Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:54, 29 July 2021

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Open tasks

• 5 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 9 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 1 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 65 sockpuppet investigations
• 17 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 3 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 4 requests for RD1 redaction
• 106 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 20 requested closures
• 24 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 21 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Appealing topic ban for Raymond3023

I was topic banned indefinitely per this ARE discussion. The topic ban concerned all edits and pages related to the conflict between India and Pakistan. I am appealing the topic ban since 3 years and 2 months have elapsed and I am completely confident that I can contribute constructively here.

Since the topic ban, I have made hundreds of edits in these years, including the creation of Space industry of India which was promoted to DYK. Furthermore, I haven't engaged in any behavior for which I had been sanctioned, namely battleground mentality.

In order to avoid repeating the issue from happening again, I have learned to assume good faith as much as possible and only raise the issue when it is necessary and ensure not to violate any policies. This is mainly because enough time has passed and I am evidently more aware of the policies and expectations here.

I am also noting that I never violated the topic ban or had any other sanction since. If the topic ban has been removed, I will still continue to contribute in such a productive manner. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages has over 6.3 million articles, of which I would hazard more than 99% have nothing to do with the conflict between India and Pakistan. Why is that an area in which you feel the need to edit? BD2412 T 05:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • It is one of my most favorite topic areas and I find a number of articles to be missing information. I would like to start working on geographic articles related to the area for starters. For a name, Wagah lacks details about 2014 Wagah border suicide attack and in turn, the suicide attack article has not been updated for years given it lacks any details about the convictions happened last year. One by one, I will be updating some of these and others. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• That AE is really long and involves a lot of participants, so I'm not going to sift through it. The enforcing admin (GoldenRing) seems to be retired now, as well as some others in the discussion (like NeilN). @Bishonen and Vanamonde93: seem to be some active admins who might be familiar with those events. I found this declined (individual) AE appeal, and this declined (mass) ARCA. Otherwise, the appeal above reads reasonably, and it has been 3 years. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support lifting tban. 3 years is a long time and I don't see any evidence they've been disruptive during that time (they haven't edited much at all). They sound sincere. The worst that could happen is they go back to the behavior which got them tbanned in the first place but we'll figure that out pretty quick and can deal with it then. The best that could happen is we gain a productive editor in a topic area known for conflict. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Pretty much for the same reasons mentioned by RoySmith. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 04:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support - There hasn't been any complaint against this editor in 3 years other than an AE report filed months ago by a later indefinitely blocked user and it was declined as frivolous by El C. Aman Kumar Goel 07:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support A long time since the ban was put in place and I have not seen anyone present evidence of disruption since it has been in place. They have worked on the topic of India specifically and no trouble. I say we try and see what happens. HighInBC 07:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support A long time has passed and the editor has been productive since. Cullen Let's discuss it 18:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I find their response to my query satisfactory, and the arguments of other supporting editors/admins persuasive. BD2412 T 23:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per above. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I'm a bit wary but will support this. Wary, because though three years have gone by, the editor hasn't edited a whole lot in those three years and much of that, abbreviated, editing appears to be cosmetic. The odds are that content relating to the interaction between India and Pakistan is their sole motivation for being on Misplaced Pages. But, I'll support this because a one area focus is not necessarily a bad thing and everyone deserves a second shot.--RegentsPark (comment) 21:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• My view as an uninvolved editor is already summed up by RegentsPark above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • As there is a clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors (and administrators) here to overturn this sanction, could an uninvolved administrator close this discussion, formally notify Raymond3023 of this outcome and update the enforcement log here please? Thanks in advance, Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support 3 years and no red flags. I think he's learned his lesson. Buffs (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Appeal of BLP ban for Jabbi

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

• Jabbi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Almost 6 months ago I was banned for a year for violating BLP. See this notice. I have learnt from that experience and am now more sensitive to BLP policy. Since then I have not touched a BLP article. I have made several substantial edits on notable articles which have, in my opinion improved them considerably. I would like to be allowed to edit BLPs again because before my ban I had started a review of Alexander Lukashenko, and had reached his first term in office, which I would like to continue with. My violation was with an article I created myself, which has since been deleted for lack of notability. Thanks for reading. --Jabbi (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

You were not banned six months ago, but 4.5 months ago. Your first reaction was to protest the ban at WP:ANI, but you gave up on that when you got pushback from other editors and administrators. I think it's way too early for you to be appealing a one-year ban. You appear to believe that the fact that you apparently have not violated the ban deserves some special award. No violations might be considered in an appeal if you were to wait longer. In any event, I oppose lifting the ban. I also think you should notify Nick of this appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Bbb23. The ban was about two different aspects. I did not go into that in my appeal because I thought that wasn't really relevant anymore. I contested one of the two aspects and desisted when I inadvertently repeated sensitive information in my argument. What I learnt from that was to exercise more caution when it comes to BLP. If you consider lifting a ban a special award, then yes. Otherwise we would not be discussing this no? I have almost served half of the ban and I remain a valuable editor. The guidelines on appealing do not suggest a point in time relative to the appeal or any other characteristics that would be taken into account. I'm happy to notify Nick and El C who were most active. --Jabbi (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

When I said to notify Nick, I meant pursuant to the instructions at the top of this page, which, apparently, you did not bother to read. Instead you pinged him, which I had already done anyway. I struggle to understand how you became an administrator and bureaucrat at is.wiki.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

If you are referring to "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page." This is not a discussion about Nick, but about my appeal to his decision which I understood to be done in a sort of probation way. I thought the way this worked is show good behaviour and we'll give you another chance. Seems to have backfired. There's probably a lot you don't know about Iceland, it's a very small wiki, I am in fact high in the top contributor list there. Although I haven't been active for the past couple of years. --Jabbi (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose lifting ban. Reading through Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive330#User:Nick and arbitrary and unreasonable block of editing BLP shows a failure of understanding and acceptance of the circumstances of the ban. I don't think near enough time has passed since then, nor do I see these issues being addressed here and now. HighInBC 23:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input HighInBC. Yes I did contest a part of the reasoning for the ban at the time. How exactly can these issues be addressed here and now beyond me saying that I have a fuller understanding and take greater care around BLP? --Jabbi (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you want me to tell you what words you need to say to demonstrate an understanding of these issues? That is not how demonstrating an understanding works, nor is simply saying that you understand. HighInBC 23:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I take your point. I have been an active editor in the Icelandic Misplaced Pages for longer than I care to remember and only recently become very active here. My violation was twofold, limited to the talk page of a person whose article I had created; 1) I cited the words from a recorded interview with an academic of a respectable university in which he alleges possible criminal activity and 2) I used a value laden term that alleges corruption to refer to this individual. When reflecting on this admins should be very conscious that there is not economic, or otherwise, freedom in Belarus, it is in some ways more akin to China than it's neighbour Lithuania. In other words, people do not rise to the top unless they have political favour with Lukashenko. I wrongly assumed that this was not contested and that the fact that someone achieves success in Belarusian business was acknowledged to imply collusion by default. Anyway. I understand that this is not acceptable. I read up on BLP and was particularly curious about a sensitive issue concerning an Australian minister and how BLP is handled on WP in that case. What I took from that was to exercise more caution. --Jabbi (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, Jabbi was BLP banned because of serious BLP violating edits surrounding Lukashenko and people around him. Considering that last month, they created and defended Europe's last dictatorship (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Europe's last dictatorship) and Draft:Europe's last dictatorship, I think it would be better to strongly remind Jabbi of the topic ban and where it applies, instead of lifting the ban. Many of their other mainspace edits seem to be about Lukashenko as well, e.g. this unsourced bit from this month. Fram (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Fram, you might be interested to know that the article was generally considered not to be notable enough. It's not a POVFORK. At the end a redirect was re-created, the article existed before I put in well sourced content there. --Jabbi (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Good catch. These are not only direct violations of the BLP topic ban, but are in the precise area that resulted in the ban. In addition to not removing the ban I think the duration needs to be reset to the point of the most recent violation. I also think more attention needs to be paid to their edits. HighInBC 09:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Fram, that's not correct. The violation was only around one person related to Viktor Lukashenko. You can seek confirmation from Nick or El C. I was not topic banned, I was banned from editing BLPs see notice. It is difficult to edit Belarus related material without mentioning the president and his actions. It is an authoritarian country. --Jabbi (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting ban and restart 1 year at the conclusion of this thread @Fram: Well done, I say! @Jabbi: You attempted some sort of detour around your TBAN. You created a sneakily article titled about the very subject that merited your TBAN. Your doing so shows a supreme cynicism toward the Community and/or a supreme obsession with Viktor Lukashenko. Clearly, your TBAN must be maintained to prevent disruption. Clearly, you need to let go of this subject and find something else to edit about. Please understand that the TBAN applies to the subjects of Biographies of living people, regardless of how the article is titled. And that it includes writing about the subject anywhere in Misplaced Pages. (added post reply above) OK. No editing about any living person anywhere on Misplaced Pages. You violated the TBAN. It must not be lifted. The Wikilawyering is not a good sign. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  Noting and applauding Nick's comment below. If making the TBAN clearer is required, then let us do so. I think this thread tells us why the TBAN should be clarified and not lifted. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra Viktor Lukashenko is the son of Alexander which is the president. I have an obsession with neither thank you. There was nothing sneaky about me creating that article, it does not show cynicism. That article title is well documented to be a synonym for Belarus. I have not violated any guidelines. Your comment here is highly misguided. Please point to a violation and explain why it is a violation. The term Europe's last dictatorship refers to a country, not a person. You can seek the confirmation of Robert McClenon if you want. --Jabbi (talk) 11:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

In this edit I point out that there's a difference between Europe's last dictatorship and Europe's last dictator and that I support the decision to have the article changed again to a redirect. I have not violated anything. I hope you will reconsider your stance Deepfriedokra --Jabbi (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• If the community decides to reset the ban for another year, I recommend that the ban be clarified. Nick recorded the ban at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration enforcement log/2021: "(Jabbi) has been banned from editing the biographies of living persons for a period of one year for repeated violations of the BLP policy." That can be read as being prohibited from editing BLPs, i.e., articles, not necessarily making any edit involving a BLP, which is far broader.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree the wording is ambiguous and can be interpreted to mean something far narrower than probably intended. I think the wording "all edits concerning recently deceased or living people broadly construed" makes the intention more clear. HighInBC 12:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I really shouldn't have said "community" as this is an AE-enforcement ban. The appeal should have been filed at WP:AE, and the result should be made by uninvolved administrators, not the community, although the community is of course welcome to comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I had the same thought when this was first posted. However I saw at WP:AE it says an editor may "request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN");". So I suppose this is an acceptable venue. HighInBC 12:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, thanks. In fact, the instructions go on to say that if it's filed at AE, it's the usual uninvolved admins, whereas if it's filed at AN, it's "uninvolved editors". That means the appealer can choose who decides, sort of like acceptable forum shopping.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Surely I can not be punished for violating an interpretation established 4.5 months later. --Jabbi (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Even under the narrowest of interpretations your draft is still a BLP because it discusses living people, even it is not the primary topic of the article. The policy is clear when it says "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Misplaced Pages", that means any material about living people even if not in draft space, even if not the primary topic of the page. The suggested clarification of wording is because you don't seem to get this. HighInBC 12:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I think your interpretation is very narrow on the contrary. The article was about a dictatorship wherein a reference to the dictator is implicit. We've established that I was banned from editing BLP articles. I don't see a problem there, neither did Robert McClenon at the time. --Jabbi (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I know you don't see a problem, and this is the problem. Since you are trying to use the wording of your ban to justify this then let's quote it: Topic banned from editing the biographies of living persons (and recently deceased persons, as described in the biographies of living persons policy) for a period of one year.

It does not say articles. It says "the biographies of living persons". I have already quoted the part of the BLP policy that makes it clear that BLPs are any material about living people anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Our BLP policy is not narrow, it is very broad and intentionally so. HighInBC 12:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

HighInBC, The notice does say biographies and I understood it to be limited to articles about living persons (I am being honest here, it would hardly make sense for me to come here with the appeal otherwise). It is now being discussed whether to expand the definition and lengthening my ban to clarify that. --Jabbi (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Jabbi, how do you reconcile your two statements,
  • "'Europe's last dictatorship or Europe's last dictator are commonly used in Western media to refer to Belarus and Alexander Lukashenko respectively."
  • "there's a difference between Europe's last dictatorship and Europe's last dictator" ? - Cabayi (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Cabayi the article I edited was about the term referring to the country, because that title refers to the perceived post of dictator the connection is implicit. It's obvious that I edited the article about the country, the dictatorship. How can that be done without referring to the dictator? A dictator is a person, a dictatorship is a form of governance. I don't really understand what you are trying to imply with the references to my edits. I say that Europe's last dictator is used to refer to Lukashenko, which is implicit by the first term. In the second quote I just remark that dictator is not the same as dictatorhsip. --Jabbi (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I must apologise for causing much of the uncertainty - I had not intended the restriction to be so narrow, nor did I think it would have been skirted around so comprehensively. Jabbi has a serious and significant problem in following our BLP policy, even when editing articles which are not primarily focused on a living or recently deceased person. I believe lifting the current restriction cannot possibly be considered, and instead my BLP sanction should be replaced with something that explicitly bans them from making any edit, anywhere on Misplaced Pages, which concerns a living or recently deceased person, very broadly construed. I also think the restriction should be more indefinite in nature. I'm going to note, for procedural purposes, that I approve my restriction to be lifted, modified or replaced with something equally or more restrictive, and that the term of that sanction be equal or longer lasting than the time remaining on the existing sanction. Nick (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Nick, Thanks for your input. I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. I am surprised that you think there are otherwise problems with my edits. I think the draft article, turned redirect was in a gray area, not violating the ban, because the article is about a term used in the media. I respect of course the consensus here which weighs heavily against me, obviously. Might I ask that what ever consensus is reached be supported with diffs explaining what is problematic. I will refrain from now on making comments or otherwise participating in this discussion as I think I have made my case. Thanks. --Jabbi (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to decline appeal and modify existing topic ban

I'll take a stab at this with the following language: Jabbi is banned from making any edits anywhere on Misplaced Pages that concerns a living person or recently deceased person for one year.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I would propose that Nick's restriction is replaced with something like: Jabbi is indefinitely banned from making (1) any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people; and (2) any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles on any page in Misplaced Pages. Jabbi may not appeal this modified topic ban imposed by the community for 9 months from when it is imposed. I think this will provide more clarity regarding the scope of the restriction and less room for wikilawyering or inadvertent errors on the boundaries. Separately pinging @HighInBC: @Deepfriedokra: @Fram: who have also already commented on the appeal for input on this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The only differences between this proposal and mine are the length (indefinite instead of one year) and the appeal provision. Otherwise, the language is unduly wordy, particularly (1), which does not provide greater clarity.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I read your restriction as permitting edits to Human rights in Belarus#International criticism of human rights in Belarus, so long as the edits do not concern a living person specifically. Mine, particularly (1), explicitly restricts any edits because the article itself contains biographical content. That said, whether that is too stringent is a separate issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Read literally, (1) only prohibits edits concerning BLPs but notes articles containing BLP content unnecessarly. If your intention is to prohibit any edits to any article that contains biographical content, regardless of whether the edit itself concerns a BLP, then your restriction is so broad as to prohibit Jabbi from editing so many articles to be effectively a complete block on Jabbi's ability to edit. A quick example would be all movie articles that contain a cast section. Such a restriction would prevent Jabbi from disambiguating a wikilink.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Due to multiple meanings for "concerns", personally I prefer "is related to" or similar wording. isaacl (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support almost any reasonable restriction, in view of the continuing effort by Jabbi to game the system, including by twisting my words. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support."Jabbi is banned from making any edits anywhere on Misplaced Pages that concerns a living person or recently deceased person for one year." Starting today. Today's appeal is to be declined. Robert's comment above is noted. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support — Per statements by Fram, Deepfriedokra, Nick, Bbb23, Robert McClenon and HighInBC. I remain unimpressed as to the demeanor of the OP, it is one thing to genuinely appeal for a topic ban to be lifted and a whole other thing to be arrogant about it. You cannot genuinely seek for an appeal and in the same appeal, attempt to intentionally misrepresent the comments of others in order to Favour you, it is very much contradictory to say the least and very much indicative of your inability to comprehend why you were topic banned in the first instance and also goes to show why an inverse of your appeal to be evoked (in my opinion an indefinite ban from BLP's or any biographical articles) but I’m largely satisfied with this proposal. Celestina007 (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support as Jabbi has been skirting around the edges of this topic ban, and I support starting the one year timer from the date this thread is closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackattack1597 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Bbb23's wording, duration 1 year starting when the ban is issued . HighInBC 23:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Bbb23's proposal. One year restart seems a viable alternative. Meters (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. I corrected the grammar of my proposed ban language ("concern" instead of "concerns").--Bbb23 (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Bbb23's proposal, as clarified. Cullen Let's discuss it 23:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support I do not believe Jabbi understands our BLP policy. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Apparent Misrepresentation

I am not entirely sure what User:Jabbi is claiming that I said in their defense, but I don't think that I said it, and I wasn't intending to be defending them, at least not in the way that they claim. Jabbi writes: 'The term Europe's last dictatorship refers to a country, not a person. You can seek the confirmation of User:Robert McClenon if you want.' I think that they are quoting me in connection with a Delete, in which I said that the article did NOT establish notability for the term. Jabbi also writes: 'I don't see a problem there, neither did User:Robert McClenon at the time.' That isn't true. I did see a problem, which was that Jabbi was creating the same article in both article space and draft space in order to game the system. I didn't take part in the Arbitration Enforcement discussion that resulted in the topic-ban, and I agree that Jabbi wasn't referring to a dictator by name, but I was saying that Jabbi was conducting themselves in a problematic manner. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Ncmvocalist - I am changing nothing in the above statement. It doesn't depend on whether I had previously noted the topic-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, we now have two subsections you have created as a result of concerns caused by things you have said (or failed to say). While all of us are agreed that Jabbi should stay away from BLPs due to a number of issues, your use of words appear ill-considered. At 17:00, 19 July 2021, as a matter of fact, you said that you saw a problem that "Jabbi was creating the same article in both article space and draft space in order to game the system". At 17:03, 19 July 2021, you again said that Jabbi was continuing his effort to game the system; that is, you implied that he (1) made an effort to game the system previously; and (2) was continuing to do so. At 16:47, 20 July 2021, you said "I acknowledge that User:Jabbi was not trying to game the system." So, were your original accusations of bad faith correct or were those more "mistakes" on your part? At 23:09, 20 July 2021, you said what Jabbi did is "sometimes done to game the system" . Or are you now saying that the original accusation of bad faith was veiled in the first place? Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Just clarifying the above issue as I am directly addressed. The only thing I was trying to say is that you participated in the discussion about the draft article/redirect converted to article knowing I had the BLP ban and did not raise an issue in regards to that. I was not intending to misrepresent you or state anything beyond that. Of course you did state your suspicions about me gaming the system which I did not mention above as I thought it not relevant. I am used to just creating articles from the Icelandic[REDACTED] where things are less bureaucratic let's say. When I say "'I don't see a problem there,'" I am referring to my conduct in relation to the ban. I was not trying to game the system either, just contribute to the encyclopedia. I put forward objective sources and arguments for it. --Jabbi (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Jabbi writes: "The only thing I was trying to say is that you participated in the discussion about the draft article/redirect converted to article knowing I had the BLP ban and did not raise an issue in regards to that." I had not been aware of the BLP ban, and that is why I did not object to their conduct. If I had been aware at the time of the BLP ban, I would have objected, because it is difficult to discuss a dictatorship without discussing its dictator as an individual. I would have expressed concerns if I had known about the ban, and I will have BLP concerns. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

On May 31 you notify two admins of a dispute involving me and you explicitly state that I have a BLP ban (Here, Here). On June 9 you weigh in on the deletion proposal. I don't expect this to make any material difference to the outcome of my disciplinary proceedings and I don't see a need to discuss this further. Have a nice day. --Jabbi (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I made a mistake. I didn't notice that the same editor was involved both in the hockey dispute and in the AFD of the last dictatorship article. I made a mistake. I didn't notice that it was the same editor in both places. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

If User:Jabbi actually thought that my words meant that I didn't see a problem, then they have a strange idea of what is not seeing a problem, when I said that they were acting like a male bovid in a pottery boutique. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I acknowledge that User:Jabbi was not trying to game the system. They were trying to contribute to the encyclopedia. However, their judgment of what is a contribution to the encyclopedia cannot be relied on, and they are trying to wikilawyer to avoid listening to the guidance of other editors. The continuation of the topic ban is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: There is some irony in you creating this subsection about "apparent misrepresentation" by Jabbi during this appeal and then yourself apparently misrepresenting that Jabbi tried to game the system, as you now belatedly acknowledge Jabbi didn't run afoul of that Misplaced Pages guideline. As a matter of fairness, I think you should again return to the comments you made prior to realising that you had goofed up, reflect on if they are still accurate and strike through the words which are withdrawn, even if the remainder of your position has not changed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Reconsideration

In response to the request by User:Ncmvocalist that I review my post, since I did make a mistake, the effect is minimal, and I am not sure that anything needs to be stricken or changed. User:Jabbi still misrepresented my view when they said that I didn't think that they had done anything wrong. I said that they were behaving like a male bovid in a pottery boutique. I also said that they were creating two copies of an article, in draft space and in article space, which is never useful and is sometimes done to game the system. Saying that I said that they had done nothing wrong, only because I didn't specifically address the ban, is either a deliberate twisting of my words, or, to assume good faith, a reading of my words that is so biased that it illustrates a gross lack of awareness. I am willing to assume good faith, noting that good faith is necessary but not self-sufficient. The lack of awareness is such that any easing of any restrictions would be a mistake. I think that my conclusion about a dangerous lack of awareness may be essentially what User:Nick is also saying. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

This echoes my take on this. I am not sure what Ncmvocalist expects you to redact. An admin editor not remembering every ban by every user at all times is hardly anything to apologies for. None of what you claimed depended on you not knowing they were banned at the moment of the AfD. You have already clarified this. This seems more of a distraction than anything. HighInBC 01:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

User:HighInBC - I am not an administrator. Does that make any difference? ;- Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I am shocked, somehow I thought you were. I probably thought you were because you are one of the few names I recognize from when I started here 15-16 years ago. No it does not make a difference. HighInBC 03:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@HighinBC: I've spelled out the precise issue here. It isn't right. We have all agreed that a more stringent sanction is needed in some form and that there is an obvious lack of understanding how things work here, but there comes a point where we should be accurate too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, thanks for you input. I want to start by apologising for involving you in this appeal as I also mistakenly assumed you were an admin, you have that air about you. Neither did I intend my appeal to grow arms and legs like it has, so I feel an apology is owed to everyone whose misfortune it is to read this. I do feel however that your statement is incorrect, as I explained above, I said I don't see a problem there, in reply to HighInBC where we are debating my conduct in relation to my BLP topic ban and interpretation of BLP policy. I even qualified it with " at the time" to give you leeway in case you had made a mistake which has turned out to be the case. I could have said something like "I don't see a problem there, and Robert McClenon only accused me of gaming the system." but you know, I could not foresee the chaotic jumble this is turning into. --Jabbi (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Conclusion

Is it safe to assume that the discussion has concluded and the ban taken an effect from henceforth? Until July 22 2022 ? Could you please quote me the ban here along with the reasoning for it Bbb23? Or do you want to wait to see if there are others that want to participate. I want to state for the record that I understand that BLP policy applies to all spaces, including drafts, and that it applies to all text that describes the lives or actions of living or recently deceased people. Furthermore I want to clarify that it was my mistaken understanding that Nick's ban was limited to biographical articles. I have not ever knowingly violated WP guidelines, and I have acted in good faith. My edit history has focused heavily on Belarus because I have become very interested in Belarus for the past year or so. I think that, because there are sensitive political issues surrounding Belarus, edits there are rightly viewed in skeptical light. I do not have a coi nor am I trying to push a non-neutral angle. Do I understand correctly that in order for the ban to be lifted I still need to appeal or is it automatically lifted on July 23 2022? Thanks --Jabbi (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Nothing has been concluded. At some point, an uninvolved administrator (not me, for example) will determine the consensus and close the discussion. At that point, if a ban is imposed, you will be notified.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I do think this has run its course, it has been several days since an opinion on the ban has been given. Requesting closure please. HighInBC 01:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Lifting topic ban of Junior Jumper

Hello everyone, I was topic banned from editing Indian poltics about 6½ months ago by Bishonen. Now, as I have completed my 6 months of the ban, as per community rules I want to appeal for the revocation of the ban. I have tried my best to abide by the rules of the ban in the last 6½ months. Thank you.--Junior Jumper (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Junior Jumper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) What is the nature of your topic ban? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Here it is-- Conditional to unblock, Junior Jumper has agreed to a topic ban from Indian politics. They may however add parliamentary diagrams to articles. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Do you understand that you violated your topic ban just 5 days ago i.e. your one edit before this appeal? Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• The proximate cause of the topic ban seems to have been some light edit warring at Sangh Parivar, where Junior Jumper twice changed "militant group" to "youth group" in the description of an organization: , and 10 hours later, . JJ's user talk page response to Doug Weller's original revert was definitely far from ideal. The literal "how dare you?" on his talk page, aimed at the ignorant "foreigner" clearly showed that JJ didn't really get how our neutrality policies worked in that context. I am also fully aware that this topic area has long been a contentious one.
  That said, was there more history here that's not immediately obvious? An indefinite block that rolled into a six-month-minimum topic ban feels...abrupt, for a couple of iffy article edits and an ill-considered reaction in one day. Unless there's something else, I'd support lifting the topic ban; it looks like JJ has been at least as productive since the ban was imposed as he was before. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Whilst JJ did add an image, I didn't see that there was edit warring, incivility, white washing, tendentiousness, or POV pushing. Is there any indication of any of those things, perchance? in my Tom Ellis (actor) voice --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting. The issue of agenda-driven POV-pushing editing is significant in this topic area; if it isn't nipped in the bud early, just as Bishonen and Dougweller have done here, the issues pile up over a prolonged period. I would prefer for the restrictions to remain until Junior Jumper can at least clearly demonstrate that he makes substantial edits, consistent with NPOV, in areas he is not banned from. If he cannot stay committed to the topic ban, let alone his agreement not to edit the article again about a group he admits he is a member of, I do not have faith we can rely on his assertions that he will edit in this area appropriately. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Bishonen: @Dougweller: Not sure if either of you were notified, but what are your views? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• OMG, a TenOfAllTrades sighting! El_C 20:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  This is not the editor you're looking for... * waves hand * (But seriously, aside from the one article revert and subsequent ugly back-and-forth on his user talk on 29/30 December, have there been any issues with JJ's conduct?) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  KOMPAKTOR DEFEATED. El_C 16:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• I quickly skimmed Junior Jumper's contributions since the topic ban (1 January 2021). The point of a topic ban is to provide an opportunity for an editor to show that they can make content edits that follow standard procedures, however all I can see are adjustments to images. Most of that activity appears to be within the topic of Indian politics, as agreed. Without better reason, I do not support lifting a topic ban in such a contentious area which already has enough enthusiasts. Johnuniq (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• @Abhishek0831996: I have edited the page Banwari Lal Joshi but it is not the page of Indian politician. It is the page of former IPS BL Joshi. I think you have no knowledge about the difference between politicians and IPS officers.--Junior Jumper (talk) 05:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The lead sentence of Banwari Lal Joshi says: "Banwari Lal Joshi (27 March 1936 – 22 December 2017) was an Indian political figure..." and right here you had to stop instead of thinking to falsify his career after violating the topic ban. He is mainly known for being a governor, and a governor in India is a political post. With this edit you have already violated your topic ban from Indian politics. What you are doing is called WP:GAMING. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • ” I think you have no knowledge about the difference between politicians and IPS officers.” I think this is an absurd claim about the article that inspires very little confidence for me that this editor either understands the issue with their problematic past - and now seemingly ongoing behaviour, or shows they’re intentionally willing to bend their understanding of the rules using implausible reasons to justify their POV pushing. It’s a no from me. Mkdw 11:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Just noting that I changed the lead sentence of Banwari Lal Joshi just now, from "political figure" to "civil servant and government official," which I think is more accurate. I wouldn't have phrased this response the way JJ phrased it, but I don't think it's an absurd claim that BLJ was not a politician. Levivich 14:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    • The absurd claim is the apparent claim that the topic ban does not cover the position of a governor. Whether BLJ was a politician or not is being only debated by the OP instead of accepting the topic ban violation. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
      • To use an analogy: Louis Susman was US ambassador to the UK but he's not a politician. Would someone who is TBANed from America Politics be prohibited from adding or changing the picture in Louis Susman's article? I don't think so, or if that's a TBAN violation, it's a pretty peripheral and minor one. Just because a person received a political appointment at the end of their career doesn't mean every part of their biography is related to politics (nor does it make them a politician). Levivich 15:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• I blocked Junior Jumper for persistent tendentious editing, a block that was after discussion converted to a topic ban. They had changed the well-sourced description of Bajrang Dal as a "religious militant group" to "religious youth group" — which was hardly heinous in itself — but the edit summary was "How dare they said Bajrang Dal 'militant'. Bajrang Dal is not a terrorist group. They had sacrificed a lot for country's welfare". Doug Weller reverted stating "It's described this way in its own article, this should match", and JJ reverted back without comment, the way we revert vandalism. This discussion followed on JJ's talk, and I blocked indefinitely. I see TenOfAllTrades considers my action "abrupt, for a couple of iffy article edits and an ill-considered reaction in one day"; I can only say I don't agree. Indeed it happened in one day, but IMO the edits are beyond iffy and the talkpage comments not merely ill-considered but militantly nationalist and indicative of a deep problem: "don't give me the link of BBC news. They have no credibility in our India. They are treated like bastards in our country", "How dare you to call Bajrang Dal a militant organisation? Are you Indian to decide so?", etc. I'm not going to argue about this; I encourage others to make up their own minds. I agree with Abhishek0831996 above that JJ's argument about editing Banwari Lal Joshi (Governor of Uttar Pradesh) is gaming their ban; on the other hand, the edit was nothing much, merely adding an image. A bigger problem is that JJ has edited very little during their ban; basically merely adding parliamentary diagrams and changing/adjusting images. These diagrams are useful, for sure, and are an explicit exemption from their ban. But there are no content edits that I can see. As Johnuniq says, "The point of a topic ban is to provide an opportunity for an editor to show that they can make content edits that follow standard procedures". I did not leave JJ to figure this out; I explicitly advised them to edit other areas and/or other projects, as "it's important to be able to show in an appeal that you have been editing constructively". JJ's appeal above is very bald, with no attempt to show the things they were told they need to show. As the banning admin, I won't put an "oppose" on this, but I'm a bit dubious. Bishonen | tålk 08:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC).

• In response to the comments asserting that JJ has edited 'very little' since his ban, JJ's editing prior to his topic ban was also predominantly uncontroversial housekeeping work of exactly the same sort as he's been doing since his topic ban. His editing has, if anything, been at a faster clip than before his ban--he's made about as many edits in the first six months of 2021 as he did in all of 2020. Admins reviewing his contributions should also note that he has a substantial number of deleted contributions related to image maintenance work; indeed, those contributions outnumber his undeleted edits this year.
  To be clear, I absolutely agree that JJ's attitude required adjustment—but I also see enough 'sweat equity' and consistent beneficial behaviour to warrant access to some WP:ROPE. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• TOAT's argument that JJ has been editing productively is reasonable. I also understand why JJ might have though Joshi was (just barely) outside their ban, but I'm not impressed with I think you have no knowledge about the difference between politicians and IPS officers.. On balance, I'm for giving them enough ROPE, but JJ, adjusting your attitude includes knowing when to edit yourself. You could have just left that sentence out of your reply. You could have written instead "PS officers are not politicians." Instead, in your own ban appeal at AN, you impugned the competence of someone opposing the appeal. Do you see how that's counterproductive? —valereee (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Valereee: I am not impinging him. I am only clearing his facts with regards. The fact is that the "police officers are not politicians even if they are appointed as governors". They should be considered as politicians if they join any political party. We can take the example of K Annamalai for it. He joined BJP in August 2020 thats why he is a politician. But BL Joshi never joined any political party so he was a police officer only in his entire life. This prove that I haven't violated the conditions of topic ban. And I apologize for rude words in the previous comment. I will try to balance my language from next time.--Junior Jumper (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Who said that Banwari Lal Joshi was a politician? They only said that you violated your topic ban by editing the subject's page. There are many subjects strongly associated with Indian politics such as Umar Khalid, Ravish Kumar, Arnab Goswami, Mohan Bhagwat but these individuals haven't joined a political party. Your claim that a subject has nothing to do with Indian politics if they never "joined any political party" won't convince anybody because it is simply wrong. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• @Raymond3023: They have clearly said that I have violated the policy by editing the page. It clearly implies that they are saying that I have edited a politician's page because this is the only thing that I can do to break my unblock policy. It is clear from his view that they are confused regarding the difference difference between an IPS officer and a politician. So, please critically think about their comments and my replies. --Junior Jumper (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Don't put words in the mouth of others. Your continued failure to understand that you were topic banned from "Indian politics" not "Indian politicians" shows that you are not getting it. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I'd support per WP:ROPE. I don't think Bish's block+unblock-with-TBAN was abrupt. The comments on the "one bad day" were really bad; a block was justified, and unblocking with a TBAN condition was, IMO, the right way to move forward. That said, it was just one bad day. Their editing during the TBAN has been productive from what I can tell, and it was the same type of editing as before the TBAN (images). I don't agree with requiring an editor who edits images to do some other kind of editing (like writing prose) in order to have a TBAN lifted. We don't want editors editing outside of their areas of comfort/expertise/interest just to get a TBAN lifted, nor is it a fair requirement; after all, it's not about jumping through hoops, it's about the community being reasonably assured that an editor can edit without needing a sanction to prevent disruption. If an editor mostly adjusts images before the TBAN, then it's fine if that's what they do during their TBAN. In fact, if an editor normally makes image edits, non-image-edits don't really help us determine how they would behave during their normal editing. (The reverse is true, too: if an editor mostly edits prose, having them upload images during a TBAN doesn't tell us how they'll behave when returning to "normal" editing.) The BLJ image is arguably a TBAN violation ("broadly construed" after all) but a pretty minor/peripheral/harmless one. Six months of productive editing is long enough; let's give them a second chance (bearing in mind that a third chance may not happen if there is a second bad day like the "one bad day" sixmonths ago). Levivich 15:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Hey, everybody see which type of language Abhishek0831996 is using. Don't put words in the mouth of others., is this the way to talk somebody? Many of you are saying that I have used rude language. Now what would you say to Abhishek0831996? Can't he speak politely to me?--Junior Jumper (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Junior Jumper, maybe it's because I read that in isolation, but I don't understand. What's impolite about it? I mean, criticism is allowed. El_C 18:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

JJ, I agree with EI C. Opposition is an expected part of a ban appeal. There's nothing uncivil about telling someone not to misstate something someone else has said, if you think that's what they've done. I understand this is a stressful process for you, but your best bet is to simply not engage with opposers except to correct actual factual errors or describe how you've tried to address their concerns. Criticizing their input won't help you. —valereee (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Valereee:, @El C: Okay 😓--Junior Jumper (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• The tone and content of JJ’s replies here leaving me wondering if they are a person we want to let loose in an already combative topic area. The whatsboutism is a bad sign. — AdamF in MO (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting. I started out in favor and was willing to overlook the picture "slip". I'm afraid JJ has persuaded me to not lift the ban. Just not ready yet. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• @Abhishek0831996: If I was topic banned from editing Indian politics only not politicians then why are you saying that I have violated the T&C of topic ban by editing the page of BL Joshi?

You have said "Do you understand that you violated your topic ban just 5 days ago i.e. your one edit before this appeal?" in your first comment. --Junior Jumper (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

JJ, while I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, this response suggests that you are not prepared to engage constructively in this area at this time. Arguing that "politicians" are somehow not within the topic of "politics" is...unsupportable. I oppose this request at this time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• @TenOfAllTrades: Thanks for your support but I am just quoting the comment by Abhishek0831996 that Don't put words in the mouth of others. Your continued failure to understand that you were topic banned from "Indian politics" not "Indian politicians" shows that you are not getting it. Please read his first comment.--Junior Jumper (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Junior Jumper your topic ban concerns Indian politics. The edit you made on Banwari Lal Joshi, breached your topic ban because that subject is significantly related to Indian politics. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Abhishek0831996: Then why were you saying that Don't put words in the mouth of others. Your continued failure to understand that you were topic banned from "Indian politics" not "Indian politicians" shows that you are not getting it.?--17:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

CheatCodes4ever's unblock request

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

CheatCodes4ever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently community banned due to an ANI discussion that led to their indefinite block. The discussion can be found at AN-archive 1027#Competency issue with CheatCodes4ever. There had been unblock discussions on their talk page until I noticed that a community discussion led to the block and asked CheatCodes4ever to appeal to the community instead. This is now happening.

Per the block log, there is "no CU evidence to not unblock." The unblock request reads as follows:

Okay, I think I'm officially ready now. Please read my previous unblock requests for more information. ToBeFree has told me that I am banned and this needs to be moved to WP:AN, so here we go. In terms of what I was blocked for, I was blocked for not being here to build an encyclopedia. This was because I didn't listen to advice in the past and it made everyone think I was WP:NOTHERE. As stated in my previous unblock request, I do not no why I didn't listen to advice back then. I guess I could say I was immature? I honestly don't know how to explain it. I really don't. But for what it's worth, it took 22 months for me to start using talk pages. From January 2018 to October 2019, I never talked with people on talk pages. In fact, I used to not even go on my talk page, so if someone sent me a really long message, I wouldn't have read it all (so in other words, if you're reading this @Jmcgnh:, as much as you don't have much to do with this, I noticed you sent me a message here on my old account, but I never read all of it until about 14 months later, so I just wanted to say, I'm sorry about that). Anyway, I have now learnt to use talk pages. Back to me getting unblocked, if I do get unblocked I would like to make edits such as these edits along with participating in reverting vandalism/unsourced edits. I'll probably end up doing other stuff, but one thing's for sure: I won't cause as much trouble as I did in the past. You can learn more about that here. In terms for what I did do in the past, I continuously added unsourced content. This was because I kept forgetting to add a source. However, from now on, I will try my hardest to remember to add a source. In addition, I created lots of articles for non-notable topics. If you have read my previous unblock request, you will see I have learnt from that and now understand how the notability system works. Please could I be unblocked? Thanks, CheatCodes4ever (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Participants of the original discussion: @Robvanvee, The Mirror Cracked, CaptainEek, Kinu, NinjaRobotPirate, Yamla, Ian.thomson, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, Serial Number 54129, Michepman, Celestina007, Darthkayak, Jusdafax, RickinBaltimore, Johnuniq, and Ad Orientem: Ping requested by CheatCodes4ever. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Leaning Oppose as written. I've had a read through their talk page and its history, and about two months ago they started compiling their list of edits they planned to make. There's a few items that were added to that list that are deeply concerning to me, and in my view indicate that this editor still really doesn't get the concepts of sourcing and notability. Among the edits they proposed to make were the creation of a copyvio article on a non-notable phobia, cut and pasted from a source that obviously does not meet requirements for a medical article ; adding poorly sourced speculations on someone's relationship status to a BLP (complete with disclaimers that the sources may be unreliable and that they find sourcing "confusing") ; and writing a discography sourced only to Spotify . Even their remaining proposed edits are still slightly problematic and show a lack of understanding of sourcing policies, like proposing to change the release date in a good article based on what seems to be a combination of original research and guesswork, and requesting that a redirect be deleted due to lack of sourcing (redirect link plausible search terms to related articles, there's no need for them to be sourced). Their responses to the criticisms of their proposed edits are equally as concerning, and include statements like "I don't remember being told that it was wrong to copy text" (in response to the copyvio). I suppose that in order to support an unblock I would need to see some kind of evidence that this user understands Notability and sourcing guidelines, because it is abundantly clear that as recently as a month ago their understanding was little better than when they were first blocked. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment CheatCodes4ever again omits several key points in their unblock request. First, they were indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry, too, not just for WP:NOTHERE, as they imply in their unblock request (their sock puppetry is documented here, here and possibly also here). Second, CheatCodes4ever keeps claiming that they were not listening to advice in the past, as they were not reading their talk page in 2018 and 2019, but now they are. This does not appear to be true either. Their talk page is full of repeated and failed attempts to advise the user (as Ian.thomson said: "The root cause of all the problems you're facing is that you haven't been paying any attention to the advice anyone gives you"), even in 2020 and 2021. The user keeps repeating they are listening to the advice, but the results do not show it. For example, after one of their countless unblock requests where they, as always, promised they were mature now and understand everything, they were trying to prove that they now understand how to edit reasonably by suggesting (among other problematic things discussed on their talk page) an article on Kappaphobia. This was so close to insanity that it was almost indistinguishable from trolling (violating copyright by copying the text directly from the website, which was clearly a scam website and the text itself was obviously total BS, computer-generated, generic template-based text, used on many other websites on many other topics—a fact that should be blatantly obvious at first sight to any reasonable editor). So, I still see deep, chronic problems with the user, who still fails to at least admit them. It doesn't really matter whether the user is doing it on purpose or unintentionally, as WP:CIR explains that the end result is basically the same.—J. M. (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose based on J. M.'s findings. The suggestion to create an article on Kappaphobia was made just last month and, I'm afraid, shows we are far better off with this user remaining blocked. --Yamla (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I remember the original ANI discussion, and went back over it and the newer issues brought up above. There's just no sign that this user will ever be a competent editor. DoubleCross (‡) 17:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I was the admin who originally indef'd the user. I don't see anything here that would make me want to revert that block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Given some of their recent unblock requests and attempts at article creation seen on their talk page, I do not believe that this user can contribute in a constructive manner. I doubt that this user is intentionally being disruptive, but there's just too much WP:CIR and/or WP:IDHT going on here. --Kinu /_c 18:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose with regret. After a reasonable period of time from a block I usually look for reasons to give editors a second chance. And it must be admitted that I have never really suspected CC4E of deliberately malicious behavior. So this is not a NOTHERE situation. My problem is that while active they were a monumental time sink for numerous editors, especially over at WP:AfC. But lots of other editors were involved including Ss112. WP:CIR is definitely a factor here. Compounding that, is their deliberate block evasion after I specifically warned them not to and offered hope for a WP:SO after one year. So we have a lot of issues and I am highly skeptical that they are even capable of constructively contributing to the project unless their hand is held. The only way I'd even consider such a request is if they were adopted by an experienced editor with plenty of background working in the music genre. But honestly I don't think it's worth the trouble. Their motives may have been good, but the bottom line is that CC4E was not a net positive and I do not believe that is likely to change if they are unblocked. I would gently encourage them to find another hobby. (I am no longer active on the project and most of my notifications are turned off. If you wish to contact me, please do so by email via the link on my talk page. I apologize for any inconvenience.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Page protection backlog

Hi. There's a ~12hr backlog at WP:RFPP. Please could someone help out? Thanks. Lugnuts 10:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I overslept. El_C 14:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks El C. Try not to have the luxury of sleep again! Lugnuts 16:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Why did we change the main RFPP page to just be transclusions? I can't find any recent discussion. Anarchyte (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

No idea, but it's a pain in the arse that the helpful edit summary with all of the various {{RFPP}} codes is gone now. I don't have time to dig into why everything changed, but at the very least PLEASE have someone restore the group edit notice(s). Primefac (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

There's a discussion further up about the changes.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, I thought I did at Special:Permalink/1034077480, re-creating the editnotice? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk with DonFB

I'm having extreme difficulty talking with DonFB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) justifying his rewrites/revert over my edits. We have unresolvable conflicts of interest, and just like policy states, the repeated undos is aggravating and stressful. I would like an administrator's opinion, not over the content disputes, but as to whether his behavior constitutes to personal attack, particularly when he would slyly pick at old wounds, like mentioning the previous ANI incident, or smugly bragging that his edit would remain stable for the period of a page protection.

Recent:

Archivable: "brevity". I rest comfortably knowing that my improved version will be stable for the next four days.... :-) DonFB (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC) {ping|DonFB}} 133 KB (14,999 words) - 12:04, July 15, 2021

Shencypeter (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment - this seems to be a content dispute between the two of you. I've asked at WT:AV for others to join in and help find consensus. Mjroots (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Is Using the UPE Template against policy?

I was going to start an RFC when I remembered that AN is just as effective or rather, an alternative to an RFC I do have a question and for the sake of transparency I do have an active case please see here. I have a question I do need you all to assist me with and would be eternally grateful if I can get a definitive reply from you all who have bestowed great trust on me of which I do not take for granted.

• My question is, is it against policy to leave a UPE tag on an article? I was advised off wiki by a functionary and sysop that when I leave a UPE warning I should also initiate a dialogue with the editor in question and explain to them why i think they are engaging in UPE, but an editor by the name of Kaizenify in that thread told me it wasn’t proper and this got me confused as the {{Upe}} is quite self explanatory. The OP classified me leaving a UPE template as making false allegations and I really do not see how leaving a UPE template is a “false accusation” . I have come here for clarifications because if indeed it’s against policy to UPE template an article effective immediately i wouldn't do that but if not I would like a feedback from you all on what you think. Celestina007 (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The template exists for a reason. There was a proposal to delete this template, but it failed. While it is technically not mandatory to start a dialogue with the editor(s) in question, I'd certainly consider it a best practice. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Orangemike, Mike, thank you for your response, I have placed UPE templates on dubious looking articles, which more often than not ended up as actually being UPE indeed but in the aforementioned thread it’s used as “evidence” against me, largely the narrative there is that me tagging articles as UPE is “making false UPE allegations” against editors even when the UPE template is precisely worded and straightforward. Celestina007 (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - @Celestina007:, leaving a UPE template without a strong evidence of UPE by the editor is a false accusation. Promotional tone of articles are not enough evidence of UPE. WP:COI and WP:UPE are two different things. Apparently you seem to be assuming that users who have COI are UPE.

If a user writes about their university professor or about their uncle who is a lawmaker, that person would be violating our policy on WP:COI regardless of the tone of the article (promotional or not). In most cases, there is no way we are going to proof their connection with the subject unless there are off-wiki evidences. Tagging the page with the WP:COI template without evidences that connects them together is inappropriate and against policy let alone tagging with UPE. If there are offline evidences, you could advice the user to refrain from making further edits on the page. If they continue, you could give them a final warning and this could be followed by a WP:NOTHERE block if they continue. If the user is the sole contributor to that page and engaging in sockpuppetry after the block, the page may now be tagged with the WP:COI template. Police do not kill a suspect before taking them before judges. It's a crime. For WP:UPE, not all editors who have WP:COI are undisclosed paid editors and tagging them as such is inappropriate and may be considered harassment. Before you use that template on articles, you do have to be sure that they have been paid for their edits on the article. The evidences must be strong and significant such as access to the financial or transaction statements. It's almost impossible to proof that a user is UPE and that's why the tag should rarely be used. When you tag an article written by an established editor or new editor as UPE, you are directly or indirectly accusing them of undisclosed paid editing. In this case, you must have a significant evidence to proof that they have been paid or likely to have been paid based on the evidence you have gathered (not just the article promotional tone). The evidence must go beyond the article's promotional tone. Allegation or accusation of UPE is a very serious one at least here on the English Misplaced Pages and a strong evidence must be presented to back up your claim. The {{UPE}} template says "Add this tag to articles for which there appears to be a significant contribution by an undisclosed paid editor. " This is the condition under which the tag should be used. From that clause, it means that you must have established that the user is an "undisclosed paid editor". That's almost impossible to establish without off-wiki evidences. So, the tag should rarely be used. Kaizenify (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kaizenify, umm calm down, I’m trying to establish a fact. In any case I think the template is worded precisely. Celestina007 (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kaizenify not quite, did you read the documentation? You are literally saying the inverse of what the template states. Celestina007 (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The tag does not say the contribution is actually proven to be from a UPE. The tag says it is "for articles where there appears to be a significant contibution be a UPE." "appears to be" is a fairly loose criterion. Perhaps there could be a separate tag for " articles where there definitely has been a significant contibution by a proven UPE." In more usual terms, I think "appears to be" is not even equivalent to "preponderance of the evidence" but an even lower standard, perhaps "reasonable suspicion". It's not an accusation, but an alert to the reader. (FWIW, since I do specialize the university professors, most articles with coi are indeed UPE by the labs or university's PR staff, which is certainly UPE; there are indeed some by enthusiastic students, but it is generally possible to tell them apart; this in;t the place to give the distinguishing signs, but I can expand on this elsewhere. The more troublesome cases is when someone honestly writes and article, but copies the style of promotional editors, thinking that this is what we want--some have in fact said exactly that when challenged. That's the reason for using the very weaj wowwrding "appears to be". We cannot necessarily determine someone's motives, but we can see what they write. DGG ( talk ) 10:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

In regard to situations where there there has been definite paid editing, we have Template:Paid contributions. - Bilby (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

DGG says what is sometimes easily forgotten, perhaps: "It's not an accusation, but an alert to the reader." And I agree with his analysis of who writes up professor's articles, though I will add that in my experiences it's frequently the PR people who write up the administrators, rather than the professors. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies and DGG: my comments here are probably better held at Talk:BLP or VPP or something but since it came up here I'll mention this. The complaint/s which lead to this seem to be mostly related to unfairness against the editors involved I think. Frankly I'm not so concerned about them since anyone who can work out who was involved would hopefully be able to understand that the template is an alert not an accusation. But I've had concerns about this from a BLP standpoint for a while which I was reminded of recently due to this BLPN query. While I should have made this clearer in my response, (I was thinking someone else might respond), I do have great sympathy for the subject there. While they didn't comment why they wanted the tags removed, it's easy to imagine they feel the tags reflects poorly on them whenever people see the article.

Whatever we may intend by and understand of the templates, the reader may see things differently. While I've seen people argue even generic cleanup tags are harmful, IMO this is likely a minor thing since realistically I can't imagine many readers think that negatively of a subject just because the article has generic cleanup tags. Other than perhaps assuming it's unimportant because no one bothered to fix it. However COI and paid editing tags are different since I wouldn't be surprised if readers do interpret them as reflecting poorly on the subject thinking they themselves wrote an article or worse they paid someone to do it for them, effectively a tag of shame.

In reality, I expected, and your experiences seems to affirm, that there's a fair chance many of the subjects had little to do with what lead to the tags, they may not have even been aware of the attempt to make an article on them. I suspect it isn't just in academia either, I wouldn't be surprised if similar stuff happens even for CEOs and the like. Even where the person is technically in charge of the people involved, it still seems a bit harsh to blame them for it without knowing a lot more about what went on. (And so while I think it's a terrible attitude from a BLP standpoint, if any editor does feel "serves them right" for having something seen as a tag of shame on the article for years, an important reminder you might be punishing someone who may have little to do with it.)

But on the flipside, these articles will often be a problem that needs to be checked and until we do so, we probably should alert readers of the fact. And as a volunteer projection I think it's understandable there are often few takers to cleanup an article which only exists because someone did something they shouldn't have. So I don't support removing these without someone bothering to check who feels confident in removing them, rather than just removing them because they've been there a long time as I believe someone advocated when this came up in a prior discussion).

I suspect deletion is also likely to be controversial, especially since some of these may have had a fair amount of editing from others before the COI as detected. I wonder if the best solution may be to draftify any BLP which has had the tags for maybe 1 year or more. Perhaps this will end up being a back door to deletion if 10 years down the track, someone complains that we have an ever expanding list of drafts from likely paid editors which no one is getting to, but it might still be better than leaving these as is IMO given the potential harm to BLPs from having these tags for many years. (The case which reminded me of it has had them for 3 years and 9 months.)

Nil Einne (talk) 08:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Obviously not, since we use it all the time. The recent, lengthy TfD discussion affirmed that {{UPE}} is useful, has broad community consensus behind it, and that it functions as a maintenance tag. In other words, it exists primarily to indicate a problem with an article, not with the conduct of its contributors. As such I can't see any reason why you should feel obligated to discuss it with the paid editor. The anonymous functionary sounds like they're making policy up as they go along. – Joe (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no point in draftifying if there is nobody around who is likely to improve the article. Usual practice is not to draftify if the user is no longer around, especially if it's more than a year old. It inevitably leads to deletion without discussion unless someone like me decides to improve it a little at the 6 month mark and put it back in mainspace, but whoever draftified it could save a good deal of work for the reviewers if they did it themselves. It's just as bad as deleting it automatically, except it has an even higher overhead. Having coi does not mean an article is necessarily improper. At the very least anyone who intends to draftify or delete an article needs to consider whether the coi tag is even justified, and then whether the effect of it on the article is significant. The only exception the community has ever accepted is completely unsourced BLP--and even they get adequate special exposure a tProd, much more than individual drafts get. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• I Chose AN as opposed to RFC as both are effective. I understand perfectly how the {{UPE}} works, The documentation is worded fairly, and very precise and in no way translates nor necessarily means that the article creator is actually engaged in UPE infact the tag is so fairly worded that it requires a discussion and I believe if the editor replies with a “No i don’t/did not receive nor intend to receive financial rewards” should suffice enough for the editor who put the tag there to remove it and if unsatisfied by the response take the article and the relevant diffs to COIN or if there’s a long-standing pattern of possible UPE from the same editor, the ANI should be the place to visit. I know it isn’t against policy, neither does it translate to “unfounded accusations” especially if the rationale for putting it there is plausible. Celestina007 (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Unreformed disruptive editing by 16ConcordeSSC

16ConcordeSSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 31hours by Oshwah after a previous WP:ANI discussion here. Upon return this editor continued to mark every single edit as "minor" while making sequential and cumulative edits to add unsourced information and changing wording and punctuation to fit personal preferences. Examples are:

• diff1
• diff2
• diff3
• diff4
• diff5

The editor is particularly obsessed with the Rutland Railroad where he made sequential edits with only the subject's web home page as a bare url here:

• diff6

which he then added back after another editor reverted his changes:

• diff7

This editor refuses to respond to warnings from other editors and shows disrespect to the work of other editors with comments such as "fixed grammar", "my edit should never have been deleted", and "sloppy commas and run on sentances" here. It's very difficult to discern what is a useful edit and to clean up the article without picking through each and every one of his "minor" edits.

Per WP:CIR editors must have "the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus..and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill and/or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up". Blue Riband► 05:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Blue Riband: I see they are using edit summaries but still marking edits as minor. I've blocked them from editing articles indefinitely until they respond here (or possibly their talk page) and convince another Admin to unblock them. Doug Weller talk 12:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I think he's choosen to leave Misplaced Pages as indicated by this message left on my talk page. Blue Riband► 11:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Blue Riband Doug Weller While his parting message is certainly uncalled for, I must say, I don't think his edits were all that bad. Clearly he's a newbie, and he emailed me because he was quite confused as to what was happening. Like many newbies, especially on mobile, messages and notifications are received shoddily at best. (A problem the WMF should have fixed years ago!!!) So what, he was adding half referenced additions to a page with almost no references. I'd say he was improving the quality of the page, and the solution could simply have been to add some CN tags where he missed adding references. That his references weren't fully formatted in the ideal way? That's not an issue, that's why we have gnomes. It was just a page about a local railway that he was clearly interested in, not some life or death COVID or politics page. I think this is a case where we have severely BITEn what could have been a productive newbie editor. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a new account of DonPevsner (talk · contribs), who has edited for many years. DrKay (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I saw that the editor was starting to attempt referencing after their short block expired, as indicated here, but it didn't happen until the block got their attention, and in edits like this one, they add elements not explicitly backed by the source. Nothing in the timeline about a "two-year delay in bankruptcy court", although one might make that assumption. Couple this with edits that actually make punctuation worse, and now you have multiple editors spending time sifting out the good from the bad. Overall, it was disruptive to the project, and had the editor been willing to discuss or engage on their talk page using a fraction of the energy they dedicated to dropping nasty talk page messages, some of these relatively minor issues could have been worked out. To presume they may have missed the warnings is a big stretch, considering the slight change in behavior after the first block. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

CaptainEek, I cannot agree with your assessment of 16ConcordeSSC as he appeared to be hostile to any advice or correction right out of the gate. On June 5th, his second day on Misplaced Pages, he demanded a mediator at his user page. The next day he comments on his talk page "Are all of you self-interested technocrats who care only for computerized rules and nothing for dishonest content on sites? If so, to hell with all of you.." In his later "minor" edits he shows disrespect for other editor with comments like, "sloppy grammar and run-on sentances". Even if an article DOES indeed have "sloppy grammar and run-on sentances" there's no need to be uncivil. Something like "edited for clarity" would have sufficed without denigrating another editor's work. DrKay, DonPevsner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shows the same pattern of editing as 16ConcordeSSC, although the former account seems to have been abandoned. DonPevsner's addition of unsourced material to Steamtown National Historic Site was questioned by an editor and he replied with hostility to being challenged. It's a real shame it had to end like this because he clearly his interest and knowledge - but no willingness to work in collaboration. Per WP:CIR competance includes ..."the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus...Blue Riband► 20:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

16ConcordeSSC's first edit was to the talk page for DRN, next two to the talk page of centralized discussion, fourth to a user talk page, fifth to DRN talk again, then four to their own talk page and one to their user page. They were given advice, help, and links. They are now insisting (repeatedly) on their talk page that they had no idea they even had a talk page until today. At over 1400 edits and after ignoring multiple warnings and failing to explore any of the resources provided to them, they need to start taking responsibility for their actions on wikipedia. This user talk page comment, this comment to an article talk page, and this edit to an editor talk page are all uncivil and belligerent. Being new does not excuse those comments. Schazjmd (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I would concur with GoneIn60 and Blue Riband. In addition to his problems with sourcing and his belligerence, most (but admittedly not all) of his grammatical "fixes" actually introduced errors which necessitated subsequent clean-up. Grandpallama (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Female bodybuilder enthusiast unblock request

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

Given the age of the block(2013), and the number of unblock requests that have been reviewed in the past I have decided to take this unblock request to the community rather than handle it personally.

In addition to the unblock requests on the talk page there is also UTRS appeal #45084 and UTRS appeal #39150.

I understand that they are admitting to some sock puppetry, and claiming that other sock puppetry was not true. They are also "willing, but not requesting, to abide by a topic ban around zoophilia, broadly construed".

I am not familiar with the events prior to their block and at this point am withholding my personal opinion.

A checkuser has verified that there is no technical evidence of recent abuse of multiple accounts. This is a standard offer request.

Here is the text of their unblock request:

I am requesting to be unblocked after six months of being blocked, which has been verified though Misplaced Pages:Check User, for sock puppeting. I am applying under WP:SO. My initial block was inappropriate (not checked though Misplaced Pages:Check User) and the overlap between the two accounts (Latitude0116 and me). However, my other bans were appropriate for sock puppeting afterwards. I have been blocked for six months and had time to go over my errors. I will never sock puppet again and identified my old sock puppets. I am willing, but not requesting, to abide by a topic ban around zoophilia, broadly construed. I will stick to Female bodybuilder enthusiast account going forward. Female bodybuilder enthusiast (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention on this matter. HighInBC 22:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Reaper Eternal: the original blocking administrator. HighInBC 22:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support w/ TBAN From Zoophilia, or really all animal related articles, broadly construed. They were caught socking just in December, and that last sock needed to be tbanned if they were a legit user. Valeince (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support w/ TBAN Admits wrong and states wants to go forward, after 10 years it responsible to want to return and given another chance. Des Vallee (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support On 25 April 2013, User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast was confirmed to User:Fbbfan according to the CheckUser data, see here. Fbbfan never edited the English Misplaced Pages, but edited Ann Coulter article at Wikiquote, the same article one of their socks User:AHC300 edited 36 times, see diff. On 3 May 2013, User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Latitude0116 per behavioral evidence, see here. In this unblock request, User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast is claiming that they're not User:Latitude0116 and Latitude0116 also confirmed that User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast is innocent and not related to them, see here. Since User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast has not socked recently and understood that what they did in the past was wrong and willing not to do it again, I'm willing to support this unblock request and the TBAN around zoophilia, broadly construed as that will stop disruption in that area. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 05:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support unconditional - as Nnadigoodluck pointed out, no technical link was ever established between Female bodybuilder enthusiast/Fbbfan and the Latitude0116 case, however the behavioural evidence was quite compelling (significant unrelated topic overlaps). Regarding "no edits", there are other events that show up in checkuser data that can be used to establish connection, so I don't doubt the confirmation of those two accounts, however they should be re-tagged as "suspected" (they are not cu-confirmed to Latitude0116). I don't see where Female bodybuilder enthusiast's editing in the topic of zoophilia was ever discussed, they were just lumped in with the disruption of another user, and without any conclusive evidence of disruption I can't see why a topic ban is necessary here. Ivanvector's squirrel (/_nuts) 19:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  If Female bodybuilder enthusiast's editing in the topic of zoophilia really hasn't been discussed, it should be. Starting with their repeated creation of articles such as Death by horse cock, Two Guys One Horse etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Okay let's talk about it, then. I don't know the history of everything here but frankly, on the surface, all those creations seem to be legit. First they were trying to create an article about the website which was at the time apparently hosting the video referred to in the lede at Enumclaw horse sex case (or this contemporary revision, anyway), which evidently was 2guys1horse.com (I didn't go check). The final revision before deletion read in the lede: "2guys1horse.com, also called 2 Guys 1 Horse, Mr Hands, or Death by horse cock, is an Internet shock site/viral video, that has lead to over 500 reaction videos on Youtube. It was also featured in the 2007 documentary film Zoo and is regarded as the video of the incident that killed Kenneth Pinyan." The content was referenced (I didn't review the references but they were there) and covered a notable and sensitive topic without being gratuitous. It might not have been appropriate to have it separate from the Enumclaw article but I don't see any discussion about that, it was simply speedy-deleted by Fram for having no credible claim of significance, which without more information seems absurd. Another version at Deep Thrusts was deleted by Boing! said Zebedee as vandalism, which also seems absurd. Female bodybuilder enthusiast then simply tried to redirect these titles to the relevant related article, which was then deleted for being an implausible redirect (also absurd), except in one instance where The Anome deleted one as a redirect to a "joke page" (even more absurd). I say "seems" absurd because I would prefer to believe there is a related discussion somewhere that I haven't found, which would provide a better explanation than that a bunch of veteran admins ganged up on this user to censor their article. Female bodybuilder enthusiast seemed to be in conflict with Little green rosetta, who was Arbcom-banned a month later, and I also don't know what that's about.

  Anyway, all of this happened eight years ago, and so I still don't see why a topic ban now would prevent any sort of ongoing disruption. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 20:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  The December SPI report lists some of their disruptive activity on zoophilia-related articles. To add on to what AndyTheGrump stated, the majority of their edits where to Legality of bestiality by country or territory, Legality of bestiality in the United States, Timeline of zoophilia, Zoophilia and the law (notice how the sock tried to redirect move that article to Zoophile rights by country or territory), which are all now (rightfully) deleted, so their edits to those articles are not visible in their contribution histories. Some1 (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC) correction, Some1 (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  It's confusing but I think you've got the timeline at least partly wrong. Zoophilia and the law was moved to Zoophile rights by country or territory, which was then moved to Legality of bestiality by country or territory, which was then deleted, however all three of those titles were the same article which has a continuous history going back to May 2006. Legality of bestiality in the United States and Timeline of zoophilia were both separate articles. The deletion discussions for all three indicate that they were deleted for being poorly written original research, not because they were inappropriate topics nor because of any editor's disruptive editing. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 21:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  On 20:31, 6 January 2017, AHC300 sock moved Zoophilia and the law to Zoophile rights by country or territory. Admin BD2412 moved the page back from Zoophile rights by country or territory to Zoophilia and the law on 15:11, 7 January 2017 stating: (No consensus found for likely controversial page move.) Those are all the same articles as the Legality of bestiality by country or territory, which was created by Female bodybuilder enthusiast, and the bulk of the content came from those socks. See Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Legality_of_bestiality_by_country_or_territory, where an editor stated: According to XTools this article was primarily authored by AHC300 (talk · contribs), .... who is a pro-zoophilia user . I didn't mention any timeline, just pointed out that those were the articles the socks frequently edited. My parenthetical above regarding the page move was to show how the user believes "bestiality" is a "zoophile right." Some1 (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC) correction, Some1 (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'm sorry but you're wrong, and so was the editor referencing Xtools. Zoophilia and the law, Zoophile rights by country or territory, and Legality of bestiality by country or territory are not three copies of an identical article, they are the same article which was moved around. It was created under the title Zoosexuality and the law by FT2 on 19 May 2006, and FT2 was the principal contributor. It was moved to Zoophilia and the law by Avalik in 2010. At the time in 2017 that AHC300 moved to Zoophile rights by country or territory the article was a plain list of countries and their laws under the headings "zoosexual activity", "sale and distribution of zoophilic pornography", and "ownership of zoophilic pornography" (the list was present before AHC300 ever edited the article) so "zoophile rights by country or territory" was a reasonable move; BD2412 moved it back because the move hadn't been discussed, which is a pretty standard reason to revert a move (essentially WP:BRD). AHC300 then expanded the redirect at Zoophile rights by country or territory with a copy of the same list but they greatly expanded it, and that was then moved to "Legality of bestiality by country or territory" after a talk page discussion started by Flyer22 Frozen. That page's history was later split and now lives at Legality of bestiality by country or territory (version 2), and that's the big reason why Xtools will get this wrong.

  In the move discussion that I mentioned, AHC300 wrote this: "Oppose Because there are various zoophile rights organizations thoughtout the world and various legal cases in places like Canada and Germany that upheld legal zoophilia. There are organizations in the 20th and 21st century that have been documented to be zoophile rights organizations. The oldest documented zoophile group I could find is the "Students of Objectivism for Rational Bestiality". It's not Misplaced Pages's job to declare what is and isn't a right. I try to be as neutral as possible on these issues. Some libertarians, Objectivists, anarcho-captialists, liberals, etc. would either argue that animal abuse laws already cover harm to animals and sexual activities between animals and humans should be allowed. The issue of zoophile rights are evolving and maybe in a few decades they will be viewed as another part of civil rights movement." That last sentence is an awfully bold (and maybe offensive) prediction, but otherwise I basically agree with the statement. Flyer inaccurately equated zoophilia (a medically recognized paraphilia with notable advocacy and support groups) with bestiality (human sexual activity with animals, illegal in most places) and AHC300 was not the only editor who pointed out the distinction in that discussion. I do agree with that page's deletion: it was synthesizing conclusions from unrelated sources, and also probably not a notable separate topic, but I don't agree that its creation is evidence of promotion of a POV by AHC300 or Female bodybuilder enthusiast, if they are the same person. I also don't agree with your assumption that these moves imply that "the user believes 'bestiality' is a 'zoophile right'", as you said; in fact they were arguing against that position. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 12:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: You might be aware of this, so please excuse me if the following is not useful: the term "zoophilia" is actually a dog whistle used by people actually engaging in bestiality (i.e. actually having sex with animals) to encourage support for their cause and to advocate for the legalization of bestiality. In Germany, for instance members of the Zoophiles Engagement for Toleranz und Aufklärung, a self-proclaimed "zoophile" organisation, is in fact made up of people advertising on social media their romantic and sexual relationships with their domestic animals. I'm always willing to AGF, but we should be skeptical of people making conceptual distinctions between bestiality and zoophilia: in a lot of cases, it's just a way to move bestiality in the mainstream by arguing (or suggesting) that there is nothing wrong with zoophilia. JBchrch talk 13:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  Some1, you aren't an admin, for obvious reasons it's probably not worth arguing with an admin over the history of deleted pages.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  That is true; if I could see the revision history, then I can bring up diffs showing the user's disruptive editing in that topic area. Legality of bestiality in the United States is the article that I was thinking about, where it was created by Female bodybuilder enthusiast socks and was mainly edited by those socks. Admin JBW deleted that back in January when AHC300 was blocked for socking, stating: (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user... in violation of ban or block. (Despite the long time for which the article has existed, no substantial content appears ever to have been added by anyone other than the creator, using various sockpuppets. Other edits have all been minor or reverted, or both). Ivanvector said: AHC300 or Female bodybuilder enthusiast, if they are the same person I already included diffs in my !vote comment below where they confirmed that they (Female bodybuilder enthusiast and AHC300) are the same person: . It's even visible right now on their talk page, third unblock box: I am User:AHC300. AHC300 also made this edit to Zoophilia in the "Arguments for bestiality section" , would you have kept or reverted it and why? Some1 (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you, Some1, in fact I did miss that admission. That changes my opinion entirely, see below. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 20:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• I am not going to support or oppose, but Female bodybuilder enthusiast should at least be:
  1. Restricted to only one account, since they had a sleeper account Fbbfan at the same time as the Female bodybuilder enthusiast account for whatever reasons, then engaged in sockpuppetry as CentrumZero, Snowden supporter, 61-1099lm, Chiseled abs cutter, GayTenn, Dawkinsfan44 (there's probably more); User:AHC300 was their latest sock that was blocked in January (they confirmed it here and here), and they had the GregThomas93 and Lupertazzi342 accounts at the same time as that AHC300 account.
  2. Topic-banned from zoophilia (or all animal-related articles, as another editor above suggested), broadly construed. Some1 (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock w/ TBANFrom Zoophilia, User is ready. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I see a one account and no logged out edits as a given, but I need to be clear. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• if this user is unblocked - something I won't vote on, but about which I'm skeptical - they need to be aware that there won't be a lot of tolerance for disruption in some other non-zoophilia topic. If disruption begins in some other area, it will be nipped in the bud with an indef block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock w/one-account restriction, TBAN from zoophilia (broadly construed). I'm supporting the tban because they've been a bit WP:BATTLEGROUND in this area before, and a tban gives the highest possibility of success going forward. Much as I personally dislike that subject area, I'd be willing to vote in favour of lifting the tban at some point in the future, when this user has a substantial history of constructive contributions and no significant disruption. --Yamla (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• Weak support unblock w/one-account restriction, TBAN from zoophilia Yamla has convinced me to support this request tentatively, though I was originally on the fence. Both of those restrictions are a deal breaker for me. There should be a very low tolerance to disruptive behavior. HighInBC 00:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, convert to site ban - by their own admission, this user used sock accounts to evade a block for nearly a decade, and they're only agreeing to abide by the rules now because they were caught. Six months is the bare minimum for the standard offer; this user ought to sit out for a lot longer. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 20:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• I'd like to ask the user, if they are unblocked, how do they plan to contribute to Misplaced Pages (in non-zoophilia-related areas)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

She said in the UTRS ticket, but did not carry it over to her talk page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose I'll be the jerk that says it: Why are we ok with someone who blatantly used a number of socks for over 10 years to avoid a block to come back, all because they said "Oh you caught me!" Add to that their editing history, and I don't see a reason they should be allowed to edit. Just because this is the encyclopedia anyone CAN edit, doesn't mean it is the encyclopedia anyone SHOULD edit. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for now at least. If he does get reinstated, he should be permanently banned from any animal-related articles. —-Delderd (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock per RickinBaltimore. People with a very long record of misconduct are not credible when they promise to stop misbehaving. Sandstein 21:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Rickinbaltimore and Ivanvector. I am not convinced that this is "I'm sorry I behaved badly" so much as "I'm sorry I got caught." ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• As the blocking administrator who was pinged here, I have no strong feelings either way. Frankly, I don't even remember this block since it was made eight years ago. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• To those who are opposing I want to say I 100% understand where you are coming from. I am supporting the unblock because of the time that has passed and the knowledge that they can be reblocked with very little effort should they further disrupt the community. HighInBC 23:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

  The "time that has passed" is about six months, versus about eight years before that during which they knowingly and deceptively evaded their block. Ivanvector's squirrel (/_nuts) 14:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  We have no policy dictating a duration extension to the six-month standard offer for long-term sockpuppetry, and this isn't the venue to discuss policy changes. It is what it is, the user meets the requirement. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  To be fair the standard offer is not a policy, rather a very informal tradition. People can use whatever standard they want when considering it. HighInBC 23:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support with topic ban as proposed. The editor is willing to be a constructive contributor. Re-blocking is trivial to do if the need arises. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support with topic ban as per the above. Obviously there will be eyes on the editor, so they will be well-motivated to be positive and productive. If that does not happen, a reblock would be fairly automatic. BD2412 T 04:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment As I have given my opinion of what should be done with this request, I will not close, however this was archived due to inactivity. Can an admin that has not commented on this please review and make the call as to what to do with this request? RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Looks no consensus to me, but I opined. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

My page creation attempts are blocked against a title எண்ணியம்

The title I created is general, not pointing to any person. It is a topic on materialism. Materialism is a philosophy. Promote free thinking and freedom of expression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvvisweswraran (talk • contribs) 14:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

This is the English Misplaced Pages. Give it an English title. And try creating the page in your sandbox or in draft space first. Main space page creation attempts such as yours look like vandalism. Create it in a safer space and preferably submit it for review via WP:AFC. Be aware that if you are trying to "promote" anything, your article will be deleted anyway. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hvvisweswraran: Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. We do not promote anything. And Misplaced Pages is not a place to freely express oneself. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It's possible the editor is describing what they think materialism is rather than saying they want to promote that philosophy? We do already have an article at Materialism. —valereee (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I see no deleted contribs from this editor and do not find a deleted page by that title. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

If your query relates to an edit on the Tamil Misplaced Pages then you need to ask there. This is the English Misplaced Pages, which has no more power over other language editions than they do over us. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

International Judo Federation

Not sure what's going on here, but an IP has added this International Judo Federation#Controversies. The full Controversies section belongs to it. The question is if this material is worthy of an encyclopedia? Please read everything! I am not going to remove anything because I don't know what action I should take. I feel this should not be on Misplaced Pages. Regards, Karel .karellian-24 (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@.karellian-24: The IP is clearly on a mission but the issue needs to be discussed at Talk:International Judo Federation. It looks like the "Controversies" section was inserted a long time ago and a January 2018 edit removed it, with the IP reverting that removal on 24 July 2021. You might get assistance from a noticeboard such as WP:NPOVN. WP:DUE and WP:COATRACK apply. Try WP:RSN for assistance with whether ref 5 supports the "controversies" idea (it doesn't—the addition is original research). Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I'm wondering if it's also time to block this range, and this IP. I suppose the semi-protection keeps that stuff out of the article, but they are being plenty disruptive and argumentative. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

There is more analysis and commentary now on Talk:International Judo Federation. I'm leaning more and more towards a block. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: I blocked 2603:7000:2143:8500:0:0:0:0/64 but did not find sufficient reason to block the other IP despite their similarity. I left them a warning. Johnuniq (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Genetic history of Africa

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

Does this "article" qualify for WP:G6? There's Draft:Genetic History of Africa which should be moved there, and it is clear that that is only an "article" because it is a title that should be blue but we didn't have one article where it could be redirected to. Also, the links on it are also outgoing links from the draft (or should be). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Help needed with work on a local file pointing to commons

• I am an admin. See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_history_merge#New requests. I obeyed step 1. I then tried to obey step 2, but I could not find the newly-deleted edits of the local file File:Bermuda Regiment Corporal's Mess 1992.png (rather than the commons file that it points to). What has happened? I seem to have run foul of some automatic mechanism that redirects from local graphics-link files to commons graphics files. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The instructions are:-

• Anthony Appleyard, that's interesting. On file pages you should be able to add redirect=no like this, I'm not sure if that would have solved your problem. Fastily, I see you copied File:Bermuda Regiment Corporal's Mess.jpg to Commons. As the original uncorrected file is in the history of c:File:Bermuda Regiment Corporal's Mess 1992.jpg I think we have everything now? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  • • @Alexis Jazz: Thanks, it works. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  Anthony Appleyard, I created this user script to automatically get around Commons redirects: User:Alexis Jazz/RedirectCommonsRedirects. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Ren Keyu article assistance

I need help, the button to review for uploading and publishing are gone and IDK why. https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Ren_Keyu talk

Please see Template:AfC submission/submit. Cullen Let's discuss it 22:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Possible SPA?

Hi, I was taking a look at the contributions for Chimichangazzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and have noticed that it is possibly a single-purpose account. I am not assuming bad faith, but almost every one of their edits have been reverted, a lot of their edits have been WP:POINTY and they may be not here to bulid an encyclopedia. I am not involved in a dispute with this editor or anything like this, and while they are not vandalizing pages or have posted anything for a week or so, I think there is a possibility that this account may be a disruption-only account. If that is the case, then it is possible that it gets blocked indefinitely.

It is possible that they are still relatively new and are not well-versed in Misplaced Pages's core policies, but I think it is worth taking a look. Aasim (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

A bit stale and I indeed noticed apparent WP:RGW/WP:NOTHERE behavior. They had one block for it, then resumed but stopped just short of being blocked again. Maybe can be left a last chance... —PaleoNeonate – 16:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I just reverted an egregiously defective addition with the edit summary "Reverted good faith edits by Chimichangazzz (talk): Unreliable sources and contrary to editorial instructions. Even with RS, you MUST get a consensus for such an addition. Use the talk page.". AllSides and Townhall are not RS. -- Valjean (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

They are back and at the same same old behavior. Numerous attempts at discussion have failed. The temporary block has failed as they only edit every few weeks. I have blocked the account indefinitely with the reason: Disruptive editing, edit warring and POV pushing, refusing to accept consensus against edits. Seems to be a politically motived single purpose account.

I would have considered a DS topic ban from American politics, however this is the only area that they edit.

If another admin can get be confident that they are going to work better within the community they may unblock without further discussion with me. HighInBC 01:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Considering a complete disregard for consensus, apparent NOTHERE concerns and the renewed edit warring, this was probably the best option. If it was a technical issue, the last block would theoretically have catched their attention... —PaleoNeonate – 16:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Zeke Essiestudy ban appeal

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

Ezekiel53746 (talk · contribs) is appealing their three strikes community ban, seeking permission to continue editing from their most recent (and most productive) account: Zeke_Essiestudy (talk · contribs). The text of the appeal is copied here by request:

Zeke's global lock was already successfully appealed per this 2019 request, and the checkuser tool shows no evidence of any recent sockpuppetry. Zeke has provided details of their previous accounts on their talk page.

Also, the 2018 confession referred to above can be found here, and is worth reading as part of this appeal. – bradv 13:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Unblock - Despite the fact that they were (to be perfectly blunt) an inordinate pest between 2009-2014; the 2018 statement and unblock request demonstrate a maturity, insight, and reflection which is pretty unique. I'd support an unblock of whichever account they'd prefer (with an obvious single-account restriction) and I wish them the best of luck. As a sidenote, it's pretty amazing what happens once the frontal lobes develop a bit... and if nothing else; re-blocks are cheap. --Jack Frost (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Unblock, as a large amount of time has passed and this user appears to have matured. If this isn't enough of a wait to appeal, I don't know what is.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Note that I support allowing whichever account Zeke wants to be unblocked to be unblocked, with a one account restriction. Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose We don't need a person who "cause a lot of disruption" for 6 years, then switches to a new account and then creates an impression "look I fooled all of you now stop blocking me". Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Ping TonyBallioni since he made the block. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a rather harsh way to describe a confession. – bradv 17:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

He does seem to have grown up — literally, if his statements about his initial age are to be believed. DS (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• This is a case of an editor who could have continued to get away with socking had they chosen to do so. And then when they got blocked post their confession, CU indicates they didn't then take up socking again, as would likely have been a strong incentive (after all, they managed to get away with it before). Their confession is, emotionally-speaking, all over the place. But smugness is not one of the things I get from it. The initial confession coupled with the expanded text (see talk page) below their appeal instead screams to me that they want the relief of being not having to hide anything. I struggle to see how a continuation could reasonably be construed as preventative, not punitive, and support unblock Nosebagbear (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock The disruption was all a long time ago when they were apparently a child, and enough time has passed to give them another chance. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Second Chance (similar to what I was given when I was unbanned). Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock Unless someone provides a link to truly egregious behavior I think we can forget about some disruptive editing from 2011 and sock puppetry that has ostensibly ended in 2018. This would be with the understanding of a single account, no logged out editing, and a low tolerance for further disruption. HighInBC 23:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  Note that this user has been a prolific sockpuppeteer in the past, not just some disruption, but I still think it's far enough in the past to unblock. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pickbothmanlol/Archive#Report_date_March_20_2009,_06:28_(UTC)Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support unblock Unblocks are cheap and can be easily reimposed. Paul August ☎ 00:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Nosebagbear. It's been long enough and they seem to want to contribute productively. Worth a shot. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support - our younger editors do mature over time. Unblock with a single account restriction is a reasonable proposition. Plenty of banhammers about should they be needed. Mjroots (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• I'll go ahead and unblock (the Zeke Essiestudy account). Drmies (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for administrator attention for article Aliza Kelly

I'm nominating the request for deletion page for the article Aliza Kelly for Administration attention WP:RAA and/or a conduct dispute WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE based on the grounds of Civility WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. Users nearlyevil665 and User:Phil_Bridger may not be acting in good faith or objectivity due to WP:IDL; discourse and behavior may be steered by their personal bias--which would require a neutral third party in this discussion to ever reach consensus. Attempts for mediation and/or a conduct dispute are to try to reach a consensus vote to avoid WP:Harrassment and Wikihounding for all parties involved in this discussion. Heycambry (talk)

Please note that Heycambry is paid by Aliza Kelly to edit Misplaced Pages. A review of WP:Articles for deletion/Aliza Kelly shows numerous single-purpose accounts have participated in the discussion. IMO, it is not outside the scope of reasonability that the two named users were baited into incivility by the barrage of SPAs. —C.Fred (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I can certainly only speak for myself but I'm confident that a quick review of the AfD will show that I have kept my cool and never resorted to anything that could be even remotely construed WP:IDL. I even spent a considerable amount of time on a source assessment table (for 23 articles mind you) to provide more clarity into the nomination but that seemed to only add fire into an apparent barrage of SPAs. nearlyevil665 15:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Heycambry: The only thing Phil Bridger seems to have done is to leave a brief !vote to delete, then get mildly annoyed when someone made a false accusation. There seem to be a lot of replies from nearlyevil665 which is not necessarily a good sign but I didn't look at the comments. Especially since User:Magdalamar seems to be worse in terms of how much space they're taking in the AFD but for some reason you didn't bring them up. Nil Einne (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

BTW, Heycambry while you may technically comply with the TOU with the disclosure on your userpage, you really should disclosure here when you make a complaint that it relates to your paid edits. By bringing this here you're asking for the views of uninvolved parties who are likely to be unaware. Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Heycambry: Could you show specific diffs of Phil Bridger's and nearlyevil's behaviour that you'd consider uncivil? I've read all of their replies and they seemed fine. If anything, it's some of the other participants who seem to be uncivil, including casting aspersions about nearlyevil. Isabelle 16:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

As soon as I can go grab my phone to log in with my primary account, that AfD is going to get semi'd. _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I got your back. Took care of it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

This is outrageous. Heycambry is a paid editor engaged in an overt promotional campaign in support of an upcoming pseudoscience book written by an author of the type that Jimmy Wales famously called the lunatic charlatans. Where did all these new SPAs come from? It seems very likely that they were recruited by Heycambry, which is unacceptable behavior. Experienced editors need to check out this AfD. Cullen Let's discuss it 16:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe they were directly recruited by Heycambry in some way, maybe there's some kind of twit tweet to the effect of "look at Misplaced Pages trying to suppress The Truth(tm)!", maybe they're all the same person, maybe it really is just coincidence and a bunch of people just happened to discover this and just happened to create accounts. There are lots of possible explanations, and we'll probably never know which one it is. I will say this: Heycambry, I can't say for certain whether you are in any way related to all of these new accounts showing up at the AfD. If you are, however, it would be a violation of multiple rules and you should stop doing whatever is causing those editors to show up. In particular, asking people to show up to an AfD to vote in a particular direction is textbook meatpuppetry, a rule which applies to everyone. Further, if you (as a paid editor) asked someone to make edits on behalf of you to further your paid editing, that is evasion of scrutiny and undisclosed paid editing (since they are making edits on behalf of a paid editor without acknowledging the relationship). _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

changes to Oversight team

In accordance with the Committee's standing procedure on functionary inactivity, the Oversight permissions of ST47 (talk · contribs) are removed. The Committee extends its appreciation for ST47's service as an Oversighter.

Katie 19:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § changes to Oversight team

Spam from Edmunds (company)

• edmunds.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• Unathletic24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Bolivianpretzels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Jhester24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

So, User:Unathletic24 just copped to being a COI editor for Edmunds--their edits clearly show what's going on, and what their MO is: inserting some brief and trivial comment about trim levels or speakers in some car model, like in this edit. They made dozens. User:Mr.choppers, who had reverted a few of those earlier, found another user doing the same thing, and I blocked User talk:Bolivianpretzels simply for spamming. Now, they all use the same citation format (CU cannot confirm they're the same person), which might well be the citation produced by some Refbot, including this, "Ford Fiesta Prices, Reviews, and Pictures {{!}} Edmunds". A quick search revealed that this kind of thing is all over the place: check it out. I cannot help but think that there's dozen of editors/accounts inserting the same shit in up to a hundred of car articles.

These are not valid citations. Edmunds is not an acceptable secondary source, and even if it could verify some wheel size or shiny ornament, the citations are just totally spammy. I bring this here as a kind of "for the record", and "for your attention", and because I'm a bit saddened. I guess there's no automated way to get rid of these links, but I do believe we should get rid of them. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

In the interest of fairness, the "(car) prices, reviews, and pictures" format is probably just the title of the page they're linking to, autofilled by the doohickey where you plug in a link and it fills out as much of {{cite web}} as it can from the cited page's metadata. I've added a LinkSummary above and queued a COIBot run to see who's adding it - I'm not familiar with Edmunds, so it could well be that a lot of good-faith editors are adding it. If there's a few accounts pushing it, well, we know how to deal with that. And if it's almost exclusively being added by spammers, that's what the spam blacklist is for. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

COIBot didn't really want to give me a report (no surprise, it's got 10k+ additions tracked among the various wikis), so I threw a quick database dump here of who's added edmunds.com more than 20 times. I think this confirms our suspicions - Cluebot NG is behind everything! Really, though, it's not the best metric - reverting someone blanking a page that contained an edmunds link, for example, would count as an "addition" here. Also, these stats are crosswiki, because it's late here and I can't remember how to narrow this search by language. Anyway, we've got a couple spammers in here, but I think the overwhelming majority of additions are good-faith (or at least as good-faith as things get in the world of cars on Misplaced Pages). I will add that I'm dead certain Jhester24 (added above) and Unathletic24 are the same person, but no overlap in edits, so no sockpuppetry here. I do not believe either of them is the same person as Bolivianpretzels. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks--I appreciate it. User:Daniel.Cardenas, you warned Jhester24 earlier; that account has gone dormant but I'll block it as a spam-only account anyway. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Appealing topic ban for Akakakalal

This new user continue distribute edit on this page Anjana Chaudhari , Vandalism edit ],],] Same many times edit on this page. Please action this Vandalism user. Hind ji (talk) 05:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

That's not vandalism, that's a content dispute where you are both edit warring. I can not verify the claim you support, that they are Jat, but I can verify their claim, that they are Kurmi (the Anjana Patel are the same as the Anjana Chaudhary, it seems). That doesn't mean that they are % right and you are wrong, but it does mean that they aren't vandalizing. Fram (talk) 07:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

And you must notify the other editor of this discussion, as indicated in the large coloured box at the top here. Fram (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

In general, I think you (Hind ji) needs to slow down and learn how to edit here instead of rushing forward with many problematic edits. Your user talk page has quite a few warnings already, your articles or redirects get deleted, and in the past days I have nominated Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Keken clan and I have just had to undo a copy paste move from the correct Kalbi to the unsupported Kalbi Samaj. And then there's Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Hind ji from today. You just seem to be trying all kinds of stuff, never mind if it is appropriate or correct, to get your way, and treat opposing edits as vandalism, even when they definitely aren't vandalism and many of your edits seem incorrect. Fram (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I question how the heading "Appealing topic ban for Akakakalal" is relevant to the issue that concerns an ongoing edit war. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess they are requesting a topic ban, but English isn't their first language. Fram (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be better suited for ANI then? ( And it probably could use a change of heading)Jackattack1597 (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps. What this most needs is some admin or other editor with a decent knowledge of Indian society structure to take a look at the article, and to talk to both editors about edit warring, vandalism, tagging, sourcing, ... Hind ji tagging the article as a BLP after the start of this discussion isn't very promising, but perhaps a firm though patient helping hand may turn them into a productive, collaborative editor before it's too late. Fram (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Please close this requested move

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

• Talk:Maryse Ouellet#Requested move 5 July 2021

I relisted it on 21 July but nobody joined the discussion. So please summarize and close it. Wario-Man 07:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Closed by Jack Frost. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Blacknclick Paid work

User:Blacknclick has recently created a paid article, Rocket Science (production company) without disclosing that they are getting paid. Job was posted on Upwork.

Upwork Job Link: Wiki Page Creation - Rocket Science

Please review all of their work and let them know this is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. Thanks. 86.140.156.94 (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, review User:Mydreamsparrow who reviewed this article immediately. Seems a WP:MEATPUPPET case. 82.23.80.67 (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Both accounts indeffed as socks, see here. Giraffer 09:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Delete without AFD

I created an article named Monthly Al Kawsar. It was deleted without any AFD discussion.I think, It was wrong. Please review this. - Owais 14:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, there are a few legitimate reasons for deletion on sight, known as criteria for speedy deletion. This page was deleted as spam, which is one of these criteria (G11). 93.172.226.66 (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

yes, I know. But it was not a spam. I created 180 articles on bn wiki and 16 on en. - Owais 15:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The first place for you to ask would be of the deleting administrator, at User talk:Materialscientist. — xaosflux 15:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I have undeleted the article so that another admin would have a look. Maybe not G11, but A7 (notability) would be a better reason. Materialscientist (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

#WPWP #WPWPARK

There's a whole bunch of editors--well, there was--adding images with this hashtag, which is a context run on Meta, I think, for monetary prizes. Rschen7754, you know more about this then I do. So I was watching a couple of editor with very similar names making edits with the same edit summary, and my curiosity was peeked. To cut a long story short, there were dozens of accounts from the same IPs (and IP ranges), many with similar user names. On top of that, the many talk pages I saw were loaded with comments and questions by other editors (I know Ashleyyoursmile) blocked one of those accounts, can't remember which), indicating just how problematic a number of those edits were; for some editors, all had been reverted. Very few of the editors whose edits were problematic responded; most of the accounts were simply abandoned.

So I don't know exactly what is going on, nor am I convinced that all the accounts I blocked are the same person. But I do know that these really unexplained, not always carefully vetted, and bot-like edits are disruptive, that there are at least a few fishy editors at play, and that the narrow ranges that I investigated were just absolutely suspicious. Oh, I'll note also that there may be, or may have been, two or three SPIs filed and/or socking suspicions uttered. Usually those also are responded to by the editor simply ceasing all activity--another telling quality. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards