOTHERE elements at play here. I'm almost wishing that this entire thread would have been brought to ANI rather than AN, because there is a wider audience there and less tolerance for endless back-and-forth nonsense without resolution. ] (]) 01:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
****I disagree; as far as I understand, they are legitimate (see ], this is not just my only personalm view). (Also, if NOTWEBHOST is an issue, the pages need to be deleted, not moved.) I do agree this dispute is about the proper use of the draftspace. So I have repeated suggested that we run an RfC to find out the community's view the proper use of the draftspace. From MfD, DVR and other talk pages, my understanding is that my use of the draftspace is legitimate. -- ] (]) 02:03, 2 September 2017 (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)
::::::From board to board to board shopping for decisions he likes and ignoring or seeking to overturn decisions he does not like. Untold drama instead of either building good content. ] (]) 11:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
::@] here is another CFA imposter for you. Cheers! ]&thinsp;] 05:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Please, pretty please, before judging on math content, keep in mind your pertinent professional incompetence and, before beweeping the untold drama, consider its abundancy caused by you janitors in '''steadfastly refusing''' to agree to a suggested '''compromise'''. ] (]) 13:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
:::I indeffed {{User|CFA (AWB)}}. ] (]) 05:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::@Purgy: I don't think that English is your primary language, so probably you're not aware that "incompetence" is not the neutral word it may appear to be, because of its connotations, which include being stupid or inept. If your point is that Legacypac and Hasteur are not professional mathematicians (which, of course, they don't have to be to count to "6 months" and look at the history of a draft to see if it's been worked on in that time), it would have been more polite to say something like "your lack of professional qualifications in mathematics." (And, so you know for the future, "Pretty, pretty please" is a fairly condescending thing to say.){{parabr}}But, be that as it may, I don't see where either of them are making judgments on the value of the '''''mathematical content''''' of the drafts in question. It appears to me that the point being made is that the drafts have been sitting in draft space '''''without being worked on''''' for a substantial period of time, and therefore should be moved elsewhere. That's not a judgment on the '''''content''''' of the drafts, it's a judgment on where they are, how long they've been there, and what's '''''not''''' happened to them in that time. ] (]) 20:36, 2 September 2017 (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)
:::::::::You are perfectly right about English not being my mother tongue, and I do not even live in a ''pertinent'' country, so thanks for your hints to a more adequate use of ''pretty please'' and ''incompetence'', even when decorated with the adjective "professional" and the one in italics above. But mostly I want to emphasize that my comment did not address anyone's capability to count or look, but the statement by Legacypac {{tq|"Untold drama instead of either building good content."}}, which I perceived, in this here context, to be targeting missing or defect "math content". Sadly, because of this repeated misinterpretations I cannot revise my estimation of you being "perfectly biased", favouring the "janitors of draft" and turning down "Taku, the vandal of draft". Maybe, this all is caused by me being inept to understand English in a native way. So sorry. ] (]) 10:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::Maybe, or maybe I am "perfectly biased" and just don't know it, but it now appears to me that the only participant in this particular colloquy who is "perfectly biased" is '''''you'''''. "Janitors of draft", indeed. "Notorious user Hasteur"? Those are not the comments of an unbiased observer, whatever their proficiency with English. I extended you AGF, but you've sucked it all up. ] (]) 23:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::No one needs an advanced math degree to assess a page with no meaningful content - including ones with not a word of content. ] (]) 00:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

===Arbitration?===
It looks like arbitration is the next step. ] (]) 14:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

:With regret I feel obliged to report that this, rightfully sighed at, remark is canvassed by notorious user Hasteur, who did not hesitate to bias a presumed arbiter with headlining the problems as solely caused by '''Taku-cruft''', without even mentioning his denial of any compromise short of his fullblown targets, and of course not admitting own stubbornness. ] (]) 15:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
::
::What on earth are you talking about? Hasteur hasn't edited ] since 17 August, and (as best as I can tell) hasn't posted on the talk page of ''any'' arbitrator for more than a month. Since the hinting above doesn't seem to have penetrated, I'm going to put this more bluntly: ] applies to you just as much as it does to anyone else, and if you continue insulting other editors or making accusations without evidence, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 16:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
:::Thank you for that response, though had I decided to presue advanced forms of DR, I would have named Purgy as a ] addition to the case. For the time being I feel that the case is pretty well put now that 2 administrators have strongly reminded TakuyaMurata that ] is disruptive and can be a blockable offense. Takuya's drafts are either below the threshold or are being debated. I have very little doubt that in 6 months we will be back here, having this same debate, with exactly the same cast of disputants, with some of the same enablers of the action. At that point I suspect there will be a 1 week AN thread before I or someone else will transition this to ArbCom so that the underlying conduct dispute can be resolved short of the Appeal to Jimmy. I do not expect this to come to ANI beause it does not need immediate (<48 hrs) resolution as it is not an existential threat to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 20:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

=== Tangentially related pages ===
There is a discussion on the purpose of the draftspace at ]. Since the issue is really about the policies about the use of the draftspace (as opposed to editors' behaviors), the page might be relevant. In particular, I haven given my take on the draftspace (as well as on AfC).

See also ] for an example of a math draft started by someone other than me. In time, a draft like that will be deleted. I'm objecting to practice like that. Objections to destructions like that should not be disruptions. -- ] (]) 23:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
:On the Geometric Mixed-Motives you are as woefully wrong as possible. If you took the time (instead of looking for cherry-picked examples to hang your banner on) you'd see that the '''anonymous user''' had the AFC "draftmode" banner in the content from the very first . Approximately 1 minute later, the same anonymous user meaning they are giving it to the community to judge it's worthyness. It was reviewed by what appears to be an editor in good standing and was declined. The anonymous user knew exactly what they were getting into when they submitted the content. Unless you're ] your example is so wrong that you appear to be setting yourself up as the patron saint of hopeless math draft pages. As was said untold times before, the way to keep this draft off the deletion pile is for the page to be improved and brought up to an acceptable quality. ] (]) 03:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
::that ] is useful - to keep themselves occupied. It will get MfD'd sooner or later. There is nothing more to do with Taku until 6 month rolls around and his drafts get CSD'd again for inactivity. ] (]) 05:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}} {{abot}}

=== Copyright/attribution violations resulting from actions in this thread ===
{{Archive top|All addressed {{NAC}} ] (]) 13:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)}}
Sorry, there's an outstanding issue here that must be addressed. {{ul|Johnuniq}}'s solution to copy all of the content from {{ul|TakuyaMurata}}'s various drafts into one large list created a complicated ] - there's a requirement for all contributions to be credited, and although notes have been made to satisfy the requirement, part of that requirement is that the original contributions remain visible. So the solution has exacerbated the problem: as long as the list exists composed of the content of Taku's drafts, we cannot delete the drafts. The usual solution is to move the original contributions to a subpage somewhere, but some form of this was proposed above but didn't reach consensus to implement, and would still prevent the drafts from being deleted wherever they end up, and that seems to be a major point of contention in the first place. The only remaining solution is to delete the list, which I am about to do.

I want to ask that everyone who participated in this thread please read ], and please immediately stop using cut-and-paste to copy pages or parts of pages. If you need help with a page move please see ] or ask here. Cheers. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 18:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
*OMG, won't this go away? OK, copying like this is just a bad idea. It solves nothing and makes the drafts much less useful (okay, from barely useful to almost not useful in any way). That said, assuming he is the _only_ contributor to those drafts, copyright law is met as long as that page says that. It's when you can't figure out who did what that there is a problem. ] (]) 23:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
*For the record, I edited the existing ] to append copies of drafts. The edit summary complied with ] and the first line of my text was "Copy of wikitext from draft pages created by ]." Each section started with text such as "''Copied from'' ]". Takuya moved the page to ]. My intention was not to create a permanent record but to allow people to easily see what was being discussed, namely mostly very premature sub-stubs. ] (]) 00:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
::Yes, that was all fine, except that the move from Taku's space to Johnuniq's space was a cut-and-paste, but I already fixed that. The only problem is that attribution in this way requires that the original diff is visible, and with the ongoing dispute it seems unlikely that condition will continue to be met. If there's consensus that the solution is to merge all of the drafts(/notes/whatever) into one list in this manner then there's probably a compliant way that we can do it, I'm not sure off the top of my head but I'll ping {{ul|BU Rob13}} and {{ul|Anthony Appleyard}} who I expect are more familiar with this. But anyway, there doesn't seem to be agreement here that this merge solved the problem. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 12:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
:::Histmerge. Find an admin who has a high tolerance for pain and a couple of hours to spare ;) ] (]) 13:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
*{{ping|Ivanvector|TakuyaMurata|Johnuniq}} Something like this atttribution problem happens whenever two pages are text-merged. Put a history note in the "one large list"'s talk page. ] (]) 15:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
::{{yo|Anthony Appleyard}} in this case, copying the text to the large list is being used as justification to delete the pages containing the original text (drafts, mostly). It's my understanding (via ]) that if an attribution note is made on the large list, then the origin pages must not be deleted. Am I wrong about that? Alternatively, if it's agreed that a solution is to collect all of these drafts into one large list, is history-merging all of them into one page acceptable? I'd be willing to do it, if there's consensus. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 15:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
*{{ping|Ivanvector}} If any of "''all of these drafts''" are ], that would prevent history-merging. What are the names of all those drafts and of the assembled list? ] (]) 16:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
::There's a list at the top of the deleted revision at . I'm not sure that list is complete. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 16:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
:::It's not complete; see my next message. ] (]) 22:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
*I don't think there is any reason to spend more time on this. I saw a discussion on the drafts where it was obvious that most people had not reviewed them due to the difficulty of considering 149 pages. Someone suggested that the author might like to keep one page with all the drafts (which are often just one or two lines). The author seemed unlikely to request anything as they are happy with the untouched drafts so I compiled the 60-KB list and added it to the author's existing userspace page. That was on the theory that they might not request it, but they might accept it as desirable if done. The author rejected the list by moving it to my userspace and that's all we need to know. Deletion is a good outcome. I put a list of the 149 titles in ] (]). ] (]) 22:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}

== So unhappy to post this ==
{{archive top|This is as clear-cut a consensus as I've ever seen both in terms of what should be done, and what shouldn't be done, so keeping it open is serving no useful purpose. The already-existing IBAN is replaced with:<br>'''A two-way ] is imposed between ] and ], subject to the standard ]. Neither may comment or edit in any way on or about XFD's started by the other, in any venue, other than in circumstances covered by ]. Both may !vote or comment on a third-party XFD, but neither may comment or otherwise respond to the other's comments. This ban shall be indefinite, and may be appealed at ] by either party after 12 months. The 12 month period should be considered as commencing at the timestamp of this closure. This ban applies to any and all alternative accounts that may be operated by either party. Any breach of this ban by either party can be addressed without discussion by any uninvolved administrator with any sanction up to and including indefinite blocking.''' <br>There's some material spelled out there which I wouldn't normally include in a closure, but given the history here I want to leave no room for wikilawyering. In my view the community consensus is actually being extremely lenient here; editors have been community banned from Misplaced Pages for considerably less disruptive activity than that demonstrated by Godsy here.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 08:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)}}

I'm so unhappy to be raising this today. I so hoped this was solved at the end of June and I've been paying no attention to Godsy's edits until his name popped up on my watchlist 13 times in a row today. I went looking and was shocked at what I found.

====Evidence====
*An IBAN was imposed on June 30/July 1 which I have very carefully followed.
*I supported the IBAN to get some relief from constant ]
*Godsy strongly opposed the IBAN
*an IBAN exception was carved out for commenting on XfDs started by the other person.
*The closing admin is away prepping for a hurricane (Prayers for ] and anyone else in the path)
*There are about 31 open ]s right now
*over the last 8 days I initiated 13 of the 31 open MFDs and
*Today Godsy voted against my nom on 12 of the 13 plus 1 other MfD that I'm very involved in
*Each vote was only several words and the 13 votes were rapid fire between 12:07 and 12:11 ]
*until today, Godsy has not participated in MfD since June 27 and did not participate in any other MfD today. He evidently specifically targeted MfDs I'm automatically watching, and to 100% oppose my efforts to delete.

I also was very surprised to find that Godsy's only contributions since the June 30 IBAN have been mostly focused me and my edits.
*a) develop his with my alleged sins
*b) complete filing a ArbComm case against me he started when it was clear the IBAN would pass (rejected)
*c) pop into the Taku AN thread on Aug 16 to comment on a topic highly connected to my editing
*d) requesting permission to comment on a proposal I put forward in the same thread and then opposing my proposal ,
*e) Vote to Overturn at DRV the close of a Taku page, again, something I'm pretty involved in.
*f) fiddle with and mostly clear ] and ] which hides the ANi, block, IBAN posts.
*g) replace all content on ] with a countdown clock that ends the moment he can appeal the IBAN on July 1, 2018 which suggests planning a year in advance to step up his campaign against me.
*h) make a comment on Jimbo's talk on 1:47 July 16 , just under 6 hours after I was specifically invited on my talk page to comment there Good chance he followed the link from my talk because I've seen nothing to suggest he is very interested in ACTRIAL and he was not notified of that discussion.
*i) edited zero articles, initiated zero XfDs, and done zero to move the project forward.

I'm definately not welcome on his talk

Also I never noticed before that on June 28 he engaged in extensive canvassing to alert editors (a majority of whom just voted against a 1 way IBAN on Godsy) about the proposed two way IBAN, likely hoping for a repeat result.

====Questions====

1. Do these sections of ] apply?

::''General pattern of disruptive behavior'': A long-term history of disruptive behavior with little or no sign of positive intentions. and/or
::''Treating editing as a battleground'': Excessive ...escalation of disputes, repeated hostile aggressiveness, and the like, may suggest a user is here to fight rather than here to build an encyclopedia... A user whose anger causes them to obsess may find the fight has become their focus, not encyclopedia writing.

2. Is this editing pattern continued ] even if it is barely within the bounds of the IBAN?

3. This makes me feel like I've got an enemy watching my every move who is dancing along the edge of the IBAN. Am I being too sensitive here?

4. What, if anything should be done about this behaviour pattern?
Thank-you and again, so sorry to be bring this back to the community. ] (]) 11:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

====Discussion====
On (3). You are being about 15% too sensitive. About 115% of what would be healthy. It's weird, but mostly harmless. --] (]) 13:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
:Some of the stuff seem harmless. I mean it's well established that editors can remove nearly everything from their talkpages per ] so there's zero point getting worked up if they do so. Godsy is clearly aware of the iban. Likewise, even if the case is rejected, I'd be very reluctant to say someone preparing a case for arbcom is wrong. (The problem is when people seem to be taking forever to prepare the case so it stays in[REDACTED] all this time.) But I do have concerns (if it's true) about someone making a countdown clock for being allowed to appeal. Although even in that example, I'm not sure if there's much point worrying about it. All they're doing is ensuring that their appeal will fail. More concerning still would be, if it's true, that they suddenly appeared in MFDs and only in MFDs with LegacyPac's involvement. Yes there was an exemption but it wasn't intended (at least on my part) to allow Godsy to continue to pursue LegacyPac. Still I'm not sure there's enough for any action, so I would just let it be. ] (]) 17:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
:::I'm not complaining about him cleaning up his userpage. I'm just pointing out that is the only other thing he's done that is not related to pursuing me. Just click edit on ] to confirm the countdown clock is set to July 1, 2018 exactly one year from the date of the iban imposition. ] (]) 00:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
*] shows an editor who needs a long wikibreak. Godsy has exploited the technical wording of the ] to further their campaign against Legacypac. The statement did not cover the obvious, namely that it was expected that each editor would find something useful to do other than hound each other. Therefore, voting at an MfD started by the other was seen as a reasonable activity for someone following ]. However, Godsy prefers to fan the flames. In ] Godsy placed an ] of people "most miserably ]" with a countdown timer showing how much time Godsy needs to wait before the IBAN can be appealed. It is rare to see a contributor unable to hide their hostility after so much disruption. Options are an extreme final warning or preferably a one-week block. ] (]) 23:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

===New section post-close-reversal===
{{Ping|User:Primefac}} thank-you and I'll happily agree. For absolute clarity this means no more commenting on XfDs started by the other party correct? That would be "reply to each other in discussions"? That is how I read the section just above ].] (]) 02:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:Sorry {{u|Legacypac}}, Godsy seems to determined to wikilawyer this one to death. ] (]) 02:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

===Proposal===
In light fact that {{u|Godsy}} apparently has ] than sidle up to and drool all over the exceptions carved out during the previous discussion, as well as ], I am proposing the the IBAN expanded; the only exceptions will be those stated in ] and resets the one-year counter for appeals. {{u|Legacypac}} has already agreed ] to accept these terms. ] (]) 02:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
::{{ping|Primefac}} Just noting that I believe you have the authority as an admin, if you believe that Godsy's editing is ], to unilaterally impose any sanction you think is appropriate. It would not, of course, then be a community sanction which can be overturned only by the community, but a normal sanction, which can be overturned by any admin -- although discussion with the admin who imposed the sanction is the recommended usual procedure before overturning. Given those limitations, you don't '''''necessarily''''' need to have the community's approval to impose your suggested change to the current sanction. ] (]) 04:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

:I was hoping to ignore all of this, the nonsense that it is, but it appears I will not be able to do so.
:*An accurate characterization of my editing:
::*An ] was imposed on July 1 which I have followed.
::*I have never ] anyone, and the community has never found my actions to constitute harassment.
::*I opposed the interaction ban for reasons I clearly express there.
::*] is still editing, but at a reduced rate.
::*Many ] discussions are open right now.
::*Some individuals initiate more than others, and some consistently present poor rationales for deletion.
::*I participated in ones that interested me, as I am allowed to do, most of which were in the ] section (the ones most in need of more participation).
::*I had several miscellany for deletion discussions open at one time on September 7, and saved them all at around the same time, which is perfectly acceptable.
::*I've largely been on a break since the interaction ban was implemented, and still am.
:*I've edited very little since the interaction ban, only things that I believe need my attention the most when I happen to pop in:
::*a) See ] and ] in regard to the arbitration case filing.
::*b) see a).
::*c) I'm allowed to comment at the ].
::*d) I'm allowed to ] of the interaction ban and edit accordingly, see ].
::*e) I'm allowed to participate at ].
::*f) I archived my talk page to ].
::*g) There is nothing inappropriate with my userpage, it meets all applicable policies and guidelines.
::*h) ] is one of the most, if not the most, watched talk page on Misplaced Pages.
::*i) I'm allowed to spend my time editing as I see fit.
::*) I have not engaged in ] in the past, rather, I have sent out ] notifications.
:*Questions:
:#No.
:#I have never ] anyone, and the community has never found my actions to constitute harassment.
:#This whole thing is nonsense.
:#Nothing, it is entirely appropriate.
:{{reply to|Nil Einne}} See above.
:{{reply to|Johnuniq}} I put a picture of ] on my ]. She is the patron saint of the falsely accused and tortured. I think that fits my current situation well, though "tortured" is too strong of a word.
:{{reply to|Primefac}} ] and you must remain neutral when ].
:I knew things like this would pop up, which is why I limited my editing and continue to, only addressing the most important matters. ] is another example. The individual I am banned from interacting with wants the interaction ban to be much, much larger than what one entails. We disagree about drafts and whether or not things should be deleted out of process or for no good reason. They seem to want me banned from all such discussions regarding those issues. They are involved in seeking sanctions against others they simply disagree with, e.g. ] in ] and have done the same to others in the past. I believe they think causing drama like this will result in expanded sanctions allowing them to effectively silence someone they deem to be an opponent. Free, open, and civil discussion from those with all reasonable viewpoints is a pillar that holds Misplaced Pages up, and I hope the community does not allow it to be crushed. I would suggest the community either 1) close this by adding a sanction to the original poster of this thread which states ''matters concerning this interaction ban may not be brought to the ] or subpages of it by said party, accept to appeal the ban at the appropriate time if desired. Said party may only bring matters concerning the interaction ban to the closing administrator (i.e. Xaosflux) or the arbitration committee'' (this will largely avoid further disruption and drama, the intent of the interaction ban) or 2) ''send this matter to the ]''. Best Regards, <small>—&nbsp;]<sup>&nbsp;(]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">])</sub></small> 03:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

*'''Support''': Listen, I will be the first one to say that I have had run ins with both {{u|Legacypac}} and {{u|Primefac}} and am not huge fans of theirs at the moment. Nevertheless, the behavior displayed by Godsy is petty and borderline ]. Responding to legitimate problems with "take it to Arbcom" is exceedingly worrisome. Complaining about the community's ability to enforce restrictions by saying it goes against Misplaced Pages policy is further pettiness and the community should not waste further time on someone who is trying to game the spirit of the sanction, aka "the nonsense that it is". —&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;(]) 04:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
**{{reply to|Nihlus Kryik}} I believe the community has shown an inability to handle this matter, hence my suggestion to kick it to the arbitration committee. Even if the interaction ban is converted to a traditional one, it will not prevent me from doing things the individual I'm banned from interacting with deems inappropriate and they'll cause a fuss if I engage in them. E.g. to quote ], "Although the parties are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other." The individual I'm banned from interacting with doesn't want me to edit pages they do, evidenced by their complaints that my name shows up on their watchlist (i.e. "Godsy's edits until his name popped up on my watchlist 13 times in a row today") and other more explicit statements in the past. It would be good for the arbitration committee to decide whether or not unambiguously improving pages another has edited constitutes harassment, as that is where this matter stems from, and the community has been unable to deal with the matter (see ]). The situation is too complicated, and I feel like I may be rambling, so this will be all I have to say (tonight at least, if not for much longer). Best Regards, <small>—&nbsp;]<sup>&nbsp;(]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">])</sub></small> 04:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
***It seems fairly straightforward to me. ]: Editors subject to an IBAN are not permitted to:
**** edit each other's user and user talk pages;
**** reply to each other in discussions;
**** make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Misplaced Pages, directly or indirectly;
**** undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;
**** use the ] extension to respond to each other's edits.
***Nothing about that is confusing. Now, editing '''only''' pages that they edit could be considered ] and would be a violation of the spirit of the ban, like you've done up until this point. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;(]) 04:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' anything up to and including an indefinite block of Godsy. The extraordinary nonsense posted above means no crystal ball is needed to know the future of this sorry episode. @Godsy:&nbsp;We each have a private list of people we think should not be here. On the one hand, it is nice that you are so transparent, but on the other, it is not good for you or the community. ] (]) 04:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
**{{reply to|Johnuniq}} Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your statement, but the "they" I use above is a ], to refer the individual I'm banned from interacting with (whose name I don't care to type or use). It isn't meant to refer to anyone else or a "list of people". Best Regards, <small>—&nbsp;]<sup>&nbsp;(]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">])</sub></small> 05:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
***Great, thanks for confirming that your list consists of a single editor. But why in the world would you want to post that clarification? The point of the IBAN was that the community does not give a damn who started it or who is at fault—we want it to '''''stop'''''. I recommend taking a wikibreak of at least three months. At the end of that time, if you feel any compulsion to check what Legacypac has been up to in your absence, take another three months. Repeat until cured. ] (]) 05:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Godsy already took his concerns to ArbComm who unanimously refused to hear the case but hey he knows where to file again. I'll probably waste less than 9 words on the next filing. ] (]) 05:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': I'm not familiar with all the details but I do share the impression that ] has a behavior problem: that they tends to seek blocks/sanctions against anyone who disagrees with them. The proposed ban only permits such a problematic behavior to be tolerated; very detrimental to the health of the community. It's ok to disagree; it's not ok to try to silence the other side by any means. (At least this is how I understand the situation.) -- ] (]) 05:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:*Please note that the editor above, TakuyaMurata is involved in an extended dispute with Legacypac, which can be found above on this page, at ], and may therefore not be unbiased. ] (]) 05:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' Godsy protests far too much, but I'm not entirely sure what he's being accused of here. ] is a small place; and an exemption to the IBAN was specifically created to try to allow both to participate in the area. ] (]) 05:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:*Good faith is nice, but please have a look at ] before commenting. I count half a dozen edits that Godsy has made since early June that are unrelated to pursuing Legacypac. Per ], the IBAN was worded in a way that means Godsy did not violate the letter of the IBAN but the intention was clearly violated. The current proposal would stop the pursuit. For anyone checking the contribs, please be aware that the mutual support between Godsy and TakuyaMurata is because both oppose Legacypac. It is painfully absurd. ] (]) 05:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Suppose''' - Godsy this obsession with Legacypac derailed your RfA, resulted in a brief block, and an IBan you are wikilawyering around. Consider this proposal a ''benefit'' to you; cut your loses and perhaps take a wikibreak before more serious sanctions will be put to the drawing board.] (]) 06:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I was initially minorly supportive of Godsy (I mean when I first read this about this a couple or so months ago on ANI), but it's become increasingly clear I was wrong. I don't know, and frankly don't care why Godsy doesn't understand we want them to leave LegacyPac alone, and their actions are harming the encyclopaedia. And note, I've said before and I'll say it again, there do seem to be at least some minor issues with LegacyPac's edits, so this has nothing to do with any personal favouritism towards LegacyPac. In fact frankly I find it disgusting that Godsy who claims to recognise problems with LegacyPac's edits is making it difficult to actually work towards resolving those concerns by continually making us go through this nonsense. But whatever the reasons, Godsy is clearly unable to understand they are now the key problem, so we need to force them to. While the countdown clock by itself may not be enough for action it actually demonstrates the point very well. As I said in my first response, if it stays up it's a guarantee that any appeal by Godsy will fail. (If it's removed depending on other stuff there's a chance but the clock would definitely not help.) the fact they put it there can only suggest they don't understand this basic and obvious point. Frankly I've lost my patience enough that I would also support a completely community ban, or an admin deciding to just indef. And so would also support such if there are any further attempts to wikilawyer around it. ] (]) 07:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Neither oppose nor neutral''' in the spirit of , which seems a bit too lawyer-like for me. ] ] 07:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' along with a warning that if Godsy doesn't find something to do other than be a Legacypac-focused SPA, an indefinite block is the next step. His <s>hair</s> userpage should also be deleted as POLEMIC. <small>On a side note, administrators do not have authority to unilaterally modify community bans, though why Godsy feel arbitration policy is relevant is beyond me.</small> ] (]) 07:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:*<small>I believe than an admin can impose a '''''stricter''''' sanction on top of a community-placed sanction. If that admin-imposed sanction is removed, the community-imposed sanction still remains, until lifted by the community. Of course, I could be wrong, but that's how I interpret the relationship between sanctions. ] (]) 14:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)</small>
::*<small>That is correct. An admin could place an editing restriction that was stricter or made the community sanction irrelevant, but if that restriction is lifted, the community sanction remains. The most common example would be community placed editing restrictions where the editor is subsequently blocked indefinitely. Even if the block is lifted, the original sanction remains. Arbcom is a different matter and has been handled in different ways by different arbcoms. Some have replaced community sanctions in entirety, others have incorporated them into Arbcom sanctions. ] (]) 09:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC) </small>
:::*<small>That is true of blocks, which can be imposed unilaterally on discretion, but administrators do not have the authority to impose ''bans'' unilaterally, so they also don't have the authority to modify bans (eg the scope or duration) unilaterally. According to ], bans can be imposed by community consensus or the arbitration committee. The only complexity is where discretionary sanctions apply, in which case administrators have a delegated authority from the arbitration committee to unilaterally impose bans. That doesn't apply here. ] (]) 10:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)</small>
::::*<small>Thank you for the correction. ] (]) 04:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)</small>
{{hat|reason=Over-analysis}}
*'''Comment''' I would be inclined to leave this be, that is not to amend the sanctions in place, if not for one small thing. Godsy has not participated in a single MfD where Legacypac was not already involved in some way since July 1st 2017. The list of MfD's that Godsy has participated in; ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. '''My findings'''; '''1.''' There are currently 29 Draft space articles nominated at MfD, 16 of these are "Old business", 14 are Legacypac's nomination, 2 are other people's nomination with 1 of those have Legacypac's participation, and 12 of these have Godsy's participation. '''2.''' The MfD's where Godsy has not commented are; ] opened by Legacypac and closed as delete on Sept 9., ] Onel5969's nomination that is still open but will likely be deleted (Legacy is a participant), ] closed as delete on Sept 9., Legacy nom, no Godsy involvement, ] Legacy nomination, has only one other !vote, and lastly ] Legacy nomination, has weird technical issues, no Godsy involvement. '''3.''' For those of you keeping score at home, you will notice an aberration in the maths here. There are 16 Old business drafts, 12 of these are Legacypac noms or participations that also have Godsy's participation. How then are there five drafts that Godsy has not participated on? The aberration comes from; ] which is a userpage, not a draft. There are technically only 11 ''draft'' participations from Godsy. '''4.''' Only 1 of the 16 "Old business" draftspace MfD's does not have some kind of Legacypac involvement. '''5.''' Godsy has !voted exclusively on Legacypac noms or participations. '''My interpretation of the findings'''; '''a.''' If there are 16 drafts, 14 of these are Legacy noms, and 1 more has Legacy's participation, then that leaves 1/16 (or 6.25% of) drafts where Godsy could completely avoid Legacypac. Thus, an overlap '''must''' be expected. '''b.''' Godsy has participated in 11/16 (or 68.75% of) "Old business" draft MfDs so it is reasonable to expect that there will be near 100% overlap between Godsy and Legacypac (90.91% to be mathematically exact). '''c.''' The five drafts that Godsy has not participated on are either i) closed or going to close in Legacy's favour or ii) have not been touched by Legacy anyway. Which leads me to '''d.''' It seems to me that the only draft MfD's Godsy hasn't touched are coincidentally those which deletion is favoured. This suggests that Godsy !votes on MfD's that are going to close against Legacypac. This is a striking feature that Legacy has noted before at AN/I, that Godsy always participates against Legacypac. This means 1 of 2 things, either Legacypac is a very poor nominator, or, Godsy just wants to contradict Legacy. Either or. And I say either or because of '''e.''' of the 14 Legacypac nominations, excluding Godsy's !votes, 4 (28.6%) are favouring the nom, 5 are likely to be kept (35.7%), and 5 (35.7%) are really being contested and could go either way. This isn't a particularly favourable nom rate, and at least 2 of those that are leaning nom, when accounting for Godsy's !vote, slip into contested territory reducing the stats to 2-5-7 (14.3%-35.7%-50%). I will note, however, that MfD has a much lower bar for keeping drafts around than AfD does for articles. So, I would expect deletion nominations to be rejected much more often. This all leads me to my final finding and '''TL;DR''' comment; '''f.''' This is really down to how much AGF you give either party. One could easily infer that Godsy's participation solely on MfD's that Legacy has nominated is due to WIKIHOUNDING. One could, however, counter-infer that the overlap is reasonable if for no other reason than that Legacy is responsible for the lions share (90%) of current "Old business" draftspace MfD nominations. I, personally, don't know which it is. I find it suspect that Godsy has all sorts of references to the IBAN on their pages, and that they just happen across ACTRIAL on Jimbo's talk page hours after a note was posted to Legacy's page, but, I don't know what to do with the MfD stuff as a) a full IBAN isn't going to inherently prevent Godsy participating on MfD, b) it's not going to prevent him commenting on MfDs that Legacy has nominated or c) doing practically anything else that he has. None of these actually violate any of the clauses of the IBAN. Godsy has not edited Legacy's user or user talk page, he hasn't replied to Legacypac in any discussion, he has made some low level references to his IBAN with Legacypac, he hasn't used the revert function, and it does not appear that he has used the "thanks" extension to send thanks to Legacypac. So what exactly does a full IBAN change that the already existing IBAN doesn't have (aside from resetting the counter)? I'm not seeing any change here that does anything. It's important to note, that Xaoslux exception, isn't actually an exception; {{tq|Additionally, each one may !vote once on an XFD started by the other, or both may !vote on a third-party XFD, but neither may comment or otherwise respond to the other's !vote}}. Umm... there is nothing written on ] that prevents this anyway. You'd technically be carving in an additional sanction, not carving out an exception. So unless there's an added sanction, this proposal, at least to me, seems to be moot. ] (]) 08:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:*Can you TLDR that TLDR? I got a few points out of it, so I wanted to mention that I would consider voting on something that the other has nominated to be a violation of the IBAN as it essentially is a reply to them. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;(]) 08:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
::*'''TL:DR, TL:DR'''; The current IBAN is a full IBAN because the exception carved out isn't an exception. You need a new sanction altogether, not just an updated IBAN. An updated IBAN doesn't ban Godsy from MfD nor does it ban them from Legacypac nominations. I think I get what you are saying, if Legacy makes an MfD nom and Godsy places a comment on the MfD nom that ''could'' be considered a reply, but, you ''could'' make that argument for any comment that Godsy places anywhere where Legacypac has already been. E.g. in a comment thread started by Legacypac. ] (]) 08:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:::*Future wikilawyering from Godsy is most unlikely to wash. ] (]) 09:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:*An over-analysis is not needed. It is blindingly obvious to anyone who spends a few minutes looking at ] that ''everything'' Godsy has done since the IBAN (and before!) has concerned a pursuit of Legacypac. Yes, there have been a very small number of exceptions, but the 99% motivation is to pursue Legacypac. ] (]) 09:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
::*{{u|Johnuniq}}, I agree. Too much thought. ] (]) 10:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
{{hab}} {{hab}}
*'''Support''' - Shortening my over-analysis to a few simple sentences. I am not absolutely sure that an IBAN would cover ''noms'' from Legacypac. If it is covered, then no harm no foul. If it isn't covered, then you know, extend the terms to ''carve in a sanction''. The thing that does it for me is that it's impossible to explain away the fact that even the small amount of editing that Godsy is doing is almost exclusively forcing some interaction with Legacypac. 12 MfD votes, 11 of which are Legacypac noms themselves. Jimbo's talk to the same section that Legacypac had been invited to hours earlier. The IBAN references on both the talk and user page of Godsy. It's clear that this pattern isn't going to change without a solid, bolded, instruction to {{tq|'''stay away'''}}. I'm sorry Godsy, you satisfied my concerns last time by pointing to the fact that many of your interactions with Legacypac are unavoidable due to MfD. This time, however, all I see in your contribs is Legacypac. I looked at your contribs as a whole, 23k edits in 3 years. That's a lot more than I'm going to have at the same mark. Prior to the IBAN your contribs covered MfD, AfD, RfD, Article space, Draft space, etc. Some of it overlapped with Legacy, but, there was something other than just Legacy there. Now, it's almost all tied to Legacy. Either a full IBAN is going to push you somewhere else, or, you'll just leave the encyclopaedia. Hopefully, it pushes you into other things. ] (]) 10:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:*Ouch! I was counting Godsy's comment at Jimbo's talk as one of the handful ''not'' concerning Legacypac. How naive I am! ] invited Legacypac to comment in the section at Jimbo's talk at ]. Before Legacypac responded, Godsy opposed what would have been Legacypac's position at ]. '''QED'''. @Godsy: Sorry, but you have to let it go, permanently. Life is not fair, and Misplaced Pages cannot provide satisfaction to all parties. ] (]) 11:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:*{{reply to|Mr rnddude}} I read your full analysis. <small>Since receiving the interaction ban, I generally only check into Misplaced Pages once a week and for only a few minutes; some weeks I don't even make any edits. I only edit in places that I feel are most important (e.g. doing my part to prevent a user who seemingly didn't break any policies or guidelines from receiving an editing restriction at ] because others don't like their seemingly reasonable actions). I have some free time in the morning two days a week, so I thought I might ease back into participating at ].</small> Would it matter if I had made a couple thousand edits over the past few months with the edits in question sprinkled in? It should not; they are either appropriate or not. The reason the individual on the other side of this interaction ban is so eager to accept it and all new conditions, is because it really doesn't effect their editing practices. They can continue seeking the deletion of things, a lot of which clearly should not be deleted. If it were "miscellany for keeping" or "criteria for speedy keeping", and nominations were made to keep things, it would affect them and not me. I'd be happy to accept, instead of the interaction ban, e.g. a ''2 year ban from nominating drafts (i.e. userspace or draftspace henceforth) at miscellany for deletion, nominating drafts for speedy deletion, redirecting drafts to the mainspace, and moving pages from the draftspace to the userspace, if the individual I'm banned from interacting with is also given this restriction'' because it would affect their editing practices and not me. That would prevent any further disruption, and eliminate the cause of interactions the community has deemed disruptive and that have caused all this drama. Best Regards, <small>—&nbsp;]<sup>&nbsp;(]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">])</sub></small> 14:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - This apparent obsession of Godsy's with Legacypac has to stop, and as he won't willingly stop it, it has to be forcibly stopped. ] (]) 14:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
*:Oh, and as for "''the individual I'm banned from interacting with (whose name I don't care to type or use)''" - how pathetically childish is that? ] (]) 14:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
*::{{reply to|Boing! said Zebedee}} I originally had something else written instead of that which was not civil, and perhaps even bordered on a personal attack, and I apologize if my avoiding engaging in incivility came off as childish to you. <small>—&nbsp;]<sup>&nbsp;(]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">])</sub></small> 15:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
*:::And you think that makes you sound better?! ] (]) 15:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per Johnuniq ] (]) 14:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Suppport''' I had actually been wondering the other day if Godsy was active again (in a good way), then I went to their user talk and became alerted to this mess. Please let's stop this disruption. ] (]) 14:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - I don't know if Godsy has some sort of "thing" for LP or what but regardless this whole thing is beyond pathetic and childish and FWIW I would support banning Godsy from this place altogether - An IBAN isn't hard to follow but anywho if BANEX is violated then indef blocking should be next on the menu. –]<sup>]</sup> 16:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Godsy needs to take a wikibreak; I said that I felt at the last AN discussion that he would find a way to wikilawyer out of the iban and it appears he has. Bordering on ] territory, frankly. ] (]) 19:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' It's time for this fiasco to stop and if Godsy won't stop it, it has to be stopped for him. ] (]) 20:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' regretfully. Legacypac's handling of the situation back when this first became an issue, coupled with the original unwarranted block of Godsy, both contributed to the problem and I can understand why Godsy has had a hard time letting it go. Legacypac is a problematic and overly sensitive editor, but Godsy does not seem to understand where the line is and he keeps stepping across it. ] (]) 21:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
::@] it appears your assessment refers to how I handled this situation in June 2017, however the harassment I've been receiving dates back at least a year before that. Your post illustrates the unreasonable amount of damage this war against me has done to my editing reputation, which leads to my Additional Proposal below ] (]) 20:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
:::I don't quite agree. My viewpoint is that Godsy saw various problems in some of your editing and sought to rectify those problems. He probably should have done more to treat you as a good faith editor (and the same applies to your treatment of him), but I do believe his objective was to address issues with your editing, not merely to hound and harass you. Your June complaint led to a premature block that unfortunately escalated the problem, as Godsy now felt that you were trying to silence him. Your proposal below further reinforces that perception. ] (]) 23:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::::The block was not premature (you are echoing Godsy's exact and consistent phrasing by the way) but long overdue. His harassment sunk his RfA long before that block was imposed. His hounding already drove me off[REDACTED] for months before his failed RfA, so who is trying to silence who exactly? ] (]) 00:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::We seem to be at cross purposes. I have felt strongly ever since the block was handed down that it was completely premature (and if you have some point to make about my phrasing, then come right out and say it instead of dropping hints), and I disagree with your insistence on labeling his pre-iBan edits as hounding and harassment. I'm less than thrilled that we have likely lost Godsy as a valuable contributor, but he's done nothing to help his cause in the past few months and frankly he has brought this on himself. I get that you two don't like each other and I'm not surprised that you have consistently refused to assume good faith on his part, but I don't share your perspective. ] (]) 04:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::If anyone engaged in the kind of war he has engaged in but against you, you would he screaming about it. Why are you defending his ]ing exactly? Godsy has not been "lost" and definately his behavior is not a result of anything I've done or any block. He quit being a productive contributor some months ago completely of his own accord. I don't know him, so I can't dislike him. In fact I wish him the very best, doing anything anywhere not involving harassing me. His long term pattern of behaviour is beyond acceptable and there is no reason the entire community needs to put up with it anymore. ] (]) 04:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
*Well, I hope at some point the community reviews the "although the parties are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other" part of ], and has a discussion at ]. Though the policy states that, at least the community participating in this discussion does not seem to agree with it. I also find the concept of a "no-fault two-way interaction ban" to be abhorrent; no editor deserves an editing restriction unless they can be shown to have broken a guideline or policy (i.e. actually done something wrong). Two-way interaction bans should only be used if there is dual-fault. That aside, if a ] and ] (not quite accurate, but works as a generalization) are banned from interacting with one another, if the inclusionist isn't the one creating the pages which caused the disagreement themself, the deletionist walks away unhindered and perhaps even empowered. I also find complaints that I commented on thing(s) that the individual I'm banned from interacting with was notified about ridiculous. To avoid that, I would have to check their talk page before commenting anywhere. I also find the notion that if I had made many other edits, and these were just sprinkled in, they would be okay. Contributions are either appropriate or not, they should stand on their own merit. The sentiment expressed by some here regarding the "spirit" of the interaction ban would basically would de facto prohibit me from participating at ] (where the individual I'm banned from interacting with probably makes 30% of the nominations and participates in others), and discussions about drafts (an area in which the individual I'm banned from interacting with likes to propose new ways to delete them) among other crazy extra-broad non-enumerated restrictions. I regularly participated in those areas before the interaction ban. I concur with ] and would like to thank ] for their in-depth look at the matter. I think I will take a wikibreak until the Christmas holiday, if not longer. Many things to consider. Regards, <small>—&nbsp;]<sup>&nbsp;(]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">])</sub></small> 21:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:*Inregards to {{xt|would basically would de facto prohibit me from participating at ] and discussions about drafts}} - Well you'll have to find other places to edit then, Not to rub it in but you had plenty of oppertunity to stop this but you carried it on so it's only your fault it's lead to this, –]<sup>]</sup> 21:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
::I doubt we need to review the policy. AFAICT, very few people here seem to think people are, or should be, forbidden from ever commenting on XfDs someone they're ibanned with is also involved in. Such co-participation may happen on occasion and provided both parties act resonably, there's no reason to forbid it. The specific issue here for me, and I think most others, is we don't think you should be concentrating on participating in XfDs with someone you've been ibanned from especially when that iban largely came about because you just wouldn't leave LegacyPac alone. Yes LegacyPac opens a lot of MfDs but it's very difficult to argue it was just an accident you came to those they were heavily involved in (mostly opened), and I'm not even sure you're claiming that. In other words, we don't mind and have no reason to forbid incidental indirect interactions and the policy and guidelines reflect that. But we do mind, and do forbid intentionally continuing to pursue another editor using whatever means you think are technically allowed when you've be told, repeatedly, to stop it. And the evidence shows that even putting aside the MFDs, nearly all you've done since the iban came into effect has somehow involved your dispute with LegacyPac. The fact you don't seem to understand all this, is of course good evidence we're right to restrict you. Per ] it's unlikely we need to clarify policy or guidelines to tell people that when they've been told to leave another editor alone, they need to do so, not find whatever ways are technically allowed and continue their campaign simply because we also say we not going to punish incidental indirect interactions. As Davey2010 also said, if you've earned community sanction which prevent you editing in your preferred area, you'll have to find somewhere else to edit. P.S. I'm AGFing that you really don't appreciate all this rather than just trying to be difficult, but it's getting harder. P.P.S. I'm saying all this in the hope it will finally get through to you since I have a nasty feeling if it doesn't, the next time I read your name it's going to be a case of "OMFG, not again" when it comes to a full community ban of you from en.wikipedia, although I suspect this won't happen since an indef block which I hopefully won't have to hear about is more likely. As also indicated before, even without a block or ban, unless you understand all this, it will be a case of OMFG when you appeal your i-ban and I suspect just reading you appeal will be enough to tell me it's doomed to fail as I see with appeals way too often. It sounds like you were a good contributor once, my ultimate hope is you can somehow get back to being that. ] (]) 11:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - The community's time is being wasted with this stuff; we could currently be writing featured articles. In fact, why don't you try and write one yourself, Godsy? <font color="#2D3D67">]</font><sup><font color="#D7000B">]</font></sup><sub><font color="#D7000B">]</font></sub> 21:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''', per basically everyone above. Davey2010's comment just above this post is especially on-point. There would be no IBAN, and no discussion to expand on the IBAN, if Godsy hadn't nickel and dimed this issue to the absolute limit of credulity over the past few months (including arguing that he had an intrinsic right to indent Legacypac's comments after being explicitly told to stop, because indentation is ''that important''). He has had every opportunity to put down the stick and he chooses instead to find new ways to poke the bear with it and then acts surprised when the bear snarls at him. Go do something else here, Godsy. Anything. Pick a pet backlog and clear it out. Take RileyBugz' suggestion and write a FA. Go work with AfC or NPP and help new editors get their drafts published and kept, if you're so dead set on the staggering importance of keeping stuff in draftspace. ''Anything''. Just drop the damn stick. &spades;]&spades; ] 21:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Blatant harassment despite having an interaction ban. People have been indeffed for less. ] (]) 08:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Godsy seems to delight in pushing the envelope ever further- too much so for my liking. &mdash; ]] 10:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - Wow, how wrong was I ?! ] (]) 11:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per above. Clear instance of ]; many other users have been blocked for much, much less. -] 00:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': Simply per all this silly quarrelling also stopping by indef'ing Legacypac, and per estimating Godsy to bring more encyclopedic value to WP than Legacypac does. In my view it would be better for WP to silence Legacypac, rather than Godsy. I value highly all the opinions about troubles that would stop, if only Godsy were silenced, it's just that I think they would stop equally well by silencing Legacypac, but leave more net value for WP. Please, also consider the other wars in which Legacypac was and is involved, and his self-assessment wrt the community, stated alongside his additional proposals. ] (]) 08:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


== Proposed community ban of Marginataen ==
===Additional Proposal===
{{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)}}
# '''Godsy and his two alternative accounts be INDEF'd for ]'''
{{userlinks|Marginataen}}
# '''convert the two way IBAN into a one way Standard IBAN in favor of Legacypac'''
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)
Proposer's Rational: All the stuff above.
{{Collapse top}}
Proposer's additional detailed rational for anyone that really needs it: Since multiple new sanctions against me have been proposed by Godsy in this thread, it seems ok for me to propose a solution. Godsy continues to claim he has never harassed me and insists the community never found he has harassed me a clear statement is required. Since he is clearly ] and has turned a thread about his harrassment into a forum to make additional outrageous inflammatory statements, he needs to be stopped. Since he has twice lied here about how he ended up at Jimbo's talk page, and told other fanciful stories here about his MfD participation, why should we believe he plans to take a wikibreak? There is no agreement from him to find something productive to do, only complaints he'll be unable to continue his crusade.
As for the IBAN mod, Godsy says above ''I also find the concept of a "no-fault two-way interaction ban" to be abhorrent'' so we should take away his reason to be "abhorred" by making it a one way. This way my account can be cleared of this mess, and in case he ever gets editing privileges back he'll still have to find an editing interest unrelated to harrassing me. Believe me - I've got zero interest in interacting with him and will meticulously be staying away voluntarily, but I would hate to be tripped up in some technicality or accidental interaction.
{{Collapse bottom}}
Respectfully ] (]) 20:31, 11 September 2017 (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)
* I'm going to oppose a one-way iban on the usual philosophical and practical grounds. I wouldn't oppose an indefinite block, so long as the text included that any uninvolved admin could unblock on presentation of a reasonable plan of editing that avoids the problems described here. I think Godsy has been a productive editor in the past and should be given a decent opportunity to return to it. ] (]) 22:12, 11 September 2017 (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)
* One way i-bans are almost always a disaster. I would oppose that. Let the above remedy work. Take the high road. ] - ] 00:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
::20 more edits after the AN notice. ] 18:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
* I am not opposed to one-way IBans ''per se'' - I see many fewer problems with them than some other editors do, but I think this particular situation really does call for a two-way IBan. ] (]) 04:37, 12 September 2017 (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)
*Ok, with three respected editors opposing changing the IBAN its pretty clear I need to WITHDRAW the modification to the IBAN part of the proposal. After the ANi beating I took in June plus the comments above defending ] as OK, its pretty clear the community feels my contributions are so worthless that there is no value in protecting me unless I'm equally restricted as well - confirming to Godsy the unfairness of the "no fault" IBAN and confirming that he has done nothing wrong and is the bigger victim. I get[REDACTED] is not fair, but I've tried very hard to avoid Godsy for over a year and a half already. My reward is I'm even worse off than the aggressor because I got a Move restriction in June based on the outright lies Godsy told at ANi and lost NPP rights for a few days. Thanks for the feedback though, at least I know where I stand. I do appreciate those that voted to expand the IBAN as it's easy for me to continue my long self imposed avoidance program. Now, can someone SNOW close the IBAN modification above to shut down Godsy's latest forum for attacking me? ] (]) 05:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''For the record''': just another evidence that ] is only interested in '''silencing''' anyone opposing them. It's too bad Misplaced Pages lacks an effective tool to deal with problematic users like them. -- ] (]) 07:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC) :'''Support'''. Might considering a RFC on Meta to globally ban Marginataen in the future. ] (]) 10:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::Go work on your all important drafts and stop trolling Taku. ] (]) 07:24, 12 September 2017 (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)
:::{{ping|Legacypac}} While you are clearly emotionally involved, I honestly think you would be well advised to walk away from this and leave it to the rest of the community to deal with. ] (]) 07:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:'''Support'''. Don't waste the community's time. &spades;]&spades; ] 16:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. There's no need for escalating personal tit-for-tat, and Legacypac needs to do some stick-dropping too - I think the 2-way IBAN needs to remain. The main IBAN extension proposed above should be sufficient, and other things should only be considered if that doesn't work. ] (]) 07:27, 12 September 2017 (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}} {{abot}}


== Undeletion and userfication == == User:TWC DC1 ==
{{atop
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">{{Quote box
| result = Warned, then sockblocked. <small>(])</small> ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 21:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
| title =
| title_bg = #C3C3C3
| title_fnt = #000
| quote = REFUNDed by ... I can't tell who, there doesn't seem to be a log entry. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 15:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
| width = 30%|halign=left}}
:''The following discussion is closed. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive top-->
----
Hi, could someone undelete and userfy ] for me? It was deleted several years ago by Cirt, who has been inactive since 2016. The deletion discussion is here with the deletion rationale being that there were no reliable sources covering the event, however I've found three (more recent than the AfD) with a simple Google search , , . ] ] 00:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
: Handled at WP:REFUND, thanks. ] ] 22:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
----
: ''The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from ] --></div><div style="clear:both;"></div>

== Blocking policy and IPv6 ranges ==

I am usually an idiot about this, treating IPv6 addresses as though they are IP addresses and only blocking the one. Once in a blue moon I remember. We don't seem to say anything about this in our blocking policy. We'd also need to spell out how to identify the appropriate range, etc. I started a discussion at ] and then realised people don't seem to read that page. ] also needs updating. Credit to Bish for this by the way who reminded me about it recently. ] ] 14:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
:I wonder if a technical change would be feasible (and a good idea), to automatically offer the /64 range as an option when blocking an IPv6 address? ] (]) 16:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
:A technical change (as suggested by Boing) or at the very least some wording changes would be greatly appreciated. I think it's fair to say the number of IPv6s editing has increased year on year (<small>75% of all percentages are made up on the spot</small>), so this is probably more of an exposure thing -- ] <sup>(])</sup> 18:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
::This is more complicated than people make it out to be. ''Generally'', blocking the /64 is the right thing to do, but not always. A /64 could represent a large number of customers in certain unusual situations. I don't see any reason to deviate from our usual practice. If you see them using more than one IP address, block the range from the start. Otherwise, just do one IP. If you see them come back, then it justifies a range block. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 18:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
:::{{re|BU Rob13}} What I'm suggesting is that we have a section in the blocking policy with advice on how to deal with IPv6 editors. I agree that there are times when blocking the range would be a bad idea, but wouldn't that show up if you check the contributions from the range? ] ] 18:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
::::As you almost suggested above, this would probably be an idea on the ] page, but I don't think it's good for a policy page. And I can give a handy example for not using /64 blocks (and indefinite blocks): ]. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 18:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::{{u|zzuuzz}} for you information the above IP6 search is not a /64 subnet; it is a /32 subnet. as such is could represent as many as 4,294,967,296 different /64 connections. ]&nbsp;] 21:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::Yes, please pick any subnet within it. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 21:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Well you could pick ] , a /64 subnet, and it looks like a single user. ]&nbsp;] 21:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Any subnet except that lone example. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
:: Phabricator tasks of interest: ], ], and ]. —&thinsp;]&thinsp;<small>(]'''·'''])</small> 20:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
*{{ec}} I think we're seeing more and more IPv6 addresses editing the 'pedia and, yes, it would be helpful to incorporate some advice in the blocking guidance. ] has some useful information. Typically, an IPv6 /64 subnet is allocated to a household or a location and we would block a /64 subnet as we would a single IPv4 address but only after checking the range, satisfying ourself that it is stable and that a single user is using that range. --] (]) 18:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
*Any admin worried about blocking /64 subnets should not be overtly worried: it's roughly equivalent to blocking a single static IPv4 address. If you look at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5375 at The Internet Engineering Task Force it quite clearly explains the reasons why:
{{Talkquote|
Using a subnet prefix length other than a /64 will break many
features of IPv6, including Neighbor Discovery (ND), Secure Neighbor
Discovery (SEND) , privacy extensions , parts of
Mobile IPv6 , Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode
(PIM-SM) with Embedded-RP , and Site Multihoming by IPv6
Intermediation (SHIM6) , among others. A number of other
features currently in development, or being proposed, also rely on
/64 subnet prefixes.

Nevertheless, many IPv6 implementations do not prevent the
administrator from configuring a subnet prefix length shorter or
longer than 64 bits. Using subnet prefixes shorter than /64 would
rarely be useful; see Appendix B.1 for discussion.

However, some network administrators have used prefixes longer than
/64 for links connecting routers, usually just two routers on a
point-to-point link. On links where all the addresses are assigned
by manual configuration, and all nodes on the link are routers (not
end hosts) that are known by the network, administrators do not need
any of the IPv6 features that rely on /64 subnet prefixes, this can
work. Using subnet prefixes longer than /64 is not recommended for
general use, and using them for links containing end hosts would be
an especially bad idea, as it is difficult to predict what IPv6
features the hosts will use in the future.
}} }}
So any ISPs worth their salt are going to allocate /64 subnets for connections, as allocating any larger subnet could cause all sorts of end-user problems. Of course this doesn't mean you're necessarily going to be blocking a single user, but neither did blocking a single static IPv4 address necessarily imply this either. ]&nbsp;] 16:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:Unfortunately, by this definition of "worth their salt", many ISP's, especially in Asia and Africa, are not. I've seen IP-hopping throughout much greater ranges (e.g. ]). One of our incentives for enabling IPv6 was to allow more granular targeting of a single user not possible with IPv4 - we shouldn't impose IPv4's limitation here.--] ] 17:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
::Sorry but can you explain how ] demonstrates this? I can't understand how it does, there are no IPv6 socks at all listed. ]&nbsp;] 17:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:::I should've been more clear. Look at the investigation on June 13 where a CheckUser says a rangeblock won't be feasible. I linked the contributions page of an IPv6 sock during that investigation.--] ] 18:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
::::I'm not convinced that that indicates a greater than /64 subnet, there could be other explanations such as a mix of Ipv4 and IpV6 addresses, or uncertainty about Ipv6 rangeblocks. I'm not sure this is a good place to discuss it, but you can on my talk page if yo so wish. ]&nbsp;] 18:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
::::: There are many ISPs that fail to live up to your expectations of how things ''should'' work. Although many ISPs allocate a /64 for each customer, others allocate customer IP addresses from a very wide pool, typically a /40 or /42, though I've seen them range anywhere from a /60 to a /36. These are a pain to deal with. ] is one particularly frustrating example. There are many others. ] (]) 09:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::] Looking at ], these less than /64 (i.e. wider) ranges seem to be for wireless broadband. Now wireless broadband suppliers can use many /64 connections for the supply: the end result is that the range is far greater (or/<64). The reason for this is because in these circumstances radio towers (or combination of radio towers) will have access to many /64 connections; just like a wireless radio tower IPv4 would use a large variety of dynamic IPv4 addresses. Basically this is analogous to using several dynamic IPv4 connections, it implies nothing about connection subnets.
::::::I see no particular evidence that ranges with a greater than /64 subnet are active; but even these can be explained by router alllocations giving a bigger than /64 (or narrower range) which is well within protocols; routers have no compulsion to use entire /64 ranges when allocating /128 addresses, only the connection itself must be at least /64. All this gives the impression of non-/64 connections which is simply not true.
::::::Another way of looking at this: let's say I had a router with a /64 connection which allocated the same IPv6 address each time to my laptop. Now as far as my editing goes it would look like I was using a /128 subnet (i.e. a single IPv6 connection). While this would be true, nevertheless my connection to the ISP would be /64. ]&nbsp;] 17:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::The theoretical role of /64's is subordinate to their roles ''in practice'', which is that since they don't necessarily represent single users and we want to utilize the finer granularity of IPv6 to reduce collateral damage, we can't treat /64's the same way we have been treating single IPv4 addresses.--] ] 05:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::::That's true in theory but in practice Misplaced Pages has to be defended from brain-numbing nonsense that will eventually wear down the most dedicated editors. My suggestion would be to block IPv6 /64 when that is shown to be needed after blocking one or two individual IPs. Anyone adversely affected would have to make their case. Or, any concerned registered editor could point to a case where blocking a /64 resulted in a loss of encyclopedic content. ] (]) 08:15, 12 September 2017 (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)
:If I may try to summarise the above - would most people agree that if after directly blocking a single disruptive IPv6, another IPv6 from the /64 continues being disruptive, a /64 rangeblock would be the ''next step'' (as opposed to how we deal with IPv4s)? -- ] <sup>(])</sup> 08:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}}
::Imo the best practice would be:
::#Check for collateral as a /64 block could definitely cause this (e.g. a corporation). Use the Gadget-contribsrange.js gadget to do so, and other whois services.
::#Check it's not a public mobile wireless connection: blocking these is like blocking dynamic IPv4 addresses, a bit pointless with the capability of causing collateral.
::If you do these two steps then it should be OK to use /64 rangeblocks; appeals can be made on talkpages if users suffer significant collateral, just like Ipv4 blocks. ]&nbsp;] 10:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:::FYI native support for range contributions (]) is going out on this week's MediaWiki train. It is already on mediawiki.org (). If all goes well, later this week you'll be able to query for IP ranges at ] here on the English Misplaced Pages without the need for a gadget or wildcards. It will take a while for the data to backfill, so don't count on it working at Thursday's normal deploy time. I'll make a proper announcement once it finishes :) See also ] which is like a power user range contributions tool. It's a long ways away but feel free to follow that task for progress updates <span style="font-family:sans-serif">&mdash; <span style="font-weight:bold">] <sup>]</sup></span></span> 22:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


== IP's edits at ] article == == G7 request by a blocked account ==
{{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)
At {{Article|Sorted magazine}}, is repeatedly removing sourced material and replacing it with unsourced material, promotional language, and spam. See and . In the version before the IP's edits, the text states that Russell Church launched the magazine and that "the title was geared to the lads' mag market." In the IP's version, it states that Steve Legg launched the magazine and that it "has been voted the world’s most wholesome men’s magazine with 100,000 readers in 21 countries." I warned the IP twice. I then reported the matter at ], but, when no administrator picked up the case, I instead. If I request page protection at this time, I'd likely be declined because there is not enough disruption and it's just one IP. Furthermore, editors might confuse this as a content dispute since the IP to be "removing incorrect data." I don't particularly care about the article; I came across it via ]. I do care about inaccurate information being added to it. I'm not sure if two different magazines are being confused or what. For reference, is the source the IP keeps using. ] (]) 02:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}}
* As far as I can see they're actually both correct. The original magazine was published by Church and was indeed aimed at the "lad's" market. However it appears it was taken over by Legg's publishing company later on and repositioned as a Christian men's magazine. So the "wholesome" cite is correct as well (although it's a primary source). ] 10:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
::Thanks for commenting, ]. The issue I see is that the IP keeps removing material about the original launch and other important material. The IP's edits are not only repeatedly removing this important information, but are replacing it with unsourced, boastful information. I have seen that ] has been reverting the IP, and that Viewmont Viking has reverted again. Perhaps Viewmont Viking is willing to weigh in here. From what I can see, the back and forth reverting will continue if the article is not semi-protected. The IP will simply get a new IP, and might later edit as an account. ] (]) 20:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
:::I agree with ], unless the IP editor comes with sourced NPOV information we should keep the article as is and semi-protect it. --]<sub>]]</sub> 20:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::::], if it continues, we can obviously list the matter at ]. I think it would get declined for protection right now. But if the IP strikes again, a case can be made, with this thread cited as part of the argument. ] (]) 03:19, 12 September 2017‎ (UTC)


== Sapo.pt ==
::::Note: ] apparently hid copyright violations made by the IP. ] (]) 18:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
*{{articlelinks|Sapo.pt}}
:::::Yes, the violations were the promotional content added by the IP. I am conversing with them off-wiki and didn't realize this thread existed. If it comes to it, I will point them in this direction and hopefully can get them to explain their actions (somewhere). ] (]) 18:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Could an admin undelete that redirect? Thanks ] (]) 08:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{done}} ] <sub>]</sub> 08:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


== Proxy question ==
::::::Thanks, ]. I did point the IP to this thread on their talk page. As for , it didn't seem like the main issue to me. It seemed to me that the IP didn't want any mention of the magazine's previous history included, especially the "lads' mag market" aspect. ] (]) 18:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::My conversation off-wiki was mostly centred around the removed content, but yes, the "history" of the magazine is also of concern. Given that former wasn't necessary and the latter is still up for debate, I only changed the former. I'll probably post some more on the talk page of the article if I get more details regarding how "they want it fixed". ] (]) 13:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::::As an update, I've completely rewritten the article and am now (somewhat) under the impression that this isn't a notable magazine. However, I think the "AN" portion of the discussion is likely to be over, so I am going to suggest closing this. ] (]) 16:42, 13 September 2017 (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)
:::::::::], I can't state that I agree with of the magazine's history. A relaunch should not mean that the magazine's previous history should not be covered. And per ], we don't edit articles the way that a company wants it edited anyway. But I'll address this on the article talk page. ] (]) 21:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
:You can report IPs that you suspect of being proxies at ]. ] (]/]) 21:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] my question is more that if i see that info in the widget when blocking an IP, is it safe to block it as a proxy? ] ] 21:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't think so because I don't think it's 100% accurate. ] (]/]) 21:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::OK thank you! ] ] 21:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{re|EvergreenFir}} Yes, the tool is saying there "In the last ''x'' days, at least one person connecting on this IP has been using proxy software ''y''", which is definitely evidence toward an NOP block, but not enough on its own. Also, my understanding of {{slink|foundation:Legal:Wikimedia_IP_Information_Tool_Policy#Use_and_disclosure_of_IP_information}} is that you can't publicly say that the tool says a specific IP is a proxy except "as reasonably required in use of the tool", which I would read as allowing you to say that a block was partly based on IP Info without going into further detail, but probably not allowing you to post an example IP and say "the tool says this is a proxy". Out of an abundance of caution I've redacted+revdelled the example you gave above; if I'm misunderstanding the policy, no objection to being reverted. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 21:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::It's a reason to treat the IP with more suspicion and investigate further but it's not good enough on its own for a block. {{small|I think revdel is a bit of an overreaction personally.}} ] &#124; ] 22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I think revdel is an over-reaction too, except ... that seems to be exactly what the "rules" for use of the tool say. This should probably be ironed out somewhere. ] (]) 22:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I don't even see the reason for redacting, let alone revdel. People can talk about IP addresses, especially in the context of proxies and especially when they aren't connected to an individual user / account. ] (]) 00:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Over on ] we openly talk about IPs and proxies, so it doesn't make sense that we couldn't here IMO
:::::::::Thank you all for the input. Much appreciated ] ] 05:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::It's nothing about talking about IPs in general. Obviously saying that an IP is a proxy is fine. It's specifically about saying that ''IP Info says'' an IP is a proxy. That's proprietary information from Spur that the WMF licenses on the condition of not disseminating. I also would like more clarity on the scope of that rule, but at least the plain-text reading says we can't attribute information to the tool. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 05:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Ah, thank you for clarifying. Much appreciated ] ] 06:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


== Undeletion + XML export request ==
== Checking some sockpuppet cats ==


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 am checking the accuracy of the following cats:
: 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 ==
]


{{atop | result = Stray page deleted <small>(])</small> ] (]) 14:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC) }}
]
Perhaps someone could take a look at ]? It looks like the page was created back in 2008, perhaps by mistake, and has just been "existing" ever since then. The Help Desk archive is currently at 14 pages but eventually it will reach 19; so, at some point, this is going to need to be dealt with. I'm not sure whether the page needs only to be blanked or should be deleted, but the latter will obviously need to be done by an administrator. -- ] (]) 07:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{done}} I've deleted it (G2, "test page" seemed close enough). - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you {{u|The Bushranger}}. -- ] (]) 08:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== ] closures ==
I don't see any evidence for them at ]. Am I looking in the wrong place? --] (]) 04:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
:{{re|Guy Macon}} Sockpuppets are often blocked without an SPI if evidence is compiled off-wiki or the admin doing the blocking is the one who discovered the sock. SPIs are a place to submit evidence if it needs admin review or warrants a CheckUser, but it's not the only way to get a block for sockpuppetry. If you think any of the blocks may not be correct, talk to the blocking admin. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 04:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::Ah. Got it. Thanks for the clarification. I am going to start by simply asking ]: --] (]) 06:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
:::What good would that do? If Betacommand denies that a particular account was a sock, are you going to believe him and remove that account from the category? Don't you think that any puppetmaster has a vested interest in being blamed for fewer sockpuppets? ] (]) 04:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
::::It's the other way around. Betacommand has admitted to violating various policies in the past, and is arguing that nine years is enough punishment for a violation made in 2008. So he/she may very well admit to some of the older ones. --] (]) 12:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::Maybe, but if he's arguing that his last violation is in 2008, he'd be unlikely to admit to anything after that. In any case, I think you'll find that for '''''many''''' editors, the Betacommand/Delta crisis is still quite fresh in their minds. It put the community through a lot of stuff, and went on for '''''years''''', so if you're working with Betacommand, I would tell him not to get his hopes up. JMHO. ] (]) 17:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


{{Userlinks|2601AC47}} {{Pagelinks|Deb Matthews}} {{Pagelinks|Ministry of Education (Ontario)}}
== ] backlogged again + some comments ==
{{archive top|<center>]<br/> Hey everybody. Look at this little guy. Isn't he adorable? ]] 12:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)</center>}}
] was heavily backlogged in the morning (30+ items, some of them being there for 24h). I cleared most of it, but now I will not have time to do it anymore, and any help will be appreciated.


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.
While I am at it, may I please suggest that all of you (not only administrators) occasionally take an effort to send public thanks for (uncontroversial) administrative actions. That used to happen a lot when I started to work at RFPP a couple of years ago, and it hardly happens anymore. Very few of us (possibly none of us) enjoy routine administrative work, but we are doing it because we feel responsibility for the project and find the janitorial work important. It is thankless, takes time, and typically it takes time from doing here what we really enjoy (in my case, writing articles). There is not much what can be done about it, but public thanks are cheap and kind of give us that little motivation which we may be missing by doing this day by day without any feedback. Thanks.--] (]) 10:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


I have discussed with the user on ]. The user refused to change the summaries. ] (]) 19:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:Should be de-backlogged now. Plus I completely endorse the comment above. ] ] ] 12:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


:I would say something similar in a more polite but firm way: go look for sources and add then instead of insisting on deleting the table. You are fighting a losing battle. ] (]/]) 19:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
::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)
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
:::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)
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Dear admins, on behalf of the community, please accept this vacuum cleaner. It's more efficient than a mop, and really helps you clean those hard-to-reach corners, like RFPP. ]] 13:56, 11 September 2017 (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)
::Thanks, {{U|Ymblanter}}. Can I tag on to the end of that the musing that some of us have become rather tired of attending to situations that require full protection (per ], no less), because it is, by its very nature, ALWAYS controversial, and we seem to get hardly any support from the rest of the admin corps for doing such policy-based actions? Thanks, ] 17:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::: Indeed.--] (]) 17:37, 11 September 2017 (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)
::::{{re|Ymblanter}} thanking Admins for page protection and other noticeable routine tasks is a really good idea. I will be doing this from now on. Thanks very much for the suggestion - because these efforts are really appreciated. And thanks Ymblanter and {{u|Ritchie333}} for clearing out page protection today. ----] (]) 18:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::Snarky remarks really aren't helpful. ] (]/]) 20:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::May be I should have more specifically mentioned ] (metaphorically, if there's ever confusion). But moreover, Legend's concerns pertain to the articles that was being edited on (mostly pertaining to Ontario-based agencies), which Legend appeared to ingratiatingly remove some "uncited" information from. I reverted some of them, and as a BLPN watcher, took note of this in trying to explain to them that there are guidelines, especially on citing sources and the MoS. So far, I've not really seen that (prove me wrong). Ultimately, I could suggest to Legend that this is their own responsibility, but alas, thinks that I and some others are at fault here. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 20:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I think you should probably recalibrate how you communicate with other editors. You come across as sometimes rude and dismissive in that discussion. ] (]/]) 20:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm thinking 2601AC47 is coming off a little rude and dismissive in THIS discussion as well. ] (]) 20:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes, they are. But Legend of 14 is coming across as a Wikilawyer rather than a collaborative editor in all of the noticeboard discussions that they have started in the last week or two. ] (]) 20:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::They also seem to have a very skewed viewpoint of ] . - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I don't know what Legend's background is, but if someone said ] to me in a professional setting, I'd think they were being rude and unprofessional. It's unfortunate that we've normalized people being jerks on wiki and whenever someone comes to complain about it, the response is usually "well, that's not really that uncivil" or "well, they were being a pain in the ass, so it's justified". ] (]/]) 21:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Wasn't your response for me to withdraw this discussion? Seeking clarity. ] (]) 21:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{outdent|1}} Yes, I did, because your report was about changing a summary of a discussion in which the outcome would remain the same. Several editors have told you to stop removing uncited, non-controversial material from articles, so you should stop doing that instead of starting an AN discussion about the impolite close of the discussion. ] (]/]) 22:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I have stopped doing that. I respect consensus. I can both ask for the summaries to be respectful and not remove uncited material for which consensus has found to be non-controversial. ] (]) 22:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Now, to hopefully not add on to the pile that this may become, I would try finding consensus in a similar way for what you're editing with regards to the pages of the government agencies. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 22:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::True, Phil, for a relatively new editor, Legend of 14 has brought more cases to noticeboards than some editors do over years spent editing on the project. If this becomes habitual, this approach to getting things done ones way can backfire on an editor. Noticeboards are a place to go to after basic discussion has failed to come to a resolution, not for the kind of disagreements we all face on a regular basis. You don't want to spend more time talking about editing than actually editing. And, for goodness' sake, don't file a complaint over how this complaint is being handled. No need to come to my User talk page to claim I'm being disrespectful, too. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 21:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::If you have concerns about me resorting to notice boards, perhaps talk to Adam Bishop who removed 2 discussions from article talk pages, which is why I resorted to WP:BLPN for those articles. For my 5 additions to WP:BLPN on Jan. 17, I truly believed I had no where else to go. Also, so we're clear, can you please clarify if you believe user talk pages are an appropriate place to raise concerns about uncivil conduct like name calling? ] (]) 21:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I've made clear at BLPN my issue with your approach here, but I do see your point that you followed the normal instructions only to have two talkpage threads removed. I don't really see why they were removed. @] can you explain? <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 06:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Seemed like an obvious troll to me, being disruptive and making ridiculous claims just to annoy everyone. ] (]) 13:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Liz this just seems to be par for the course. While Legend make some really good minor positive contributions, they seem to only be here to edit per ]. As soon as there is some sort of conflict, they have demonstrated that they cannot manage consensus building . ''Many editors'' have tried to engage with Legend in good-faith to guide and correct them, but they are very easily offended, resort to novel wiki-lawyering arguments, and thing escalate from there. ''In good faith I believe they are trying to navigate the system,'' but keep hitting a wall for various reasons, and thing escalate quickly because of how they choose to handle the confrontation. I believe a mentor for them would be a great route for them, otherwise I am very concerned we're going to continue to see far more heat than light from this contributor. ]&thinsp;] 15:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, that has been my experience. I thought that I was trying to guide and correct this editor, but the response was to accuse me of calling them names. If someone with more patience than I have wants to mentor Legend of 14 then that could be the approach to take, but it would depend on them being willing to listen to advice. ] (]) 15:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Let's talk about your approach to handling disputes and consensus building.
::::::::*Leaving condescending and other disrespectful comments on my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270062605 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270076126 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270086734 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270370468.
::::::::*Ignoring my requests to not post on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270362323 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270370468
::::::::*Linking an essay section about routinely banning other editors from my talk page, when I haven't done that https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Tiggerjay&diff=prev&oldid=1270500629
::::::::*Shaming me for challenging your AfD https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Deb_Hutton_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=1270475022
::::::::] (]) 15:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::To me, characterizing as "shaming me for challenging your AfD" supports Tiggerjay's above. The other diffs show civil attempts to help you understand the culture on Misplaced Pages. ]&nbsp;] 16:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::It is disappointing that the culture is talking down to editors for not being on Misplaced Pages for over a decade and daring to share an opinion, posting repetitive talk page notices for literally no reason, and replying to a request to stop posting on a talk page with a snarky comment. Thank you for clarifying that editors do not deserve equal treatment, and that merit of arguments can be dismissed based on the age of the editor making them. ] (]) 16:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::At this point I'm just going to leave, because has been made clear by this discussion and other thread, I am not going to be treated with respect. I'm not wanted here, so I'm leaving. ] (]) 16:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::So you're aware, per {{section link|Misplaced Pages:Retiring#Pending_sanctions}}, just because you claim to retire does not mean this discussion will necessarily close. Also since you have ''claimed to have retired previously'', please be aware that if you return you will still need to edit in accordance with ], especially as it related to ]. ]&thinsp;] 18:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::You have been treated with respect, but you have shown very little in return. ] (]) 19:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::As a relatively new editor for 1 year with only 5400+ edits compared to the other fellows here, I have not once been blocked or had a significant conflict with a more experienced editor than me. At some point, if the community comes to scrutinize the editing and mistakes that you've made, you'll have to recognize that the problem is with ''you'', not the culture. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 04:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:Too much to read. Is this about the wording of the closing statement? ] (]) 16:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::And about Legend and I over that. Looks like Legend's had enough, anyway (I wish them well elsewhere). <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 16:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::They tried that stunt ]. If they're going to engage in a pattern of making disruptive edits and then retiring when anyone (read: everyone) criticizes them, someone should probably just indef. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Agreed. This user has an established habit of walking away from a conversation, only to come back a day or two later and continue the same sort of disruption. Shall we extend another inch of rope? I wouldn't be against giving a <s>second</s> <s>third </s> n-th time chance, but perhaps the next controversy should be a swift block? Or has the community already had enough? ]&thinsp;] 18:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*I disagree with blocking this editor when they actually haven't violated any policy that I'm aware of. I actually don't want them to leave and think they could be a constructive editor if they would spend less time policing other editors and spend more time improving articles, and avoid the drama boards.
:We can enforce guidelines about civility, ], but I don't think the "respect" you expect to receive can be found anywhere on the Internet. People are blunt and sometimes grumpy. And those of us who have been here a long time have been called all sorts of names, disputes can bring out some nasty behavior, this is not personal to you. I just think that expecting to be respected here, on Misplaced Pages, just comes over time with proving that you are a consistently productive contributor. It can take years to earn other editors' trust and respect and, if you make a colossal mistake, it can also disappear. I just think that you have an overly sensitive gauge of other people's respect for you and if you want to contribute to this project, it has to be because you like to edit, whether or not other people respect you in the way you seem to understand "respect". Remember, this is not utopia, it's just a website on the internet. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== How do we handle Israel Palestine new articles created by non ECP editors nowadays? ==
::Interesting that if it was a non-admin making a similar statement about backlogs, they'd be shot-down by other admins saying they're complaining too much, or start an RfA themselves. Usually this comes from the psedo-admins, who only edit once a week, and don't really do anything else. If it's "and typically it takes time from doing here what we really enjoy (in my case, writing articles)" then resign, so you don't feel the guilt of not helping and you can get involved in writing articles. And for the record, I thank every '''editor''', admin or not, who does something to help. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 08:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
::: I wanted to respond but then decided that we have too much drama anyway, so I just let it go.--] (]) 10:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
::::Good for you. Complaining about not being thanked for a thankless task that '''YOU''' wanted to do in the first place. Well I never. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 11:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
::::: Sure. You have zero chances to ever become an admin, so whether you want it or not is highly irrelevant.--] (]) 11:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


For example, ]. In theory I think this could be deleted via ] for violating ]. But is that what we do? Or do we look the other way if the article is OK? Should we just protect it ECP and call it a day?
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Dear editors, admin or not, on behalf of the community, please accept this broom. It can't clean up everything, but it's especially good at sweeping the dirt into a big pile for people with vacuums. ]] 13:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
|}
{{archive bot}}


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)
== Possibly compromised account ==
* 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)
Reported at , the account of ] has been blocked indef by me as a possibly compromised account. This has been questioned at ]. ] (]) 18:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Maile66}} there was quite a bit of activity. The AIV cited "bad redirects" but those I checked out didn't seem bad, although a few didn't seem necessary (but I'm not an expert on the subjects presented). Why do you believe the account is compromised? ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 18:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::I linked the report above. Do you suggest I unblock with an apology? ] (]) 18:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
:::Not yet! {{smiley}}. Why do you think the account is compromised? The AIV report didn't list any diffs, the redirects don't seem out of charachter, and I don't see any attempt to communicate with Zawl (but please note I'm slow and still looking). ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 18:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::::It was that whole slew of redirects over the past few days that made me think this is possibly compromised. But I'm open to be proven wrong. If this user was blocked in error, I'm sure they would like to be unblocked as soon as possible. ] (]) 18:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::::: {{ping|Aspro}} which edits do you think are vandalism? Since I'm seeing so many recent edits (which is not out of character from this editor who has recently re-named their account), they are between obviously "constructive" edits, and Zawl may be unaware of them. ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 18:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::Aspro also posted at regarding one of the redirects that went to a deleted article. ] (]) 18:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Maile66}}, Zawl did not make a redirect to a deleted article. Zawl created ] at 10:49, 11 September 2017. Zawl then changed the target of the redirect ] at 10:50, 11 September 2017 to point to Bhad Bhabie. Then {{u|Magnolia677}} stated at the village pump they weren't sure what to do about the change to the redirect at 11:20, 11 September 2017. Aspro then complained village pump about the edit at 17:18, 11 September 2017 and again at 17:22, 11 September 2017 and for a third time at 17:33, 11 September 2017 without ever stating what is wrong with that or any other edit Zawl had made. I think Floquenbeam is spot on about Aspro and their reports. ] 19:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
:I do not see anything that indicates the account has been compromised. The edits seem to be in character. The redirects do not look "bad" as originally reported. If there are all these "bad" redirects why has no one nominated them for deletion? {{u|Zawl}} should be unblocked. ] 18:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::{{ec}}:::::::What is a little disconcerting is that it does not appear '''anyone''' attempted to talk with Zawl. I have found him to be the epitome of ], but also willing to discuss things. Regarding the VP, Zawl recreated an article, with many more sources than the version that was deleted, and he believes it to pass the notability threshold. Maybe it does or doesn't, but I'm not sure the edit history was checked. I'm definitely leaning towards immediate unblock absent further evidence. ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 18:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


== Archive bots ==
*I unblocked the account. If it later turns out to be compromised, there will be evidence of such. But in the meantime, I believe I acted too hastily. ] (]) 18:47, 11 September 2017 (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)
*Ummm, for everyone's future use: '''please''' do not take any admin action based on accusations by ]. Longtime lurkers at the Village Pump and Reference Desks will tell you ... how can I put this without getting blocked? ... his judgement is ''questionable'' quite a bit of the time. --] (]) 19:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::Thanks for mentioning. Not my best action, but it was a lesson for me. ] (]) 19:44, 11 September 2017 (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. ==
::@ ].Where did I make accusations against this editor ? I said 'Possibly compromised account' and expressed straight from the start that he was an experienced editor. Which means I had his best interest at heart incase his account had been compromised. Pity you didn't way-in earlier and sort this out yourself instead of coming back 'after' the conclusion with what amounts to: ''Avec le recul, je pense que nous nous y serions pris autrement.''. I know how to reply to you without getting blocked – by leaving it to other editors who have come to know me over the years - to make their own judgments. ] (]) 20:30, 11 September 2017 (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)}}
:::original reply: My time machine is in the shop; I expect to be able to sort out things that happen ''before I see them'' sometime next week, when I get it back. And it's "weigh in".
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>
:::more on-point reply: My comment wasn't meant to solve this problem after the fact; it was meant to lessen the likelihood of future problems, by trying to get admins who see this to realize that you can almost always be safely ignored. --] (]) 20:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
:Do they mean anything by "defund" other than calling for people to stop donating (and haha, good luck with that one, these attacks seem to have resulted in the opposite)? Can Elon and Trump actually try and freeze the Foundation's assets or anything like that? ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Aspro, , right?&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 07:30, 12 September 2017 (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 ==
*Thanks everyone for helping to sort this out. Glad to be unblocked. I created the Bhad Bhabie page as I noticed her song, which charted on the ] at 77th, in the news and realized there wasn't an article about her, thus decided to create one as there was significant coverage from reliable sources like ] and ]. I figured that since Bhad Bhabie is the official stage name of Danielle Bregoli, it would be a more appropriate title, as most musicians use their stage names instead of real name (e.g. ], ]). I'm just surprised and disappointed that Magnolia677 and Aspro chose not to discuss with me before reporting/making accusations, and that action was taken against me without evidence and thorough examination, causing an extra unnecessary entry to my block log. — <span style="background:#0F4D92;color:white;padding:1px 10px;">]]</span> 10:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = Blocked. ] (]/]) 23:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


Apparently my legal team can expect a letter, as announced on ]. I'm obviously involved, haha, so perhaps someone else can assess and do what they think is right. Thanks. ] (]) 23:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
== Request Admin close AfD ==

The discussion over at ] has a reasonably good turnout and it seems merge is and probably will be the consensus decision. I am the article's creator and I also just Ivoted for "merge". Rather than continuing to extend the discussion in time and attract attention to a discussion that may not need this attention or more editor's time, I am requesting an Admin close this AfD per the perceived consensus. Thanks. ---] (]) 18:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
:Seems a little unnecessary to me to close this early. I also think in general that AfDing anything because it supposedly doesn't have enduring notability a few days after the event is amazingly premature. ] (], ]) 19:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::{{re|Jo-Jo Eumerus}}. I thank you for saying this. I was thinking along similar lines, and have become very frustrated having to deal with an AfD this soon after creating the article. It doesn't give me much time to come up with more material - if any shows up. It's like, by the time that happens the horse has left the barn. I wanted to say something like this at the AfD, but I didn't want to come across as whining and so on. ---] (]) 19:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
:::I withdraw my request for early close on this AfD. Please let the AfD run its course. This AfD happened way too early, in my opinion. ---] (]) 19:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not the AfDs that are happening too early, it's the article creation. ] and the like. "AfDing anything because it supposedly doesn't have enduring notability a few days after the event is amazingly premature." is just wrong. Apart from clearly notable events (Hurricane Irma, erecurring major sporting events, ...), most articles on breaking news should be sent to draftspace for a while and only released into mainspace when the enduring notability seems to be clear. E.g. not every wildfire needs an article asap. ] (]) 08:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:Nah, it still is premature. That the article creation was premature as well does not negate that NOTNEWS issues cannot be properly handled when the event is fairly recent. I've seen a fair amount of editors with concerns that articles on "Breaking news" events are started too quickly. And that many if not most such articles are kept when brought to AfD, mostly on the basis of recent coverage. I don't think everybody accepts this state of affairs but meeting an arguably premature article creation with an arguably premature AfD nomination is not by default the best answer. ] (], ]) 14:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

== WP:REFUND could do with some attention ==
{{atop|Backlog seems to have been handled. ] (]) 12:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)}}
There are about a dozen unanswered undeletion requests at ], with the oldest dating back to 8 September. Looking at the archives, prior to this week they were generally answered within a day. - <u>''']''37'''''</u>&nbsp;<span style="font-size:95%;">&#91;]]</span> 01:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}} {{abot}}


== Disruptive editor ==
== Exemption from ] at ] ==
{{atop
| result = ]. Level 2 warning issued. ] (]/]) 00:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


] has been removing any reference to the term 'insurrection' in articles connected with the January 6 capitol attack. ] (]) 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd like some additional eyes on ] regarding preserving the arbitrary exemption to ] that the project has granted themselves. ] <small>(])</small> 14:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:{{Re|Toddst1}}--Why was this posted at AN? Wouldn't it be better to launch a RFC? Regards:)]<sup>]</sup> 15:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
::Good question. There are already at least two admins involved in the discussion. ] (]) 15:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
::Lack of coffee. Good point, {{yo|Godric on Leave}}. ] <small>(])</small> 16:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

== Heads up on a heated AFD ==

] could use just a bit of watching for a few days. While nothing drastic outside of external canvassing so far has occurred, the article in question and this AFD discussion has been a focus of a large reddit forum, got to the site's front page, and could bring a bit of hostility here. --] (]) 16:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

== Monkey selfies ==
{{atop|{{nac}} This is a Commons matter and not relevant to en.wiki, nor is it an admin matter. People's personal opinions about copyright are not relevant either, unless they happen to be copyright law attorneys, and can prove that they are. ] (]) 04:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)}}
I presume means that the images that have (both in normal editing and utterly gratuitously) been used here as free images are now copyrighted? I would tag them all as copyvios at Commons except that the article is a little unclear about what the copyright status actually now is. It ''looks'' like the copyright has reverted to Slater but it's not obvious. Can anyone shed any light? ] 18:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:We're discussing this at ]. It currently seems that the images are still PD within the US, since the court has affirmatively ruled animals can't claim copyright. --] (]) 19:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:: Yeah, that's my confusion - since the copyright has to belong to ''someone'', presumably it reverts to Slater (especially as the article talks about any money made from the pictures, which again suggests copyright). Also, to be PD in the USA, the image has to be PD in the country of origin, which the article suggests it now isn't. ] 19:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:::The copyright does not have to belong to someone. Did the court rule about the ''human photographer'''s copyright claims? If no that does not tell us anything. That news article is not precise enough. ] (], ]) 19:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:::: That's my point. It refers to money being made from the sale of the images with 25% going to PETA, which ''suggests'' that Slater now has the copyright (otherwise anyone could do it). As you say, we'd need to see the actual judgement. ] 19:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
::::: Everyone can sell something that is PD. Slater (or rather his company) does so (via gettyimages for instance). And to get rid of PETA he will now donate 25% of his sales of that image. So basically PETA has successfully extorted him. None of that influences the state of that image. —] (] • ]) 21:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:See also ] Probably has to be settled on Commons in the end. Maybe the most conservative thing to do would be to open a DR. No point in wasting extended discussion here, when it would just all have to be rehashed at the DR anyway. ]] 19:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:It's (Chapter 300, page 22, section 313.12) Copyright Office publication that says "A photograph taken by a monkey" is not copyrightable. ] (]) 19:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:: David Slater is not a monkey. That section has no relevance to whether ''he'' holds the copyright or not. These should be deleted from Commons, and should have been years ago. Misplaced Pages, Commons, WMF and Wikimania in particular, should be ashamed of their actions here. ] (]) 21:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:::David Slater is not a monkey. No one said he was. Whatever your opinion of relevance, what's relevant for that sentence is "a photograph taken by a monkey" is not copyrightable. ] (]) 21:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
::::Listen folks, this has apparently ] and shut down only today. If you have a problem with it, take it up at ] or ], or start a new DR if you think you have something new to add. Those are the correct venues. ]] 21:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::<small>Some of us are about to go . ] (]) 22:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC) </small>

is a more expansive description of the ruling, the judge found that a monkey has no "standing" to sue, so dismissed the case. ] (]) 22:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

:Timothy makes a valid point, which is that image usage on this project is subject to approval by whoever is in charge at Wikimedia Commons. If Wikimedia Commons decides that a particular image is OK, then that image will automatically be permissible here on English Misplaced Pages, regardless of any mere local consensus that it is not. That being the case, why complain? ] (]) 22:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

::That does not sound right. Just because it is hosted there does not mean we have to use it, we can decide not to, as we do with most Commons images, most of which we do not use. ] (]) 22:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:::Well, as long as it's been vetted, then yes. But don't anyone go assuming that that screen shot of Batman is cool because it's on Commons. There are things on commons that have never been seen by beast nor man. ]] 22:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

::::The problem that I have is that I assume if something is on Commons then I can use it in my article on English Misplaced Pages without worrying about anything at all -- NFCC, but also any other worries. That may be naive of me, but in reality many editors on many different language Wikipedias are probably doing the same. If Commons is wrong, then it needs to be fixed, if necessary by some wider body than whatever clique is in action at Commons at the time. ] (]) 23:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::We do not have any control over Commons here, but we do have control over what we do, and to revisit and revise what we do with any content. So, saying 'it's on commons so you relied', does not matter, nor is saying Commons decided, they decided to host it there, and we can decide not to use it. If those starting these discussions seriously want to revisit this, it should not be here at AN, but it should be someone who is motivated to really gather the RS, the history, and lay-out a cogent argument that's not ''ad hominem'' and conclusion. It should also probably be a WP:centralized discussion. -- ] (]) 23:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

=== Why three parallel discussions? ===

Why are we discussing this here, at ], and at ]? Could someone please step in and shut down two of those discussion, directing the reader to the remaining one? --] (]) 22:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:I... No. Shut them all down. None of them matter. Please direct people to the correct venues. ]] 23:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:: So what is the "correct venue"? The files are protected on Commons so a deletion request can't even be filed. A DR was filed today on a derivative image ] and was summarily closed after such obvious falsehoods as "We have court decision, that the photo is in public domain," (no, we have neither a court decision (it was an out of court settlement, so not binding on anyone outside that settlement), nor a court decision that it is PD) and " Not this again. Already discussed to death.", which is just another of the claims that both WP/Commons are incapable of error and that the external situation can't change.
:: As happens far too often, the Wikimedia response to external challenge is to circle the wagons and defend the establishment cabal. We should not do this, we should act correctly, even when that means admitting that Wikimedia has got it wrong. ] (]) 23:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:::] or ]. No conversation here will affect anything that happens there. You may as well be trying to reach consensus on an article on es.wiki or a page on Wikiquote. ]] 23:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:::: I've opened ]. I expect it to be closed imminently. I expect every likelihood of being blocked for even raising this. I don't care - WP has to admit that it has behaved very badly over this and that its actions have ruined an innocent photographer. I can leave WP more easily than I can move house. ] (]) 23:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

::::::No. We do not go there to decide what we do on English Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 23:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::: :en:WP isn't hosting these, Commons is. If :en:WP wants to make a fair-use case for them, then that's probably justifiable, but then they'd be smaller images, and they wouldn't be offered under a claim of being freely licensed, such that they're widely re-used elsewhere, from a belief in WP's imprimatur. ] (]) 23:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Because these images are not copyrightable in the USA, no fair-use justification is needed; even if they're copyrighted in the source country (an allegation that's consistently been rejected), they could be hosted here under the same terms as ], which is PD-US but copyrighted in the source country. ] (]) 23:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::::: "these images are not copyrightable in the USA"
::::::::: Why not? Why can they not be Slater's copyright, as he claims? There is no ruling on that, either specific from a case related to this situation, or from a general principle.
::::::::: Secondly, it doesn't matter if they're not copyrighted in the US, if they are copyrighted in their country of origin. Commons requires them to be PD in ''both'' in order for Commons to host them, see ]. That might be enough to permit them to continue on en:WP (and at full size, unlike for fair-use), but they'd still need to go from Commons, and they wouldn't be advertised as worldwide PD. ] (]) 00:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::Andy, please start defending my claim to a copyright on those pictures. After all, you are defending Slater's copyright claim despite the fact that Slater did not take the pictures, and I ''also'' did not take the pictures, so to be consistent, you should defend my claim as well. --] (]) 02:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::: As a word of advice to Andy, I think the only place to even get traction on this is through the WMF since they "sanctioned" commons to keep them as PD after refusing to delete them and later stating that there cannot be copyright on the photos. And I doubt the WMF will change their mind given that the Copyright Office amended rules by Dec 2014 to specially call out these monkey selfies as ineligible for copyright. --] (]) 00:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::::: What do you mean by "sanctioned Commons to"? I've not seen a WMF statement on this, other than a verbal one that was mis-reported by the BBC (the BBC text doesn't match the WMF audio).
::::::::: " the Copyright Office amended rules by Dec 2014" Nor have I seen this. The "no animal copyright" rules I've seen have pre-dated this, and were based on elephant paintings (there is a motion to dismiss the PETA case on the basis of this, and also on the principle that the mcaque has no standing in the court - but this was not a ''new'' ruling on copyright, based on the macaque case). Yet again though, I simply do not believe, "to specially call out these monkey selfies as ineligible for copyright" (I have made the same statement over and over today). There is a clear statement that "animals can't hold a US copyright", but that is too narrow to imply that these images are PD - it does not exclude the claim that Slater holds the copyright. I am unaware of any ruling on ''that'', and without such a ruling, the situation still remains in significant doubt. ] (]) 00:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::: , Section 313.2. --] (]) 01:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
* {{ec}} Oh Christ almighty. Commons is not the precipitous edge of the universe. Most people there speak English to a manageable level. We happen to use Commons for 90+ percent of our images. If anyone has an ''actual copyright problem'' then fix it at the source. If anyone isn't fluent in Commons then go get it, because a good measure of what you do here is dependent on it. ] is where to take this conversation, and if you think this is a real copyright issue and this is going to expose WMF to litigation, then burying your head in the sand and saying "en.wiki will just ignore it" isn't really an option. ]] 00:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
{{ab}}

== Anti-harassment tools team's Administrator confidence survey ==

Hello,

Beginning in mid September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tools team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Misplaced Pages administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here: https://wikimediafoundation.org/Semi-Annual_Admin_Survey_Privacy_Statement

To take the survey sign up ] and we will send you a survey form.

If you have questions or want to share your opinions about the survey, you can contact the Anti-harassment tool team at ] or privately

For the Anti-harassment tools team, ] (]) 23:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

:{{re|SPoore (WMF)}} do you mean September of this year ? - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 23:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
::Yes, and fixed. Thanks :-) ] (]) 23:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
{{od}}My user name and password from en.wiki does not work at WMF? ]] 13:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
:::Yes, the Foundation wiki is read only except for people that need access to add "official" content. So, you can't log in there. ] (]) 14:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

== Backlog ==

If a sysop has a moment to spare, could you swing by AIV and UAA and clean up the pending accounts, numerous waiting for blocks. Thanks. ] (]) 03:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

:C'mon {{ping|Ymblanter}} - one for you, mate. And don't forget to thank him for his troubles. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 06:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
:: Looks like stalking, no? (For the record, I worked a bit at AIV in the morning).--] (]) 06:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
:::What, checking a noticeboard once a day and asking you to pull your weight? Wrong again. How many thanks did you get? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
::: There's no need to be snotty, Lugnuts. &spades;]&spades; ] 12:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

== Regarding template protection ==

What is the current thinking regarding the use of full protection vs. template protection on extremely high risk templates? ] is not very explicit, but absent actual vandalism / edit warring, it seems to always prefer template protection. Broadly speaking, I think that makes sense, since letting more trusted users edit is generally a good thing. However, is there any threshold above which one wants to remain even more cautious than template protection? I got a request to downgrade the protection level on a template with millions of uses, so I wanted to double check. Also, is it worth proactively switching templates from full-prot to template-prot even if no one has made a request? I can think of a variety of templates that have had full protection since before the template-prot option was created. ] (]) 09:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
* I would say we should always go for a template protection. Template editors are not expected to produce damage visible in many articles.--] (]) 10:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
* Agree with Ymblanter. The template editors know what they're doing. That said, unless I get or see a request for downgrade, I leave the fully protected ones well enough alone. <span style="color: #9932CC">]<sup>]</sup></span> 11:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
*Hi {{U|Dragons flight}}, on your last point (should we mass lower protection in the absence of need/requests), we had a discussion at ] within the last year and decided, as Katie also suggested, to leave existing protection alone for the time being (unless there's a reasonable request, obviously). HTH, ] 12:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
::As someone who regularly patrols ] requests, I can say that we hold our TE's up to very high standards. Subsequently, I don't know of anyone who has seriously broken a TE template nor had their right removed (at least since I got the mop). Granted, most used-by-millions-of-pages templates are (more or less) in their "final" form and never ''need'' to be updated, so echoing the above sentiments I don't think we really need to downgrade any existing protection just because it happened to be employed before the TE right existed. ] (]) 13:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
*I think it's reasonable to leave the biggest, most-visible alone (navbox, infobox, and CS1, not all-inclusive) given their visibility and their (intended) stability (CS1 changes but also has an involved user base). There are a few others in the millions that might reasonably be downgraded (wikiproject) given their somewhat-lesser visibility. Perhaps this should be a full RFC on ] or ] given the current lack of guidance. --] (]) 13:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
*I did a while ago lower protection on some fully protected templates from full to template, using a rough cutoff of one million transclusions. ] (], ]) 15:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
*Additionally, for templates that have millions of impressions due to being part mediawiki transclusions, full protection is often warranted. I find ] to be a good temperature gauge for this need - it rarely has template based backlogs in it. — ] <sup>]</sup> 15:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

=== Addendum: Cascade protected ===

I realized belatedly that the requested template is also subject to full cascade protection via ]. So downgrading it would also mean removing if from that page. That page is interesting as there does not appear to be a clear threshold for what is or is not included other than a subjective declaration that something is very high risk. ] (]) 09:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
:In past discussions on TP, when trying to define such a threshold, there was a diversity of opinions. It seems that if you take a unilateral approach like {{U|Jo-Jo Eumerus}} without discussion you are likely to be successful and not come under scrutiny. ] 15:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
::Yeah, but I don't like this approach all that much. Perhaps it does say that the exact protection level is something only few people care about. ] (], ]) 18:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

== bears watching ==

] has an incredibly obnoxious user page. I don't know that it is against any Misplaced Pages rules, but it is certainly against Misplaced Pages traditions. It could just be viewed as "these are the 3 politicians I support." But it could also be viewed as threatening to many editors, especially those in the Philippines.

For the record, I'm one of the Misplaced Pages editors who occasionally expresses political opinions on my user page and sometimes on others talk pages, e.g. I have a "Register and Vote" poster on my user page. But I see a huge difference between that and User:NWO Globalist Slayer's user page.

My only request for action is that admins keep an eye on this user. It looks like a disaster waiting to happen.

Thanks,

]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 17:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
:And their only edit is . Pretty clear case of someone ]. ] (]) 17:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
::What I wanted to add to the Soros article is not 'anti-Semitic nonsense'. I happen to be Jewish myself. I just want to add content related to what is an official White House petition that has now generated enough citizen signatures to require a presidential response. Please do not attempt to classify all Soros opponents as anti-Semitic. That's a red herring. ] (]) 06:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


::The user page has been tagged and deleted. The next edit from this user would probably result in the ]. ]] 17:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
:::<small>Bears watching? I better keep an eye on my pic-a-nic basket then. ] (]) 17:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)</small> In all seriousness, I saw the user at UAA, and seeing their edits was considering a block for ] to begin with. ] (]) 17:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Smallbones, my user page was indeed just 3 politicians I support. Duterte and Putin are often portrayed as bogymen in the Western press. However, the truth is that they are populist leaders with widespread popular support in their respective countries-- probably the 2 most popular elected leaders of major states. As you mention, you have your political opinions expressed on your user page. It should not be any different from me as a new contributor. Please restore my user page. ] (]) 06:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
: I blocked the user indef, a clear case of ], and likely a sock anyway.--] (]) 07:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
::{{checkIP|110.77.210.96}} {{Pblock}}. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

== Materialscientist ==
{{atop|This is going nowhere. {{u|Materialscientist}}, if you happen to see this thread before it gets archived, you're welcome to post below (or even inside the archive) with a comment, but otherwise let's just assume that Materialscientist is either AFK or didn't see (or care to respond) to the OP's initial request. None of these actions are desysop (i.e. ArbCom) worthy. ] (]) 01:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)}}
I've asked admin Materialscientist a question about a block he made, and did not get a response. I asked a few more times and still haven't received even an acknowledgement that he is aware of my request. ] (]) 17:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
:{{small|<s>I have ] about this thread. ] (]) 18:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)</s> Didn't see the previous notification. ] (]) 18:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)}}
:You should probably be rather more specific about what block you're inquiring about, and directly link it. As best I can tell, you're asking about from March, which was for "Persistent addition of unsourced content," which is, indeed, quite worthy of a block. ], and if a user ignores repeated requests to provide sourcing for their additions, a block is merited. I see a number of talk page posts to that user providing advice, caution and warnings, and no evidence that the user had any interest in responding to those posts and addressing their behavior. ] (]) 18:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
:: A) I put the notification template on his talk page. B) Whether or not the block and length was valid, there is an issue with the lack of notification by MS which is why I asked for clarification and C) the lack of response to my queries does not conform to ]. ] (]) 18:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
:::I'm unsure what you're even trying to get at. The notice was placed of the user he blocked, {{UserIP|24.178.2.82}}. {{UserIP|24.178.29.47}} was blocked by Berean Hunter. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;(]) 18:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
::::That template did not add MS's name as the blocking admin, nor was an explanation given on the talk page. Pretty basic admin stuff. Also I would like an explanation why *that* ip was blocked st all? The log says due to adding unsourced content. Was the ip given a warning about unsourced content? Appears not. Maybe something else is afoot. Regardless, this discussion should be happening where this discussion was started. And even if everything is aboveboard with the block and notices (which is why I started the discussion in the first place) why is MS failing to respond to my questions? I'm afraid none of you can answer that with any degree of certainty.] (]) 18:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
::::: You're not reading the responses you received here, thatMan? MS didn't make the block. Are you trout fishing? -] ] 18:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::{{ec}} Appears not? Have you even looked at the ] that is littered with previous blocks and warnings? Questions about the template {{tlx|anonblock}} Should be taken up there and not with the admin who is using it. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;(]) 18:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::: I'm reading them just fine. There are at least two ip addresses involved here. is where this discussion should be taking place. At issue ''here'' is MS not responding whatsoever to my questions. Please stay on topic] (]) 18:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Are you trolling? I find it hard to take this seriously. {{tq|That template did not add MS's name as the blocking admin, nor was an explanation given on the talk page.}} Already shown why. It has nothing to do with the administrator, and he did add the anonblock template. {{tq|Also I would like an explanation why *that* ip was blocked st all? The log says due to adding unsourced content.}} All you have to do is check the IP's edits and they will show you why it was blocked. {{tq|Was the ip given a warning about unsourced content? Appears not.}} Yes. Directly on the talk page. {{tq|Maybe something else is afoot.}} No, you literally have no argument and are confusing IPs.
:::::::If you have a question about the block for {{UserIP|24.178.29.47}}, then you need to speak with {{u|Berean Hunter}}, as they are the only person . —&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;(]) 18:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::::I'll kindly ask you to stay out of this if you won't even bother to take the discussion about the various blocks to the correct location. At present issue is MS not responding as his duties per ]. Nothing anyone here can say except MS can answer this. Perhaps he didn't see it, I've no idea. I asked a reasonable question about a block which is related to multiple ip addresses. He should take the time to at least respond. I'm willing to assume AGF, you should do the same. ] (]) 18:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::Take the discussion to the correct location? Really? I'll look to see who opened the discussion ''here'' shall I. Oh, wait. -] ] 18:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::This has nothing to do with AGF. And no, I won't stay out of it. Multiple users now have explained the rationale for the block as '''it is obvious'''. Your insistence that he "answer for his actions" is disruptive considering no one else is wondering why the block was made. ] only goes so far. Your ''complete'' insistence that everything be explained to you multiple times is disruptive. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;(]) 19:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::And you, an admitted drama watcher is creating drama where there should be none. Misplaced Pages. I ain't asking '''you''' or anyone else to explain a damned thing. Because none of you even have the sequence of events down correctly, which is precisely why I don't want to "relitigate" the blocks with the denizens of the peanut gallery. ] (]) 19:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
{{od}} To the complaint that MS has not responded per ], they haven't edited in 7 hours. It's very possible they aren't even AWARE this issue was brought up yet. ] (]) 19:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
:Thank you. Though I've asked multiple times on his talk page over the past few days because I was told his pings are off, and I should post my query there. It's not like I rushed here to file a grievance. I'd still just be happy if he engaged, which is ironic because that is what these ips involved were blocked for.] (]) 19:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
::Materialscientist may have seen you pointed to a block by Berean Hunter, and figured BH accurately answered your questions for both questions. We are all volunteers, so while MS is required to explain his actions to those he blocked (which he did), he probably feels your questions were answered appropriately. I would recommend this thread be closed. ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 19:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC) <small>modified ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 19:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)</small>
:::Agreed. This is a waste of time and has adequately been explained on all fronts. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;(]) 19:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Nihlus Kryik}} If you wandering, I made ] on this IP early this month, and you can see why ] making a big deal about about the blocks. ] (]) 15:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
:::. Is it elsewhere? One could speculate about "perhaps" until the cows come home. Admins have an obligation to respond to reasonable inquiries. If they can't, they should resign their adminship. Peanuts, please don't. No one is seriously considering unblocking that ip. Your articles are safe for now.] (]) 20:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
::::{{tq|Your articles are safe for now.}} What is that supposed to mean? And if you're going to make suggestions about MS resigning over this isolated case, what do you propose should be done about the massive workload he bears? ] (]) 21:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Lepricavark}} Mr Peanut has some ownership issues over some rap (music) relates articles. From what I gather it's mostly MOS related things that he doesn't want touched. Since both the ips are now blocked, it can't edit those articles. I think Peanut is concerned about the ip being unblocked, and I wanted to assuage him that wasn't going to happen. Regarding Materialscientist: No one at Misplaced Pages is irreplaceable. ] (]) 23:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

*On the one hand, although I hold Materialscientist in high regard, ADMINACCT seems clear that you have to explain your admin actions to anyone who asks in good faith, not just the person you blocked. On the other hand, because I hold MS in high regard, <wild ass assumption of what's going on> I can empathize with the frustration of someone demanding an explanation for a block that (a) expired months ago, (b) seems to be widely agreed to have been reasonable, (c) has essentially already been explained by others, and (d) is one of dozens (hundreds?) of blocks that MS has made this year, which uniformly help the encyclopedia, and I can imagine all bleed into one another after a while. </wild ass assumption of what's going on>
:I think the best solution would be for TMFN to understand that ultimately everyone seems to agree that MS's block (and the subsequent BH blocks) was legit, and not force someone who might be frustrated to answer, even though he is entitled to one. That seems unlikely. The next best solution would be for MS, when he logs back on, to provide a short 2-3 sentence explanation, and if everyone except TMFN thinks it's an adequate response, ''then'' this can be closed. But empathy or not, I don't think it's appropriate to suggest closing the thread before MS responds, if TMFN insists. ADMINACCT is a pretty big deal to non-admins, and closing this unresolved just widens the divide between admin and mere mortal. --] (]) 20:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
:*I think it should be noted that TMFN's lack of clarity in this thread has made it difficult to determine exactly what questions he is asking and what answers he is seeking. There's something about multiple IPs and blocks without the admin's name in the template, but he's been vague and difficult to fully understand. ] (]) 21:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

*Floquenbeam, the problem here is the ne'er do wells who took all of 5 minutes to decide, when they couldn't have understood the progression. That's ok, because it's what I expect of noticeboards. I didn't want to come here to argue about the block itself, but simply because I want a response from MS. I looked at his logs and MS makes ''a lot'' of blocks. If I had to bet, most of them are probably good. People shouldn't get their panties in a twist because I'm insisting he explain an administrative action he made. If someone points out a dubious block, MS might learn something and be a better admin for it. However, I've never seen an admin just not respond whatsoever to a question before, which is why I came here. I've left open the possibility that MS didn't see my question, or saw it and he meant to get to it later, etc. If that's the case, then no problem. I'm hoping that's the case. If he felt that another person explained it adequately, he should say so. But if he feels like he is not obligated to give a response he should be desysoped. Any admin that fails to follow policy should not be allowed to enforce it.] (]) 23:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
*:Are you upset because you've not received adequate information about the block, or are you upset because you haven't gotten the exact satisfaction you need by getting someone to follow your orders? If it is the former, please indicate what information you seek. If the latter, I suggest you drop the matter, because you're probably not going to get such satisfaction. Near as I can tell, the block has been fully explained above, MS is under no obligation to elaborate if all he is going to do is repeat what others have already said. Hearing him repeat what others have said already serves no purpose. I too, would have liked him to explain better in his own words, but the block itself has been adequately justified. I don't see that there is anything to be gained by demanding desysopping because he doesn't follow your orders. --]] 23:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}} {{abot}}


== Community assuming the block on Crouch, Swale ==
== Backlog at UAA ==


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)
Hello, just wanted to let the admins know that there is a backlog at ], going back to 13:00 UTC. ] ] 01:15, 14 September 2017 (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)
== Strange Korean links being added by anonymous editors ==


== WMF research on admins ==
Over the past few hours, I've been noticing the occasional IP like {{IPuser|210.105.148.74}} and {{IPuser|61.75.205.196}}. Each one adds links in the format <pre>http://.kr/cloud/__/</pre> and then vanishes for a little while. All of these links lead to pages with the text "홈페이지 수정작업 중입니다.", apparently meaning "The homepage is being edited" or something of the sort in Korean. I'm not sure if the intention is to improve these sites' search engine rankings, replace the content with (e.g.) malware at a later date, or something else. ]&nbsp;<sup>(])</sup> 07:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
:Yes, definitely up to no good. Add {{IPuser|210.105.150.192}} and {{IPuser|61.75.205.181}} as well as {{IPuser|211.216.79.86}}, and there's probably some range blocks to be had. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 08:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
::There may not be enough of them just yet to formulate one properly, not without being heavy-handed anyway. 210.105.0.0/16 and 61.75.205.0/24 seem deserving of attention for now. ]&nbsp;<sup>(])</sup> 09:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
:::I think I've seen plenty. From what I've seen these are the relevant ranges so far; everything from these ranges for the last month has been this spam, and there's been no other edits for a long time:
:::{{iprange|61.75.205.0/24}}
:::{{iprange|210.105.144.0/21}}
:::{{iprange|211.216.79.0/24}}
:::-- ] <sup>]</sup> 09:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
::::I've added <tt>\.kr/(?:cloud|software|board)/.+/\d+</tt> to the spam blacklist. This should catch all the variants I saw, but I'm somewhat concerned about collateral damage. ] 10:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


There's a 70 page final report over at ]. Apparently it will be part of something called the ] in February. I recommend people read the report and possibly contribute to the upcoming office hours if they're interested. ] ] 03:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
==]==
: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)
Hi Admins! I don't know why there is a little fight between me and a user is going on for the edits on this page. I tried to message the user too, but the response I got wasn't helpful. Can anyone please help what to do to resolve the fight? <!--See ] too + some edit history too. -->Thanks! ] ] 07:50, 14 September 2017 (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)
:{{ping|M.Billoo2000}} This board is mainly for conduct issues, and that seems like a content dispute. Please see ] for more information. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;(]) 10:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
::The first 18 pages are a summary of the rest of the document. The good news is that apparently our admin corps is demographically reflective of the wider editor pool in all measured aspects except age. ] (]) 04:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Do we lean older or younger? ] ] 04:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Admins average older than editors and readers. ] (]) 04:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::An addendum: it's not in the summary but there is also a geographic bias (pages 52 and 53), with en.wiki admins more likely to be in North America than editors. ] (]) 04:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*I like this line {{tq|1.2.3 The RFA process is routinely characterized by administrators as stressful, opaque, and something to be endured.}} That was my experience! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*:], you may want to read pages 47 onwards then. In particular, I found page 50 an interesting elucidation of some factors affecting RfAs. ] (]) 04:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
* There's lots of interesting tidbits in there and I do think it's worth a read. For example, some depressing figures on abuse and harassment (pp. 62, 66–68), and the information (pg. 45) that en.wiki has relatively low enthusiasm from non-admins towards becoming admins <small>(although this result may be skewed by en.wiki's relatively lax ''formal'' requirements, which would widen the pool of surveyed editors of lower experience considerably compared to projects with more stringent formal requirements)</small>. However, for those short of time (and perhaps already familiar with the situation on en.wiki), I would encourage a look at comparisons of the unbundling of core admin actions across different projects (pp. 36–38) and the comparison of admin tenures across different projects (pp. 39–40). ] (]) 04:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== Move page ] ==
== HostBot malfunctioning ==


Please help me move page ] to ] (currently is a redirect page), because of this airport was . ] (]) 04:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Sorry to do this, but I've just blocked {{ul|HostBot}} as I noticed it placing welcome notices on the talk pages of checkuser-confirmed sockpuppets, which seems highly inappropriate to me. I am about to be away from the computer for a bit, but if some admins review this and find it inappropriate then please feel free to unblock and reactivate the bot. Pinging {{ul|Jtmorgan}} as a courtesy. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
:From a quick pick around on github, it would seem that could be passing the user's ID instead of username into a function that checks for blocks based on username. However, I'm not too sure how the db queries and invitee variable work, but it's a place to start. <span style="text-shadow:7px 5px 7px grey;font-family:High Tower Text">-- ] <sup>]</sup></span> 21:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
::Thanks for the heads-up {{U|Ivanvector}}. Can you provide an example of a particular user that HostBot invited, but shouldn't have? I'll need at least one false-positive to debug. {{ping|The Voidwalker}} I'll start by reviewing that function--thanks to you too ] 23:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
:::] seems like one such. I'll go see if there is anything else. <span style="text-shadow:7px 5px 7px grey;font-family:High Tower Text">-- ] <sup>]</sup></span> 23:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
:::], ], ], ], and ] were also blocked (and sometimes templated) prior to an invitation. <span style="text-shadow:7px 5px 7px grey;font-family:High Tower Text">-- ] <sup>]</sup></span> 23:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
::::] is the one that came up in my watchlist. The bot left an invitation roughly two hours after a Checkuser blocked the account and I created its user page with the sockpuppet template. Apologies for not leaving a link to the account in my original post, I was in a rush. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 03:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Ivanvector}} {{ping|The Voidwalker}} I've fixed the issue with block detection. An outdated Python 2 module I imported was throwing an error that caused the API call for block status not to run. I have an earlier step in the process that detects blocks that happened a while before the invite script runs, and those blocks were being detected and addressed, but more recent blocks (anything less than a few hours, depending on the current state of replication lag on the public logging table) were not being caught and those users were being invited.
:In the process of addressing these issues, I've found/introduced other (unrelated) bugs with the bot that need to be addressed. I won't be able to start the bot again until I fix those bugs. So I don't know where that leaves us now: what do I have to demonstrate before the bot can be unblocked? Unfortunately, I may not have time to fully fix HostBot for several weeks. When I'm ready to test the bot again, who should I talk to about lifting the block? ] 00:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
::{{Yo|Jtmorgan}} I'll be mostly inaccessible for most of the next few days. In my opinion, if you believe you've fixed the bugs, then go ahead and unblock the bot yourself, or ask another admin and point to this comment as my endorsement-in-lieu. Thanks for taking care of it. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 00:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


== File:A Redrawing of the 5K Y.O. Graffito by NewAccount333.jpeg ==
== Permission to use automated tools (regarding a community sanction imposed in July 2017)==
{{atop|This was already implemented by the ArbCom. Apologies for not realising earlier. -- ] (]) 23:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)}}
I would like the community to re-examine the sanction imposed to me two months ago () to use automated tools from my main account. -- ] (]) 21:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

:{{re|Magioladitis}} What tools are you referring to ? You usually do not have to ask permission here. - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 21:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
::{{re|FlightTime}} I am under two(?) sanctions that prohibit me from using automated tools from my main account. The was imposed to me two months ago and I am able to contest this since September 7 which I am doing here. The is from an ArbCom case. At this time it seems that both sanctions are in place while they seem to ovelap each other. -- ] (]) 22:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
::That's pretty obvious now, my query is moot. - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 22:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
:::{{re|FlightTime}} To be honest, using tools that are provided from the Misplaced Pages enviroment like Hot-Cat also makes total sense. These tools do not allow any automated editing. But after all this drama I am lost in which place to post my request. Even the initial sanction was mentioning "the community". This ould be the Village pump for instance? -- ] (]) 23:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

*Less than two weeks ago, after a long ArbCom case, one of their was; "He is indefinitely prohibited from making automated edits from his main (User:Magioladitis) account." I'm perplexed why you would ask for WP:AN to overturn an ArbCom remedy. Too soon, wrong venue, and 0% chance of success. --] (]) 21:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
::] The restriction imposed by the community had a period of 1 month and has expired. -- ] (]) 22:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
:::The community sanction may have been for one month, but the ArbCom sanction is indefinite. "He is indefinitely prohibited from making automated edits from his main (User:Magioladitis) account" is '''not''' hard to parse. --] (]) 22:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
::]
:::A) Which is the correct venue?
:::B) Does th ArbCom santion mean that the previously community sanction is not valid anymore? -- ] (]) 22:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

::::(A) Right now, there '''is no''' correct venue; ArbCom is not going to relax their remedies when they've been in place for less than 2 weeks. Eventually, the correct place will be ]. But man, I really hope you don't do that any sooner than 6-12 months from now. It will make things worse for you to do it earlier, not better, I am extraordinarily confident. (B) The ArbCom sanction specifically superseded portions of the community sanction (it says which ones in the remedies). Are there any '''unexpired''' community restrictions that have '''not''' been specifically superseded? If so, I suppose those could be appealed here, but I kind of doubt they exist. --] (]) 22:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''No'''. ] (]) 21:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
:] No to all automated tools? You could for example propose that some tools may be used. -- ] (]) 22:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
* '''No''' I think the ArbCom remedy/sanction is pretty clear. And I gotta say, asking here sure strikes me as a bad idea for you. ] - ] 22:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
::] I am referring to the community sanction imposed more than 2 months ago. -- ] (]) 22:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
::: You are under an ArbCom remedy that prohibits you from using automated tools on your main account. That means that it doesn't matter whether the community sanction has expired or not. Frankly, this is starting to look like you're intentionally trolling ... surely, you're able to understand that the ArbCom remedy is in force, right? ] - ] 22:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::OK. If you assure me that . I am OK with that. -- ] (]) 22:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::Utterly irrelevant. The ArbCom sanction says "Magioladitis is indefinitely prohibited from using AWB, or similar tool (such as WPCleaner), on the English Misplaced Pages" and "He is indefinitely prohibited from making automated edits from his main (User:Magioladitis) account". In effect, the community sanction has been confirmed by ArbCom and made stronger. --] | ] 22:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::] In fact you say that the one sanction '''replaced the other'''. -- ] (]) 22:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Anyone with the slightest degree of common sense or intellectual honesty could figure that out. "You are under an ArbCom remedy that prohibits you from using automated tools on your main account. That means that it doesn't matter whether the community sanction has expired or not. -User:Ealdgyth". The wording of your request ("I would like the community to re-examine the sanction imposed to me...") tells me that your were attempting an end-run around your sanction and hoping nobody noticed. --] | ] 23:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::] I was told to address to the community two months after the block. That's what I did. As you see there are two sanctions. You say the one is not valid anymore. Nice to hear that. Let's see what the others say. I think it's obvious that the ArbCom one should be the only activeat the moment but you never know! -- ] (]) 23:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

] For me it's important because I had a disagreement with Headbomb whether the community saction will be valid after the ArbCom. It's good to know tthat for this matter I can't address to the AN anymore. -- ] (]) 22:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
:It's a lot easier to help you if you would just explain what your actual problem is up front, instead of being cryptic and/or sneaky, and link to the sanctions you're appealing, instead of expecting people to look for it themselves. Disrespectful waste of our time. So, after research, if I understand right, the community sanction against automated edits is '''still valid'''; before the ArbCom case closed, it could be appealed starting 7 Sept., but did not automatically expire. The subsequent ArbCom sanction against automated edits was probably intended to supersede the community sanction, but it doesn't actually say that anywhere (probably a small oversight), so technically they are both in force, and technically I suppose they would both need to be appealed before you can do automated editing again. In practice it makes no sense to appeal the community sanction now, because it would have no real effect, and because you're starting to ''piss off people who up to now might have felt bad for you, so I doubt any editor is going to support this''. Deal with this if/when when you appeal the ArbCom sanction, which again, I cannot emphasize enough, you should do in no less than 6 months, and 12 months would be smarter. ''At that time'', ask them for clarification on whether a separate appeal of the community ban is needed or not. --] (]) 22:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
::] Thanks. Exactly. This is the problem. There seem to be both valid at this point. I would like to see this one go away to have only one to deal in the future. Which makes totally sense since the ArbCom one is newer. -- ] (]) 22:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
:::<small>For future historians studying this (possibly for a dissertation "The Inherent Dysfunction of Misplaced Pages, and Why All Rational People Eventually Screamed 'Aaaaaaaagh' And Gave Up On It"), note that Magioladitis changed his initial request. it did not originally have a link to the sanction he is talking about. That's what I'm complaining about above. --] (]) 23:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)</small>
:::<small>True.My initial statement made nosense for the non-experts of the case and I apologise for that. -- ] (]) 23:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)</small>

Speaking of : ''...I'll probably re-run for admin in the next days. -- User:Magioladitis 22:18, 14 September 2017'' --] | ] 23:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
:] This is off-topic though! -- ] (]) 23:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

'''Note''' This is not a request about the ArbCom sanction. It's a request regarding only thee community sanction that was imposed before the ArbCom one. Both seem to be active at this time. -- ] (]) 23:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
:As I'm reading the ArbCom sanction, it includes the wording {{tq|This sanction supersedes the ] applied in July 2017.}}. This means that the ArbCom sanction has now taken the place of the community sanction, rather than both being active at the same time. ] (]) 23:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
:::] Wow. I guess you are right. I am puzzled I did not notice that. -- ] (]) 23:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
{{abottom}}

== Queries about looking for sockpuppets ==

*If two or more or several Misplaced Pages usernames are using the same IPA address, how often is it caused by?:-
*# Sockpuppets.
*# More than one person living at the same address are Misplaced Pages users.
*# User:A leaves an address, then User:B moves in at that same address.
**] (]) 09:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
:::Would not choosing the criterion be a function of editing overlap, interests etc? Anyway, I have seen some users who have user-boxes mentioning of theirs' sharing IPs with other users.]<sup>]</sup> 11:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
::::I don't know about Misplaced Pages, but elsewhere a number of people share IPs because of mobile connections that run through shared IP pools. ] (], ]) 14:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::Can only generalize and speculate since I'm not a Checkuser and can't see the IP address of registered accounts, but I suspect sockpuppetry is more common than coliving in IP-in-common situations. CU can reveal more than just an IP address anyway, and two people at the same location sharing a connection but on different equipment would appear distinct. In the third case it would be somewhat unlikely that User:B would end up with the same IP as User:A, unless maybe in a landlord-provides-internet situation, and then other technical information would distinguish the two users anyway. Also, let me know where the ] address is, it's the weekend in like 4 hours. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 15:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC) 🍻

== Request to administrators to look at account ==
{{archive top|result=There isn't much to be done here. Nothing of substance against the subject of this complaint. Insufficient evidence for any formal ] action. {{U|Abhijeet Safai}}: Please make sure that any articles you create are supported by substantial, ], ], ] sources. Also, please ] at AfD. Let's all spend our time at more productive venues.}}
Dear Sir / Madam,

Greetings!

It is my request to administrators to look at the edits happening from account and take appropriate actions. I am compelled to do so specially after seeing edit where an organization has received a BLP tag. This person is not ready to read that the article itself says that it is an organization. I do not know much about roll-baking but I would even request to rollback all the edits done by this user if found needed by administrators. Thanks in advance. I have tried to behave in civil manner with this person but he is not ready to listen. He was blocked once as per the block log. Kindly let me know if I should change any of my behavior / editing style. Thanks a lot for your time and efforts. -- ] (]) 11:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
*Well, are you sure that this does not need a ]. And your in gen. behaviour seems to say so! Also, it may be prudential for you to know that semi-trolling and casting ] of the sort you indulged in at ] could quickly land you with a block.Regards:)]<sup>]</sup> 11:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
:: To avoid that Sir / Madam, I will refrain from any communication with him. Direct or indirect. Dr. Ashok D B Vaidya is the person who has highest contributions in the filed of research in Ayurveda in my opinion. I am an expert on this topic. I do not care if that article remains or is deleted from Misplaced Pages. His respect is far more important to me than the article itself. Comparing him to a food item because of similarity in his name is surely an attempt to ridicule him. He surely does not deserve this. Especially after knowing the huge work done by him. Kindly let me know if any of things are wrong. Thank you. I am very happy that finally someone has started seeing at the account and the edits. I believe in judgement of administrators at Misplaced Pages and till date I have not found any wrong judgments by them. Thanking you, Yours sincerely -- ] (]) 11:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
:::He was prob. not ridiculing him and if even he has that does not authorise your actions. For a note, there exists a a quite popular vada-pao vendor with the same name and gathers (prob.) more hits than the subject.]<sup>]</sup> 11:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
*{{ec}} I'm not sure exactly what is being requested here, or why. Rolling back thousands of edits probably isn't going to happen here, especially not without giving a reason. ] ] 11:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
:::: I do not understand if it is needed here. I am very happy that finally great people like administrators are taking a look the accounts and edits being made by the account. Thanks a lot. -- ] (]) 11:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
::::: It is being said that "He was prob. not ridiculing him". I am happy and at peace if that is really true. Thank you. -- ] (]) 12:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::As for your original complaint reg the BLP sources tag, that's very likely just a Twinkle misclick, but I'm more concerned about that article, sourced just to a primary source and nothing else and Godric's example of your posts is even more concerning. And as you've asked above, you do have to change, if you think a subject is notable then show the sources, not post screeds like you did at the afd . &mdash;]''']''' 12:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::: I have no issues to show the references. I have always put more and more references when needed. I have put more references than needed to start with because I know the importance of references. But here the particular person is putting speedy deletion tags on many articles and many are asking him to slow down on his talk page but it seems that he is not ready to listen. -- ] (]) 12:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::: I do understand that there can be 'Twinkle misclick' if it is happening at one place. I am not sure how many damages this person / account is doing to Misplaced Pages itself. You all are big people with great experience of editing and administrating. If you feel that no action needs to be taken on this account, not even a suggestion, then you must be right. I mean I do believe the judgement of Misplaced Pages Admins more than mine in cases like these. I am happy that I have brought it to the notice of admins and you will take appropriate action if needed. Thank you. -- ] (]) 12:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::You keep taking about damage etc but haven't provided any diffs, in fact the only diff that you provided shows you in bad light, and add to that what Godric dug and it's worse. So, cut this "you people" crap, you brought in a complaint and haven't substantiated it, simple as that. &mdash;]''']''' 12:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::: I will need some time to study this account in detail. But if you want me to do that, I will do that. I am an investigator in scientific experiments and I do love investigations. Thank you. -- ] (]) 12:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
== Unblock request at ] ==

There has been an unblock request open at ] for a month, with no admin apparently willing to review it so far. I won't review it myself, partly because my name already appears in Hidden Tempo's block log.<p> was made by ] with a reason of "''Tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing; edit-warring; repeated instances despite prior blocks and topic ban''".<p>] offered to ] from post-1932 American politics, but that was not accepted and has now expired.<p>I now think the only realistic way out of the stalemate is to turn it over to the ultimate authority, the Misplaced Pages community, to decide. The discussion at the user talk page is lengthy, and I doubt I could summarize it fairly to the satisfaction of all parties - so with my apologies, anyone wanting to help will need to see what's been happening for themselves.<p>Current options include unblock, decline unblock, and convert the block to Bishonen's suggested topic ban - but obviously, anyone here is free to make other proposals. I will not offer any opinions in this discussion myself, and I'll leave it to someone else to close and implement whatever is decided. Whatever the outcome, those who contribute will certainly have my gratitude (and, I suspect, the gratitude of other admins too).<p>So it's over to you, folks... ] (]) 12:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
:I am bothered by the paragraph that they (Hidden Tempo) posted in the discussion on their talk page: {{tq|Since such diffs do not exist, especially in non-AP2 articles, this poses a dilemma for a potential declining admin. I also suspect that your reluctance to dissent from highly influential and powerful admin heavyweights like Bishonen and MastCell is a common sentiment in the admin community}}. This sounds like ] to me. ] (], ]) 14:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

::The point that {{u|MastCell}} has not provided diffs is true. Sanctions are supposed to be grounded in evidence, and if serious sanctions like indefinite editing bans are to be handed out, there should surely be solid evidence to back up them up. I find it troubling that after so much time, the original blocking admin has not provided diffs, and that it's viewed as somehow wrong for Hidden Tempo to point this out. -] (]) 15:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
:::Well, whether MastCell did or did not provide diffs does not invalidate my concern. Besides, not everybody relies on diffs some people prefer to read a page history to get to conclusions as it provides more context. ] (], ]) 16:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
::::It's absolutely false to suggest that I didn't provide evidence for the block. I've addressed this falsehood repeatedly, including . I'm disappointed that some people continue to repeat it, and would ask that others don't accept this falsehood uncritically. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 16:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

:::::In , you did not provide any diffs showing what was supposedly problematic about Hidden Tempo's behavior since his return to editing on 2 July <s>17 March</s>. If it really is a falsehood to say that you have not provided diffs, then please correct the record and link to a post where you did, in fact, provide diffs detailing Hidden Tempo's behavior since 2 July <s>17 March</s>. You've spent a lot of time calling this a falsehood, during which time you could have actually linked to such a post, or provided diffs. I've looked through the history of this sanction, trying to find where you posted diffs, and I haven't been able to find it. -] (]) 19:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::MastCell pointed to the "Trump-hater" comment, which goes back to (or maybe an earlier one), and the edit-warring that followed it, and the entire godforsaken thread on the Stephen Miller talk page where Hidden Tempo is just digging a hole. "Cosmopolitan bias" is indeed what Miller said, that's indisputable, in , so has no merit (Politico's "It’s a way of branding people or movements that are unmoored to the traditions and beliefs of a nation, and identify more with like-minded people regardless of their nationality" was well paraphrased as "deficit of nationalism"), and merely leaving Miller's insult to Acosta, without much context, is indeed undue if not an outright BLP violation. So that entire talk page thread is based on a false assumption, plus it shows what others have noted and what I will call (sorry HT) an uncollegial tone ("bud", and the rather patronizing pointing at some diagram). {{U|Muboshgu}} gives an insightful analysis, albeit brief, on the problem with HT's edit (look for "It's Miller's POV/spin"), and TheValeyard, early in the thread, makes an IMO correct observation: "You aren't being attacked; you're being called out for making poor-quality editing choices, and attempting to edit-war to keep your poor-quality edits in". Rjensen reverted HT too, and I've not seen Rjensen at the weekly dispersal of Soros checks. It seems to me that any admin who looks over that discussion sees what led to the block. (BTW I'm glad the Colbert nonsense was removed from the article--thanks HT.) ] (]) 20:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

:::::::{{small|(Following copied from ] &#8213;]&nbsp;] 04:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC))}}<br />Drmies - it appears that you are now addressing the content dispute itself, rather than discussing the validity of MastCell's diff-less block. You will probably not be surprised that I entirely disagree with your view that the Politico op-ed was sufficient for the material. You may remember that I was once blocked by Boing! said Zebedee for referring to an 11% trustworthiness rating as a "feeble" number, since the RS I used (not an op-ed, by the way) did not also use the word "feeble." This is why I believed the imaginative and very loose interpretation of the op-ed to be a BLPVIO, and required its removal (see FT2's explanation below). Additionally, even if the material passed mustard, that page is a BLP and therefore editors ''must not'' reinstate contested material that had been removed, without building consensus on the talk page. I have no clue what Rjensen's views are on the activities of one George Soros, and fail to see how they're relevant to ] policy, which really couldn't be more clear. But this AN report is not a forum to debate the content. This is about my diff-less, evidence-free block. ] (]) 23:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

::::::::{{small|(Following copied from ] &#8213;]&nbsp;] 04:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC))}}<br />Hidden Tempo, I'm sorry you misread my comments. I wasn't commenting on content as much as explaining why your article edits and talk page contributions were clear enough indications of blockable behavior. In my opinion, of course. BLP exemptions, by the way, need to be reasonable, so it's not like the mere claim of a BLP violation suffices. Moreover, there are two living people involved, and the contention is that one of those edits of yours was a BLP violation of the other person, so to speak. I hope that clears it up.<br>Sorry, failed to look at the "feeble" thing. {{U|RexxS}} is a pretty straight shooter, and indeed was not your best moment--one can argue, I suppose, that you've had it in for Marek since then or even before, but that's neither here nor there for now. I'm not quite sure why you want to point me to a discussion where you were blocked for a BLP violation, and unblocked on the condition that you grasp the BLP, when that's precisely what we're discussing. ], of course, is the one who got this whole discussion going for you in the first place, so again, why would you want to rag on them right now? I'm asking because I just don't understand the tactics here--if I were you I'd be making friends, not pointing at old things that don't make you look good, while criticizing those who have been good to you. Now, if this is ''only'' about paraphrase, I've been teaching paraphrase for 20+ years, and I think that was a pretty good one. Take care, ] (]) 23:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::For what it's worth, I didn't see the above comment about my block as anything more than just a statement of fact. ] (]) 17:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

:::::::You're now starting to make the case that MastCell has refused to spell out for the past month. If that case justifies a topic ban or an indefinite ban on editing altogether, then it should be made ''after'' this situation is cleared up. The problem here is that we are dealing with a month-old ban in which the blocking admin has very conspicuously not provided evidence. -] (]) 20:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

:::::::Drmies: Less than a week ago you dismissed the following commentsfrom another participant in the Miller thread (made elsewhere):&nbsp;"You pulled that out of your ass", "for fuck's sake", "Stop making up new bullshit excuses for your own mistake" as merely "]". Here you identify HT's use of "bud" as a problem. Can you understand why some may think different standards are applied to different editors?
:::::::The content HT removed has since been removed by consensus. That should tell us what we need to know about who was on the right side of the edit even if they were not on the right side of policy. ] (]) 20:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::::], I don't know why others think what they do. "You pulled that out of your ass" isn't demeaning to the person. "You made a mistake" is an attempt at a factual statement; it can be right or it can be wrong--similar with "bullshit excuse". "For fuck's sake" is an expression of exasperation for which one often cannot blame the speaker. Or one can--it doesn't matter. None of these three are attacks on a person, though one may well say they're not really polite in all circumstances. (If I had to take issue with anything it's with the imperative...) Are you with me so far? ] (]) 22:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

:::::::::{{re|Drmies}} This is getting comical. Without a hint of irony, you're trying to argue that "bud" is more "uncollegial" than "you pulled that out of your ass." Your attempt to even argue this point seriously calls your impartiality into question. -] (]) 22:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::As the real Thucydides said, with age comes wisdom. I hadn't gotten to "bud" yet. You are welcome to actually read my words, and then our policy, which has the keyword "personal" in it. Besides, I'm more interested in James's response, though I'll gladly entertain you while I'm waiting. ] (]) 23:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::Thuc, don't get so hung up on ass. ]] 01:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
::{{small|(Following copied from ] &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC))}}<br />{{u|Jo-Jo_Eumerus}} - I and others welcomed the blocking administrator multiple times to provide the diffs showing the behavior for which I am blocked. He declined each and every time. They were never produced by MastCell, or any of the other administrators who took a passing glance at the UBR. If you believe my quote: to be an example of FUD, my invitation to supply diffs showing this pattern of ]-behavior since my TBAN remains open. ] (]) 15:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support unblock''' per time served. I read the entire history, I see the past bad behavior, but per ] I think we can safely say that anything, and I mean anything, resembling poor behavior will lead to an immediate indef block with nary a chance for appeal. ] (]) 14:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''<s>Accept TBAN, oppose unblock without restrictions</s> Oppose unblock''' - The mere fact that no admin is willing to close this request is an indication of the time-drain presented by this editor. The editor appears to believe that disagreement with their positions is clear evidence of bias, or worse. There exist numerous examples of the editor’s tendentious editing, snarks, condescension, edit-warring, POV-pushing, rejection of reliable sources, and unwarranted accusations of bias. Indeed, ] is suggested by the striking claim that a block didn’t mean you couldn’t register a sock. Like MastCell, I do not want to provide diffs as I have a life and don’t want to be sucked into ]. After all that has occurred, HT still appears to think this is about the actions of other editors/admins, instead of the editor’s own actions. I don’t see how an unblock is warranted even as the editor continues to strike out at admins. IMO, Bishonen’s offer of a TBan was not only generous, but could have been beneficial to the editor. Should the prevailing view of the community suggest a TBan, I would probably not argue against it. Although, I think we’d probably be back here or elsewhere at a later date continuing discussions of their behavior yet again. ] (]) 15:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
:: One of the reasons discussion on Hidden Tempo's talk page are so convoluted is because lots of editors have time to make comments but few have the time to provide diffs. Let's try to avoid duplicating that problem here. ] (]) 15:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
:::More than adequate rational was provided for the block. ] (]) 17:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
*I've already chimed in on the talk page, so I'm not sure whether a '''bold vote''' here in this section too is appropriate, but in general Jo-Jo Eumerus has it right, I think. They say ], I'd say ], but it amounts to the same thing. I don't understand the desire to give sockpuppeting political POV pushers endless final chances in the topic area; 3 chances (or 4, depending on how you count) should have been enough. Serious timesink. --] (]) 15:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
:*{{small|(Following copied from ] &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC))}}<br />{{u|Floquenbeam}} (only pinging for courtesy) - Again, I am not "sockpuppeting." I made 10 edits to two talk pages with a sockpuppet in February. It was a mistake, I admitted it, and it's done with. Still no diffs for the "POV-pushers" aspersion. Your qualifier "final chances ''in the topic area''" is the lead, here. The unblock is a no-brainer. The real question is to TBAN or not to TBAN, which is an AE issue. ] (]) 15:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
::*{{ping|Mandruss|Boing! said Zebedee}} could you guys decide on just one way to transfer comments here? As it is, I've now been pinged 3 times for the same comment. The original ping on HT's talk page, this inline copy/paste, and the bottom section copy/paste. --] (]) 16:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
:::*I hadn't spotted that Mandruss was copying the comments across, so I've reverted my copy. ] (]) 16:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
:::*Very sorry for the inconvenience. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Endorse TBAN''' but '''oppose unblock without restrictions''' - I haven't time to review that entire page, I doubt most editors would. I reviewed the latest unblock request and on its face it seems sensible; Hidden Tempo has addressed the issues leading to the block much more rationally than the vast majority of unblock requests I've ever seen and so I trust they understand why they were blocked. However, I'm also reading some quite recent ] and so I'm wary of letting them go straight back into the topics where their edits led to a block. Thus I endorse Bishonen's topic ban proposal - even though it's "expired" there are many administrators already suggesting HT take the offer (add me to that list) but I cannot support unblocking without restrictions. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 15:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

* '''Unblock without conditions.''' This is very simple: {{u|MastCell}} did not provide diffs to back up their characterization of Hidden Tempo. Indefinite bans cannot be handed out without evidence. The argument that Hidden Tempo is a time-drain on the community is especially troubling. Banning an editor without evidence, and then accusing them of wasting time when they defend themselves is just Kafkaesque. -] (]) 15:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

* '''Comment''' The total amount of discussion on Hidden Tempo's talk page is overwhelming. {{u|FT2}}'s summary of the situation in this section (]) is concise and covers the relevant points. ] (]) 15:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

*'''Unblock without conditions.''' I agree with Thucydides411. The blocking admin continues to fail to provide the diffs, all while . We already have one admin currently hauled before ArbCom for repeated failure to provide evidence. Add to that the fact that MastCell returned from a 1.5 month hiatus right before handing down an indef block, and I get the strong impression that Hidden Tempo has not been treated fairly. ] (]) 15:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - {{small|(Following copied from ] &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC))}}<br />MastCell makes the claim that he has provided "evidence" for his reasons behind the indefinite block (""tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing edit-warring"), after being confronted once again for his refusal to provide diffs of the post-TBAN behavior in question. However, as every reasonable editor understands, a link to an ANI discussion in which I was tangentially involved and an AE appeal from last December is not "evidence" of the indef-worthy post-TBAN behavior which he is claiming. MastCell has not provided diffs of the behavior in question. Period. I admitted to the 3RR violation (as a result of removing BLPVIO material). The other three claims are catchall, vague, highly general and subjective accusations for which there is no evidence, which is why MC either a) can't find any diffs or b) has the diffs, but refuses to provide them for some unknown reason. I leave it to the community to decide which possibility is more likely. ] (]) 11:24, Today (UTC−5)
*'''Unblock with previous topic ban re-instated'''. Mastcell has provided a sufficient rationale at the time of the block, and subsequently to explain the block, and its clear from HT's editing history the topic ban prior to the block served its purpose in preventing disruption. Regardless of if HT accepts a topic ban or not, he can be unblocked and have one imposed upon him. ] (]) 16:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
*A couple of points:
*#It isn't fair to say that MastCell didn't provide diffs or rationale for the block. MastCell blocked from an open thread at ANI and provided a rationale there (see ]) and then when challenged, MastCell gave more detailed rationale and and .
*#"Indefinite" block does not mean forever. The block lasts only as long as it takes for the user to recognize the problem and make a commitment to fix it. That's the reason no admin was willing to touch the unblock request. Hidden Tempo clearly doesn't recognize there's a problem, and instead spends their time attacking the blocking admin and any others they perceive as enemies.
*#In my review of the editor's history after having been pinged to the talk page, I found what appeared to be a history of ] and ] mentality. Part of the problem is that the user seems to categorize editors into camps based their contributions to political articles. (You can see a small sample of this by going to the user's talk page and doing a Ctrl+F for "editing pattern", or for a longer read, read the sentences where HT uses the term "AP2".)
*#I would have been happy to unblock the user myself if I had seen anything resembling a serious commitment to fix the problem. I didn't.
:Based on this, I think the best path forward would be to implement the topic ban as proposed by ]. It would have been better if the user had accepted that themselves, or proposed a suitable alternative, but the time for that has passed I'm afraid. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 16:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
::{{small|(Following copied from ] &#8213;]&nbsp;] 17:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC))}}<br />Awilley uses the same rationale as MastCell - contending that a link to a pre-indef AE appeal and a link to Nfitz's ANI report (also pre-indef) is sufficient evidence for a pattern of post-TBAN "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing edit-warring" editing. It's not. A sanction as severe as an indef block requires detailed, clear, unambiguous '''''diffs''''' of my edits, showing the claimed editing pattern. Intentional or not, MastCell muddies the waters and ] by going on and on about pre/mid-TBAN behavior. "He was TBANNED last December...he edited a talk page with a sock last February...he got into a heated content dispute at Stephen Miller..." That doesn't cut it. If I had the diffs, ''then'' I could see the problem to which you and MastCell are referring, view the ''specific'' edits in question, and then address the problem and rectify the editing pattern. But of course, we never saw the diffs. Ex: Awilley is an employee and comes into work, but is sent home because Awilley is not compliant with the company's dress code. Awilley must be told explicitly and specifically how he is violating company policy, or else Awilley will come into work day after day, and be sent home day after day, until Awilley figures out the correct wardrobe combination. Is Awilley being treated fairly? Does this scenario indicate a productive, efficient process of remedying a problem? That is what is happening here. I addressed each and every single block reason in my UBR and followed ] to the letter, and I did it with diffs. ] (]) 17:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
:::Is Awilley wearing a t-shirt that says "FUCK YOU BOSS" or something like that? ] (]) 19:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
:::To clarify, in certain circumstances it's quite clear. In others, not so much. If my boy gets sent home because he has pants with belt loops but is not wearing a belt (OMFG yeah we have those kinds of rules in America), I can complain because in kindergarten you are allowed pants with belt loops but without belt. And if he gets sent home for some stupid infraction I may well ask why, since his sister and I do our best every morning to make sure we're following all the pissy little rules. But if he shows up with a t-shirt that says "Jesus is a ****" (I won't write this common British insult, but the shirt exists) I am not going to be surprised if he doesn't make it into the classroom. And my arguing that the shirt actually had the proper school colors is not going to help him much. ] (]) 22:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
::::{{small|(Following copied from ] &#8213;]&nbsp;] 04:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC))}}<br />I'm sorry, but that belt analogy didn't really make your t-shirt analogy more clear (on my end, at least). I believe you're contending that my alleged post-TBAN pattern of "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing edit-warring" is so immediately apparent, obvious, and unambiguous that MastCell is completely exempt from ] and is thus not required to provide diffs (outside of a few non-sequitur links to an AE appeal from last year and somebody else's ANI report)? If I've gotten that right, then why the need for a ''very'' polarized AN discussion? Several editors have rallied to my defense here (for which I am extremely grateful, by the way), echoing my sentiments about evidence-free sanctions being permitted to stand, and observing none of the behavior that MastCell believed to be so egregious as to warrant an indefinite block in order to protect the project from my film, sports, and yes, even my AP2 edits. If what you're saying is true, no discussion would be required. To stick with your analogy, perhaps Awilley would be arriving to work without a required red pocket square (even though Awilley is wearing one), sent home without being told why, and refusing to give a reason after being asked for one repeatedly. ] (]) 23:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::{{small|(Following copied from ] &#8213;]&nbsp;] 04:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC))}}<br />My point was that the reason for your block was pretty clear. No, that doesn't mean no discussion is ever required. What it means is that not all cases are the same--some are easily nailed with a diff or two, others are shown by an overview of a particular discussion and a few other pointers. That so many admins (and other editors) agree, and that no one except for Boing, who is a very kind individual, and FT2 have chosen to even engage with you should be a pretty clear signal too. ] (]) 23:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
::{{re|Awilley}} It is fair to say that MastCell didn't provide diffs. Looking through the ANI post you linked and the three subsequent explanations, the thing that strikes me is that MastCell did not provide diffs showing a pattern of problematic behavior since Hidden Tempo had returned to editing American Politics. The diffs that MastCell did provide were simply rehashes of the previous sanctions. MastCell's rationale appears to boil down to: you were sanctioned ''previously,'' so I don't need to provide evidence that your ''current'' editing is problematic - I can simply declare it to be so. MastCell has had plenty of opportunities to provide diffs showing that HT's ''post-sanction'' behavior is problematic, and they have, for whatever reason, not done so.
::As far as I'm concerned, this refusal to provide evidence should render the sanction invalid. If sanctions are warranted, any administrator is free to gather evidence in the form of diffs, present it to the community, and propose new sanctions. -] (]) 19:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

*'''Unblock while restoring the topic ban''' I've ] when I was pinged by HT initially and I will repeat it again. The only way to move this forward is to enact the first step, which is to unblock the editor and restore the topic ban. Only then we can have discussions about the validity of the ban and the administrative actions – these discussions cannot happen concurrently. Therefore, I agree with {{u|Ivanvector}} and {{u|Awilley}}, endorse the offer proposed by {{u|Bishonen}} even though it has expired. ]] 17:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
*Topic ban is a minimum. I agree with Awilley, Bish, etc. ] (]) 18:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

* '''Comment by reviewing admin:''' I was pinged by Alex Shih on 23 August and reviewed the block, so I'll not opine on the unblock request itself (I said I would defer on that to others). I would like to draw the community's attention to my summary findings. 1/ HT was blocked and evaded, the block ended on 17 March and his topic-related TBAN ended on 17 June. Between May and end July he edited on other topics, and there is no trace seen of admin discussion, no blocks, 3RR, etc. During July 2 to 1 Aug he was not on TBAN and there were again no adverse issues noted. This suggested that a full indef might not be needed to protect the project. The sole issue since was a BLP dispute in early Aug, where HT may in fact have been right ''per policy'' (the ''reinstater'' must demonstrate BLP is complied with for negative reinsertions and HT's concern was not addressed). I did see CIV/AFG issues but the user was evidently trying to improve in those areas.I asked for anything else adverse since March/July showing the behavior in the block, and none was provided. Against that, the few respected admins who did opine, such as Bishonen, felt there were concerns as evidently did the blocking admin. I remain concerned on the question of whether too much reliance is placed on stale conduct and whether it obscures a lack of recent and as-claimed conduct. Also about the blocking admin's handling (I felt the block was 'sloppy' and could have been improved by good handling). My review is on HT's talk page if wanted. ]&nbsp;<sup><span style="font-style:italic">(]&nbsp;|&nbsp;])</span></sup> 21:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

* '''Unblock With Indef TBAN''' "Tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing" is an accurate summary of his behavior. Switching from a block to a TBAN including American Politics seems reasonable. ] (], ]) 23:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unconditional unblock'''. MastCell was well within his discretion to make the block, and it was adequately explained and well supported. Agree with Awilley, Bish, Drmies, that indefinite topic ban from American politics is a minimum. I have to say that HT's reaction to the unblock is really illuminating. It would be one thing if HT took an approach along the lines of "I understand that my conduct here was not ideal for X and Y reasons, but I can be a productive editor and going forward will commit to do X, Y, Z." Instead he took a more confrontational approach: bashing the blocking admin, refusing to admit fault or error, and declining the initial, generous offer to convert the indef block into a topic ban. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
:*{{small|(Following copied from ] &#8213;]&nbsp;] 04:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC))}}<br />Neutrality - this is the first time I've ever seen a diff-less block earn the characterization of "well supported." Of course, my indef is probably the first time I've seen a block without diffs period. A block given without diffs, with multiple refusals to provide these supposed diffs that may or may not exist can never be described as "adequately explained and well supported." You go on to say that I did not acknowledge that my conduct was not ideal or say that I can be productive. Did you read my UBR? If you had, you would have seen , , , and multiple other edits where I explicitly acknowledge violating 3RR policy (even when taking ] into consideration), accept fault for the violation, and lay out my reasons why I can, and continue to be a productive editor. You also used very imprecise language (as others did) to describe my critique of the blocking administrator: {{tq|"bashing the blocking admin"}}, when that's not at all what I was doing. I'm sure MastCell is a fine person and admin. I have no personal qualms with MastCell. My problem is with his application of this sanction ''without the required diffs'', especially with his AP2 editing patterns and highly irregular and alarming timeline surrounding his 10 minute review of my user contribs. Finally, when someone says , and then suddenly decides I am in need of an indef TBAN, we really need to take a step back at some point and decide if the full story is on display, here. ] (]) 01:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
::* This again shows no insight at all. The implication of impropriety by MastCell is completely meritless. Multiple editors (Drmies and MrX among them) have produced multiple diffs. Take - do you think this is acceptable? Or - do you understand why others (like MrX and me) think that this was an abuse of BLP? Saying "oh, I violated 3RR" does not show acceptance of responsibility. You've acknowledged no problems with the substance of the edits. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
:::*{{small|(Following copied from ] - ] (]) 17:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)}}<br />Neutrality - at least four editors and one administrator have requested diffs from MastCell, to no avail. Your thesis seems to be that a link to a declined 2016 AE appeal and Nfitz's ANI report satisfies ]. It does not, as the extremely divided response to MC's indef shows. MrX provided diffs '''''pre-2016 TBAN'''''. Bishonen warned me and subsequently TBAN'd me partially due to those diffs. The TBAN expires, and after ~1.5 months, I receive an indefinite block, for edits ''after'' the TBAN. This indefinite block is for an editing pattern '''post-TBAN''' in that 1.5 month window. We are asking for the '''post-TBAN''' diffs that show the '''post-TBAN''' problematic editing pattern, which have not been produced by MastCell, Drmies or any other Wikipedian. We are not here to debate 2016 pre-TBAN edits.</p><p>I understand that you have a different interpretation of ] than FT2 and I, but I admitted to 3RR (as anyone who read my UBR already knows): {{tq|" made a mistake by violating 3RR a few days ago. I should have waited for my OR noticeboard posting to come to some conclusion."}},{{tq|"I have already stated that my single 3RR violation in my editing history was a mistake, and would not reoccur"}},{{tq|"While it does not excuse my violation of 3RR, I did so ]"]}},{{tq|"3RR is the only one that has any real validity, which I already confessed to and said I would not repeat."}}. So my first ever 3RR vio has been handled. We are now asking for post-TBAN diffs of "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive" editing in AP2/non-AP2 areas which definitively show the need for an indefinite block. Please, Neutrality, stop perpetuating demonstrably false narratives without reading the talk page discussion. I cannot acknowledge problems with the "substance of the edits" if ZERO post-TBAN edits have been provided. ] (]) 17:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC) </p>
* '''Oppose Unblock''' Looking at HT's replies above and to admins on his talk page doesn't fill me with confidence that they even understand why they were blocked in the first place. Usually the first thing you have to do to get unblocked from indefinite is to explain how you handle these situations if they arise again. I don't see that happening here. ] (]) 01:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
:*{{small|(Following copied from ] &#8213;]&nbsp;] 04:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC))}}<br />Valeince - how much of my UBR did you read? I addressed each reason point by point. However, I can't get into specifics because MastCell refuses to provide diffs of the behavior which he alleges occurred after the TBAN. If MastCell would show us some evidence, some diffs of this pattern...perhaps then I could explicitly address those edits. Until then, we can only speak in general terms and make guesses as to what MastCell thinks is "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive" editing. Also, take a look at my UBR. I explicitly said numerous times that should another ] issue arise, I would take allow my NOR posting to resolve before removing the contested BLPVIO material. Please fully inform yourself with the facts before commenting on this discussion. ] (]) 01:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
* '''Oppose Unblock''' I don't see that this is a stalemate. It's not a conundrum, it's a block. Seems warranted. Standard reinstatement framework should apply. ]] 01:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Favor indef block; oppose any unblock without indef TBAN'''. Christ Almighty that was an infinitely long history to read through on his talkpage. Bottom line, the user has demonstrated multiple bad-faith behaviors, including socking to evade a TBAN, <s>lying about that</s> pretending not to know that was wrong, and then endlessly wikilawyering and evading reality/facts in the discussions on his talkpage and here (why are we letting him endlessly disrupt the conversation here?). Given the discussions I read, I do not think this editor is a net positive on Misplaced Pages, and I personally believe they will probably continue to be a disruptive influence and timesink if they are unblocked. ] (]) 04:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC); edited 06:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
:*{{small|(Following copied from ] &#8213;]&nbsp;] 05:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC))}}<br />Softlavender - you are more than entitled to your own opinions on my editing, and whether or not my UBR sufficiently addresses the diff-less grounds for the indef. What you are not entitled to is casting ]. I already had to correct this falsehood when it was uttered by Floquenbeam, so it appears you did not read through the discussion very carefully. I admitted to the sockpuppeting immediately - I ''did not'' "lie" about it. An editor of integrity would immediately strike such a glaring blunder of this magnitude and distaste, and I would again ask that editors refrain from commenting further before actually reading through the discussion (not skimming) and clicked on the diffs. I understand it is extremely long and involved, so nobody would think less of you should you choose not to read through it, and therefore not attempt to offer an uninformed opinion on my fate. Editors are welcome to suggest unfavorable outcomes, but rubbernecking and spouting off a few bytes of random text is dreadfully poor form. ] (]) 05:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
::*I misspoke; what I meant to say or refer to is what {{U|Floquenbeam}} noted on HT's talkpage (]):"{{xt|HT was topic banned from politics earlier this year, and created a sockpuppet to continue editing in the politics area, and then, when caught, '''pretended not to know this was wrong'''. It is simply not possible that he didn't know that was wrong}}": (bolding in original). -- ] (]) 06:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock without indefinite topic ban''' - To me, the clearest indication of the problematic nature of this user is what happened the last time they were . On 2 December 2016, Bishonen imposed an AP2 topic ban. Between that date and 2 July 2017, the length of the topic ban, Hidden Tempo made a grand total of '''63 article-space edits''', along with ]. That is not indicative of a user who has, or who intends to, ''learn anything and improve their behavior'' during a topic ban by constructively and substantially contributing in other, non-problematic topic areas. Indeed, immediately upon the ban's time-limited expiration, they returned to tendentious, combative editing in the same topic area. There are several million other topics on Misplaced Pages to contribute to besides ones related to American politics after 1932, and if this user is truly interested in contributing to Misplaced Pages as opposed to pushing a single political POV, they should take a year or so to edit those other topics, learn how to work constructively with other users and then ask for the restrictions to be lifted based on that new track record. If they have no interest in other topics, then they are ]. ] (]) 05:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock, but <u>''if''</u> unblocked <u>must be</u> with indefinite topic ban''' - per NorthBySouthBaranof. I find the explication of the editor's behavior while under a TB a convincing argument. ] (]) 07:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
:*I've altered my vote above based on HT's comments in this thread. I don't think this is an editor we really need here. ] (]) 07:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
* '''Unblock for time served''' – This block was justified by edit-warring on a content dispute regarding ], wherein the blocked editor asserted ] to repeatedly remove some phrasing, while others disagreed. Meanwhile the disputed text at that article has been removed/reworked into a neutral statement, so that the warring is moot. An indef block is unnecessarily ]. Arguments for indeffing rely heavily on past sanctions and do not take into consideration the numerous positive contributions by the blocked editor and his consensus-seeking attitude demonstrated in talk page conversations. Given that a month has elapsed, I suggest an immediate unblock for time served, with no strings attached. Naturally, future editor behaviour will remain under scrutiny, especially in the AP2 domain. — ] <sup>]</sup> 10:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
:Blocks are not a prison sentence. Time served indicates that the block has served its purpose. HT, as numerous people have pointed out, has given no indication he will not continue to be disruptive in the AP area. ] (]) 11:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock''' - This user has given no indication that they are here to improve the encyclopedia and conduct themselves collegially. I am familiar with their reprehensible history of talk page participation but was not familiar with the sockpuppetry. That, and the well-documented personal attacks, BLP violations, single purpose POV pushing, edit warring, tendentiousness, and dishonest abuse of policies convince me that Hidden Tempo should be limited to read-only status on this project.- ]] 12:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Question/Comment''' - Would someone be so kind as to point out the policy or guideline that indicates that a 10 month editing history in a topic area (in this case - post-1932 American politics) is some how not relevant? I can't find anything. What I do see in this unblock request is a single administrator, out of the close to a dozen who have commented, suggest the pattern of editing just prior to the 7 month Tban is "stale". If there is no policy/guideline indicating a 10 month history (which seems to be continuing within 30 day of a 7 month topic ban being lifted) is too long, then it seems a whole lot of text in this appeal seems to be devoted to a false narrative. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
::Previous behavior is relevant when it shows a continued pattern. I don't see that. I see an editor who {{diff2|800829165|was blocked for referring to a politician's trustworthiness ratings as "feeble" on a talk page}}, for BLP, because that precise wording wasn't in the source, learning from that that text not directly supported by the source is a BLP vio. And that's exactly how we hope a block will work, the editor will learn what's allowed and what's not allowed.
::Then I see them taking that lesson and applying it to Stephen Miller, where they removed text not directly supported by the source from the '''article''' page, and getting blocked for that. So, add BLP text without proper sourcing and you'll get blocked; remove BLP text without proper sourcing and you'll get blocked - I don't know what we hope the editor will learn from that. ] (]) 17:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

::{{re|Cbs527}} I don't think that anyone is saying that 10-month-old edits can never be considered when weighing sanctions. The issue is this: several editors have pointed to Hidden Tempo's behavior 7+ months ago as justification for the recent block that HT received, but HT was already blocked for that past behavior. Unless HT did something ''after'' returning from their block/TBAN to justify ''a new sanction'', then the ''new'' sanction is unjustified. If MastCell would care to provide evidence, in the form of diffs, that justifies new sanctions, then HT's block history could be taken into account when deciding what sanction is appropriate. But a user can't be blocked once for some particular conduct, serve their time, and then upon returning to editing, be blocked ''again'' for the very same previous conduct. They have to do something ''new'' to justify a new sanction. To me, the amazing thing is that MastCell has refused to provide diffs justifying the new sanction, and that it's taken this long for an evidence-free sanction to come under review. -] (]) 19:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
:::This is the sixth time you’ve posted this here in a touch over a day. The best result of repetition here is that other editors will ignore you. Further, your claims that MastCell did not provide evidence is simply false. ] (]) 20:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
::::Not only that, but Thuc disregards the fact that sanctions escalate with repeated violations, as they indicate that previous prophylaxis was not preventive. To be candid, I find this kind of self-serving, since Thuc himself has more than one American Politics sanction under his belt and has a kind of vested interest in obscuring the escalating blocks thing. ]] 21:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
:*That's a very interesting point, ]. The single admin I presume you allude to, ], also doesn't seem to think Hidden Tempo's actions ''during'' the 7-month topic ban December 2016—July 2017 matter very much. I'll quote FT2's summary above for you: "". FT2 passes rather hastily over Hidden Tempo's sock puppetry during the topic ban, when he used both an account and an IP, and FT2 may not even be aware of Hidden Tempo's pushing at the limits of his topic ban on 25—26 May 2017 ("Between May and end July he edited on other topics, and there is no trace seen of admin discussion, no blocks, 3RR, etc."), which I and others discussed with HT . I'm not sure whether FT2 is suggesting only disruption after the topic ban had ended in July ought to "count" towards a block. Probably not, though Hidden Tempo himself is insisting it should, with much bolding: "". For my part, I think HT ought to have seen himself as on probation when the topic ban ended in July, ''especially because of his conduct during the topic ban'' (socking; editing logged out; using his userpage for ban-violating editing, and then, after I blanked it, posting a link on it to point to the text in the history; attacking me, as so often; and blaming Doug Weller, of all people, for the whole thing, per my link to the discussion above). Instead he continued his tendentious editing after the ban, with ] wikilawyering like . Incidentally that link, from 5 August 2017, is one of the links MRX posted above, and a link to the edit warring history in August is another, which hasn't stopped HT from claiming MRX's links are all "pre-topic ban", i.e. from 2016. And now, not to my surprise, HT is ] this discussion, giving everybody who can't face reading his endless talkpage a useful window into his style of argument. I agree with the block. But if the community decides to convert the block into a topic ban, as was originally suggested by myself, I hope they also take on the specific features I suggested: an ''indefinite'' topic ban with an appeal allowed after ''one year'' at the earliest. We shouldn't have to look forward to this kind of energy-draining circus once every six months. ] &#124; ] 20:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC).
::::Thank you ], ], ] and ] for your response to my question. The responses have help clarify my concern. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

::*{{small|(Following copied from ] &#8213;]&nbsp;] 21:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC))}}<br />Not going to respond to every Bishonen claim here, in the hopes that folks will actually click on the diffs and verify if what she says is in fact true. As I had previously stated, nobody would think less of anyone for not educating themselves with the facts of the talk page discussion, and thus recusing themselves from voting/commenting. I don't remember anyone informing me that I may not correct false claims or respond to aspersions in the AN discussion. The 3RR vio (which Bishonen sees as a ] issue) has been discussed and resolved. The fact that the only diffs editors can find are of pre/mid-TBAN behavior, rather than the alleged behavior for which the block was given, speaks volumes. Instead of showing us diffs of this supposed {{tq|"tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive"}} editing pattern, a few users, which now includes Bishonen, continue to regress to pre/mid-TBAN diffs. But of course, the pre-TBAN diffs are NOT the reasons for the block, and a first 3RR vio block would have expired long ago. This "circus" could have been avoided if the right thing was done in the very beginning: do not indefinitely block editors without giving a warning, and especially do not do it without diffs (per ]). Thuc got it right: banning editors without evidence (no, a 2016 declined AE appeal and Nfitz's ANI report is not "evidence") and then accusing the editor of being a "time sink"/"time suck"/wasting time when he defends himself is quite Kafkaesque. ] (]) 21:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

*'''Unblock for time served''' Hidden Tempo was indefinitely blocked for edit warring to remove a questionable interpretation of an opinion article from a BLP and behaving mildly uncivilly in an uncivil environment. He's been blocked for a month which is more than enough. ] (]) 17:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
**Sorry, D.Creish, but there was nothing questionable about that interpretation, it wasn't a BLP violation, and besides the "mild" incivility ("bud") there was a whooooole bunch of wikilawyering to the nth degree of exasperation. I can't accept your summary. ] (]) 00:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
* '''Endorse TBAN with 1 year appeal, oppose unblock without restrictions''' - After having the misfortune of following this thread over the past couple days, and many things that I don't need to rehash in detail, it's pretty uncontroversial that HT has been an overall time sink, and there's probably been more characters spilled by other talking ''about'' HT than he has actually productively contributed to mainspace. But apparently a TBAN is a de facto block anyway, since they have little or no current interest in editing on much else. If that's the case, then fine, an unblock and a TBAN effectively change nothing, and nothing will change in a year upon appeal. But if they can find themselves interested in ''literally anything else in the world'', and find a way to be productive, then they can try it, with hopefully a widespread understanding that the community should be reprimanded if another block comes around, and we set ourselves to this obscene level of debate over someone who, as far as I can tell, has given us no indication that they deserve it. ]] 21:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock''' is my first choice, but my second choice is '''unblock with indef TBAN on American politics'''. I was asked to look through the discussion on HT's talk page a while back and I did; I read the whole thing as it was then, and I checked all the diffs provided (the claim that {{u|MastCell}} never provided any diffs to justify the block is straight up bullshit; MC has pointed repeatedly to plenty of evidence and anyone making still making that claim has absolutely no excuse for continuing to push it). I'm convinced that the block was justified, and I've yet to see anything to indicate that the behavior which caused it will not resume. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 22:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
:*{{small|(Following copied from ] &#8213;]&nbsp;] 23:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC))}}<br />MP - I am going to AGF and operate under the assumption that you are offering your completely unbiased, neutral, and objective opinion. However, I noticed that your AP2 edits have the identical overarching theme of MastCell's, MrX's, SPECIFICO's, and Objective3000's AP2 edits, and recently uttered without a hint of satire or jest, yet you still felt it necessary to cast a !vote anyway. I am offended and irked by that decision. Today, you said this: {{tq|"the claim that MastCell never provided any diffs to justify the block is straight up bullshit"}}. There is some nuance here. Did he provide diffs to justify his indef? Yes, he linked my 2016 AE appeal of a TBAN and Nfitz's ANI report. What he did NOT do was provide the most critical and relevant diffs: edits that showed a pattern of "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive" editing after the TBAN expired. A couple out-of-place diffs does not satisfy ]. Nobody has been able to find these diffs, including MastCell, which is why so many of us have concluded that they do not exist. ] (]) 23:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

:::] - {{xt|"yet you still felt it necessary to cast a !vote anyway. I am offended and irked by that decision."}} You certainly can't be suggesting that MjolnirPants does not have a right to express their opinion. In case you missed ] explanation {{cite web|title=here|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hidden_Tempo&diff=prev&oldid=800628829}}, ] is open to all editors who are not currently blocked to support any solution they wish. Neither you not anyone else can dictate who comments here. You are not helping your cause by continuing to repeat ad nauseam that Mastcell has not provided an explanation to the block or that Mastcell needs to provide post TBan differences. So far you have contributed over 12,000 bytes of text to this AN discussion alone, the large majority of it devoted this point. '''We all get it, anybody who reads this certainly gets it''' - You and some other editors think that Mastcell's justification is not enough. Other editors think that it is more than enough for a TBan. Mastcell has clearly provided his justification for the block whether you agree with it or not. I'm certain editors who read this AN will take both opinions into consideration and form their own conclusion. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Hidden Tempo}} I'm sure you are offended and irked by a great many opinions with which you don't agree; this is part of the reason that led to your block in the first place. As to your reading of my editing history: you're cherry picking edits that support your preferred narrative. As to the specific diff of mine that you provided: if you disagree with it, or (god forbid) think it ridiculous in any way, then I'm quite sure ]. Also, stop responding to everyone who doesn't !vote your way. It's ]. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 21:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

*'''Unblock with previous topic ban re-instated''' per Only In Death and a few others. Indef is overkill. '''<span style="font-variant:big-caps; text-shadow:green 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">-- <font color="purple">ψ</font><font color="orange">λ</font></span>''' ● ] 00:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Unblock without conditions''' - it's remarkable that a single instance of edit warring after months of good behaviour from an editor with a poor history could justify an indefinite ban, and it's dismaying that the ban has stayed in place for this long. ] (]) 02:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock''' - This is a user who would better serve Misplaced Pages as a ''reader'' -- their time as a beneficial contributor has passed. They have fought the process every step of the way: Bishonen offered an incredibly reasonable topic ban/unblock proposal which, remarkably, was denied. Hidden Tempo has not outright taken responsibility for ''all'' the reasons he found himself blocked nor has he presented their post-unblock plans to the community. For those reasons, I cannot even support an unblock with a tban.] (]) 08:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
*:{{small|(Following copied from ] 18:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)}}</br> TGS, I've already responded to this claim multiple times, so I would direct you to those replies. The takeaway is: I cannot "outright responsibility for all the reasons" (a "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive" post-TBAN editing pattern) if the blocking administrator can not or will not provide diffs showing this editing pattern. I have outlined my post-unblock plans in my UBR (did you read it or just skip to the "opinion voicing" part?) and I've addressed each alleged block reason in a general sense. However, '''all of us are being asked to critique the Emperor's new clothes'''. Unsurprisingly, many editors aren't letting the absence of diffs and facts stand in their way of having an opinion and sounding off, here. A correlation has emerged between how the community votes, and ] that MC has not provided the ''specific blockable post-TBAN diffs'' that we have repeatedly tried (unsuccessfully) to pry from MC. If we see these diffs, and they show what MC claims they show, I will not only admit that I'm a terrible person/disruptive/activist editor (and any other awful things contained in the diffs), but I will shout it from the rooftops. Only after we see the diffs, though. ] (]) 13:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

==Dealing with a sockfarm==
The ] article, and others related to it, are currently the target of a large sockfarm run by {{u|Modern Fire}}. Would it be appropriate to place the article under extended confirmed protection? Pinging admins {{u|MilborneOne}} who has been keeping a weather eye on the articke, {{u|KrakatoaKatie}} and {{u|Widr}}, who have been dealing with dirty socks for their opinions. Other editors opinions equally welcome. ] (]) 16:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
:I'd say yes, this is ripe for ec-protection. The sockmaster seems content to create and autoconfirm many sleeper accounts so semiprotection will be ineffective. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 17:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
::Support - No telling how long this could go on for. Genuine edits can be made via the {{tl|requested edit}} system. - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 17:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
:::I've set the page to EC Protection. It's unfortunate that the page had to be set this way, but the sockfarm is persistent and not going away any time soon. ] (]) 18:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
::::Thanks, everyone. As I said, that was the main article they were targeting, but others related to it may be affected. Presumably they can be dealt with in the same manner if required. ] (]) 18:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::Since it's already done I can say this without prejudicing the discussion. EC protection against sockpuppetry should be used extremely cautiously. Malicious users who deploy sleepers already know how to make a series of junk edits on unprotected articles to gain confirmation, and there's indication that some will go to the effort of doing the same to become extended-confirmed, sometimes using automated tools. That's a lot more disruption, and the likelihood of a malicious user behaving this way should be weighed against just dealing with it in one place. We do have an edit filter to detect this behaviour but edit filters are not perfect. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 13:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::Extended confimation requires a higher level of non-noticeable activity for them; they're less likely to be able to keep it up for long. ] ] 22:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Imagine that you create a sleeper to vandalise an EC-protected article — either you'll make good edits with it (so the encyclopedia benefits), or you do downright problematic stuff (and you're likely to get caught before you reach 100), or you do silly stuff like adding and removing a period on a userspace page. If you do vandalise the article, someone will check your edit history in all likelihood, and as soon as they see that you've been doing silly stuff, they should know that you're a sock and know to request checkuser. Unless there's some other option that's not coming to my mind, all your options either benefit the encyclopedia directly or make it easier for us to catch you. ] (]) 23:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::::{{reply to|Ivanvector}} - I realise that EC protection needs to be used with care. That's why I came here to ask, rather than steaming in and doing it myself. Never hurts to have a second, third or even fourth opinion. ] (]) 16:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::I've definitely already seen users who create a subpage of their userspace and repeatedly add and remove a . from it, for example. I think we have edit filters to catch that now but we didn't always. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

== Constant NPOV pushing by ] ==

] has been constantly pushing a particular NPOV in contravention of ] policy across multiple pages and in particular the page on the ]. This is seen quite clearly in his most recent diff ] where he changed the infobox in reference to type to for-profit from well-established norm for private universities. Other users have also expressed concern about his NPOV push on this particular subject matter --]<small>]</small> 18:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

:: Agreed, ] has been involved in NPOV push on particular subject matter. ] (]) 12:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

== Edit to fully protected page ==
{{atop|{{done}}. ] (]) 14:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)}}
Can an admin please make the changes requested at ]? The request has been open over 24 hours, and has consensus from editors. ]] (] 10:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}}


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)
== Request to close discussion ==
At ], a proposal was made to address a long-running issue with that editor's behaviour. However, the discussion was not formally closed one way or the other and the discussion was archived. Might an administrator close the discussion formally, please? ] ] 20:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:15, 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 14 14
    TfD 0 0 0 6 6
    MfD 0 0 0 4 4
    FfD 0 0 2 18 20
    RfD 0 0 0 103 103
    AfD 0 0 0 1 1


    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.

    Tulsi (unblock request)

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

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

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

    Dear Sysops,

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

    Support A second chance promises that Tulsi will not do highly undisclosed paid editing. I may partially support a topic ban on Nepalese politics against Tulsi. Ahri Boy (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist Edit Restriction Appeal

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Support. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Support. Based on YFNS's activity since the original tban, I don't see any reason to believe that restrictions are necessary going forward. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Support. Welcome back comrade. Ahri Boy (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Support based on their editing activity between TBAN and last year, as well as between the sanctions and now. Good work, and a great example of how this restorative process is supposed to work. May you inspire other misguided people to a path of restoration. TiggerJay (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Snow Support Kenneth Kho (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Strong support. To me YNFS comes across as a very responsible editor and I believe these restrictions are no longer warranted. HenrikHolen (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Support I remember the original ban happening due in large part to canvassing on twitter, the fact that any restrictions remained in place thereafter strikes me as a deep miscarriage of justice. Snokalok (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Enthusiastic support YFNS is a perfect model of an editor who is an asset to Misplaced Pages. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Support A well worded appeal, worth giving another chance. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Copyvio Problem

    Hey all, I believe that these three diff should be redacted as copy vio's, thanks. There are several sentences which are directly lifted from the sources. Some one more experienced should likely have a look through the revision I restored as well. I didn't spot anything, but I may have missed something.

    1 2 3

    Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    To be clear, I don't think that @YatesTucker00090 is really at any fault here.
    Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Kingsmasher678 please see {{copyvio-revdel}} on how to tag copyvios for attention. Nthep (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Lardlegwarmers block appeal

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

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

    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)
    • 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)

    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)
    As a relatively new editor for 1 year with only 5400+ edits compared to the other fellows here, I have not once been blocked or had a significant conflict with a more experienced editor than me. At some point, if the community comes to scrutinize the editing and mistakes that you've made, you'll have to recognize that the problem is with you, not the culture. Tarlby 04:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Too much to read. Is this about the wording of the closing statement? GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    And about Legend and I over that. Looks like Legend's had enough, anyway (I wish them well elsewhere). 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 16:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    They tried that stunt 5 days ago. If they're going to engage in a pattern of making disruptive edits and then retiring when anyone (read: everyone) criticizes them, someone should probably just indef. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Agreed. This user has an established habit of walking away from a conversation, only to come back a day or two later and continue the same sort of disruption. Shall we extend another inch of rope? I wouldn't be against giving a second third n-th time chance, but perhaps the next controversy should be a swift block? Or has the community already had enough? TiggerJay (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I disagree with blocking this editor when they actually haven't violated any policy that I'm aware of. I actually don't want them to leave and think they could be a constructive editor if they would spend less time policing other editors and spend more time improving articles, and avoid the drama boards.
    We can enforce guidelines about civility, Legend of 14, but I don't think the "respect" you expect to receive can be found anywhere on the Internet. People are blunt and sometimes grumpy. And those of us who have been here a long time have been called all sorts of names, disputes can bring out some nasty behavior, this is not personal to you. I just think that expecting to be respected here, on Misplaced Pages, just comes over time with proving that you are a consistently productive contributor. It can take years to earn other editors' trust and respect and, if you make a colossal mistake, it can also disappear. I just think that you have an overly sensitive gauge of other people's respect for you and if you want to contribute to this project, it has to be because you like to edit, whether or not other people respect you in the way you seem to understand "respect". Remember, this is not utopia, it's just a website on the internet. Liz 04:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    How do we handle Israel Palestine new articles created by non ECP editors nowadays?

    For example, Hussein al-Khalil. In theory I think this could be deleted via WP:G5 for violating WP:ARBECR. But is that what we do? Or do we look the other way if the article is OK? Should we just protect it ECP and call it a day?

    Hmm, actually this is an article about a Hezbollah member, not a Hamas member. So does this even fall under the umbrella of Israel Palestine? Thanks in advance for the advice. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    I don't agree that that article is OK, it doesn't seem notable and uses several peacock terms. I would support deletion. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Archive bots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Legal threat

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

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

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

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

    Disruptive editor

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

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

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

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

    Community assuming the block on Crouch, Swale

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

    • Oppose. There are too many missing dots here. Crouch, Swale's editing conditions from the 2017 unblock are listed as:
    one account restriction
    topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions
    prohibition on moving or renaming pages (except within their own userspace)
    prohibition on creating new pages, including creating articles on pages where one didn't previously exist (except within their own userspace and talk pages of existing pages in any namespace).
    That list does not on the face of it suggest a tremendously disruptive editor; and has Crouch, Swale been adhering to these rules? If so, what's the big issue with relaxing the restrictions; has the editor made very deficient appeals? He came to my attention talking kindly and constructively with a problem editor. How did we come to the point where a week or so later, he's demanding a 10-year block? I can't help suspecting a bureaucratic glitch in handling his appeals. What am I missing prior to the threat to be maximally disruptive that makes this editor a candidate for a permaban? Yngvadottir (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Comment: I've taken a look myself and they had restrictions lessened in 2022.
    They then went to appeal with an ultimatum: remove the restrictions or block me for a decade - if you don't, I'll disrupt the site (forgive me for saying this, but it feels like blackmail).
    Since the appeal didn't include any evidence (or appeal) it was rejected as insufficient.
    I get their frustration, but I'm very concerned that they dialled things straight up to 11 and are willing to cause significant problems for others (including doxxing, see the link) just to get their own way.
    Then again, looking at the December appeal, they very clearly want to be banned and have refused every other alternative offered. I don't know what's going on in the background but I'm thinking this is something they should probably have since they're very clear and consistent in their request for a full-on ban - if they don't want to explain why, then should we be pressing for one, especially after so many people have already asked? It could be an addiction (as suggested in the December diff above) in which case they're asking for help and refusing could be causing them harm. I have personal experience in this area and this feels awfully familiar - if they're asking for help then we should give it if we can. Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    WMF research on admins

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

    Hello, Clovermoss, I am interested but busy. Is there a summary to this 70 page paper you could link to? Is this report a result of the questionnaire they sent out last autumn? Thanks for informing us about it. Liz 03:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    I admit I haven't read the 70 pages yet either. It's on my ever growing to-do list. I don't think there's a summary that's been released yet (if there ends up being one, it'll probably be at m:Research:Misplaced Pages Administrator Recruitment, Retention, and Attrition#Results). This is indeed about the mass questionnaire/interviews that were going on last year. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    The first 18 pages are a summary of the rest of the document. The good news is that apparently our admin corps is demographically reflective of the wider editor pool in all measured aspects except age. CMD (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Do we lean older or younger? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Admins average older than editors and readers. CMD (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    An addendum: it's not in the summary but there is also a geographic bias (pages 52 and 53), with en.wiki admins more likely to be in North America than editors. CMD (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I like this line 1.2.3 The RFA process is routinely characterized by administrators as stressful, opaque, and something to be endured. That was my experience! Liz 04:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
      Liz, you may want to read pages 47 onwards then. In particular, I found page 50 an interesting elucidation of some factors affecting RfAs. CMD (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • There's lots of interesting tidbits in there and I do think it's worth a read. For example, some depressing figures on abuse and harassment (pp. 62, 66–68), and the information (pg. 45) that en.wiki has relatively low enthusiasm from non-admins towards becoming admins (although this result may be skewed by en.wiki's relatively lax formal requirements, which would widen the pool of surveyed editors of lower experience considerably compared to projects with more stringent formal requirements). However, for those short of time (and perhaps already familiar with the situation on en.wiki), I would encourage a look at comparisons of the unbundling of core admin actions across different projects (pp. 36–38) and the comparison of admin tenures across different projects (pp. 39–40). CMD (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    Move page Lien Khuong Airport

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

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

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

    Category:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions Add topic