Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:57, 22 May 2008 view sourceFilll (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers34,790 edits →Admins, pseudoscience etc - attempt to refocus (second break): r← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:12, 17 January 2025 view source Buffs (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,494 edits →Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request: oppose 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
<noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}<!--
<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config

|algo = old(7d)
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|counter = 368
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|maxarchivesize = 700K
|counter = 146
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|algo = old(48h)
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
|minthreadsleft = 0
}}<!--
}}{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude><!--S

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
-->{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}<!--
|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive
|format=%%i
|age=48
|index=no
|numberstart=255
|minkeepthreads= 4
|maxarchsize= 700000
}}
--><!--


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


-->__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!-- --><noinclude>


==Open tasks==
-->*'''If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message ] instead.'''
<noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}}
{{Administrators' noticeboard archives}}
{{Clear}}
{{Admin tasks}}
__TOC__
</noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove-->


== Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request ==
== "Honest Reporting" alert, criticising WP anti-wikilobby action ==


The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}:
Thought people might want to know that the aggressive media-response alert site '']'' has issued what it calls a communiqué, on the subject of WP's recent ]:
{{tqb|I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: ] and ] (note that the two other accounts –- ] and ] -- at ] was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me.
:''''
Given that the site claims 140,000 subscribers, a quick factual setting straight of the record on the piece's might be in order. Some of their readers do seem to take account of at least the first handful of comments there. ] (]) 14:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (], ], ]) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at ]). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see ]). I have created over 900 pages (see ]), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance ], ], ], ] or the event ] that is barely mentioned at the English ]. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see ] and ].
:The so-called "Honest Reporting" site appears to have some difficulty in understanding the difference between "subject" and "author". ] (]) 14:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


However, as I have learned from it, I will never use multiple accounts anymore and adding controversial content without doing a proper fact-check. I will always listen to users, be constructive and be friendly. I will make sure you will not regret giving me my account back. I would like to work under the account ].}}
::Sometimes you can ], and sometimes you can not, if you want WP to have any integrity. ] (]) 17:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support unbanning and unblocking''' per ]. ] (]/]) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
* Quoting my SPI comment ]: {{tq2|I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of ''block'' evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as ] of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-] unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is ''banned'', and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like ].) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here.&nbsp;... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an ] unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.}}That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at ], which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ] violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per above.] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Endorse one account proviso. ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: ]. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would '''Support''' with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of ]. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they ''seem'' to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. ] (]) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. ] (]) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' User seems to have recognized what he <!-- before someone complains about my use of the gender-neutral he, this user is male per what they've configured settings to be --> did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. ''']]''' 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>'''Weak Support''', the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. ] (]) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</s>
:*'''Oppose''', I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. ] (]) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. Completely support an unblock; see my comment ] when his IP was blocked in April. ] (]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see ''clear'' evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like may well be on notable competitions, but with content like {{tq|On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.}}, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. ] (]) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
* Currently '''oppose'''; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. ] (]) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{yo|Ahri Boy }} Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. ] (]) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*::He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. ] (]) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "]"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. ] (]) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. ] (]) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::See . ] (]) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. &spades;]&spades; ] 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). ] (]) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. ] (]) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:: I think saying that {{tq|I will never use multiple accounts anymore}} and that he wants to {{tq|make constructive content}} would indicate that {{tq|the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.}} ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. ] (]) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... ] (]) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:: And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}. ] (]) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to ]. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''] ]'''</span> 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. ] (]) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Fram and PMC. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Question''': Is SvG the same person as {{U|Slowking4}}? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by ]. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">]</span> (]) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
**No. ] (]) 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' basically per ], particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get ] without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). ] (]) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since ] was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.<br />'''Support'''. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --] (]) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Conditional support unblock''' (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use ] for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. ]] (]) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I can't repeat what Beaniefan11 say enough: "Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}." This should assuage any doubt in the mind of the reviewing administrator. ] (]) 15:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Claims of "It's been seven years!" fall on deaf ears when you find out he's been socking all along and as recently as a year ago. Fram and PMC have good points as well. Show some restraint and understanding of your block and ] is yours. ] (]) 23:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


== Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft ==
:::The cynic in me makes me wonder whether calling a website "Honest Reporting" is akin to a state calling itself a "]"... -- ] (]) 19:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


I have not come across a situation like ] before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it.
:::The point of Honest reporting is to *expose dishonesty* in the media. Misplaced Pages's editors are not maintaining objectivity. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


It is a draft article about a film that can not have an article, per ]. I think the idea is that there is some valuable content there and it would be a shame to delete it when it seems likely that the film will enter final animation and voice recording in the next year or so.
:: Amazing how reliably words like "honest", "truth" and "fairness" have the opposite of the usual meaning when used by zealots. Anti-Israeli bias my arse. I was reading the paper while waiting for a taxi the other day, there was a lengthy article by a ] discussing this kind of crap, . '''"The former editor of Israel's leading newspaper, Ha'aretz, David Landau, calls the behaviour of these groups "nascent McCarthyism". Those responsible hold extreme positions of their own that place them way to the right of most Israelis."''' Anything other than uncritical adulation is unacceptable to these people, and we should wear their anger as a badge of pride, a sure sign that we are doing something right. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


The problem is that it is attracting the sort of speculative edits from IPs that we want to avoid. Both on the draft and the talk page.
::: You can check what Honest Reporting has to say about Hari's reponse: (). Because this is a matter of strong opinions, even the moderators should check their own. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


I became aware of this because there is a request at ] to EC-protect the talk page. But it makes me think we should have some kind of protection for the draft too. But I can see arguments for weaker than ECP (speculation is just by IPs) and for stronger... like... why are people editing it anyway? Maybe there are reasons I am not aware of.
:::: I have no interest in what "Honest" Reporting have to say. It is wingnut drivel of the worst kind. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
::excellent point, one does not have to read something to have an opinion about it. yes, i understand your npov. quite revealing] (]) 05:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


Is anyone more familiar with how we got here? Anyone got any arguments for or against applying semi, EC or full protection to the draft and its talk page?
::: More coverage here from the ''Jewish Week News'': -- ] (]) 23:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
:::And ] in the ] . His conclusion: <blockquote>But the Misplaced Pages affair is a hint at the psychology of CAMERA's advocacy. It aims at defending the story it already knows by presenting only what is necessary to bolster that narrative. CAMERA's story is an un-nuanced, hard line version of Mideast history in which Israel can do no wrong. It's a narrative that disturbs many thinking supporters of Israel. When CAMERA fights for "accuracy," what it really wants is for the media -- or Misplaced Pages -- to promote that narrative. In defense of such "fair and factual reporting," it might even recruit some volunteers to misrepresent themselves in the Misplaced Pages wars. Let the reader beware. </blockquote>
:::It appears Gorenberg did some independent investigation of his own, as well, attempting to speak to CAMERA in Boston. There are some very apposite remarks about conflicting narratives, consensus and speaking in Misplaced Pages's voice as well. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 14:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
===Dr. Oboler and "Zionism on the Web"===


<small>'''Edit:'''</small> Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet ]?
I see that Dr. Oboler (cited in the HonestReporting link above) has also written on this subject in the '']'''s online edition (), and his own Zionism on the Web project (). I suspect his assertion (in the JP article) that "Electronic Intifada is ringing alarm bells, probably because those getting involved are Jews and supporters of Israel" will be met with less than universal approval.


] (]) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
The latter article is particularly interesting for its efforts to determine the real-life identity of ]. I'm using the term "interesting" because there's currently a Misplaced Pages editor named ] who openly identifies Andre Oboler (), and is actively participating in debates on this subject. I was under the impression that "outing" rival editors is something that we're not supposed to do.
:As far as I'm aware, articles on films are allowed so long as principal photography has occurred (principal animation in this case, I guess?). That has clearly happened for this film, even if they are having to scrap and re-write things. And notability is certainly not in question, so having an article is fully within the policy rules. If there are harmful edits happening, then semi-protection seems like a normal response. ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::People say that on the draft's talk page every so often and get rebuffed. Maybe you can be more persuasive, but the general argument is the existing animation was created for "Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse" before it was split into two films and no "final animation" has begun on this film. ] (]) 01:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Are they basing that claim on any reliable source as evidence? Since what exists in that draft currently with reliable sources clearly indicates work has started. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Hi. I'm the editor who has requested the protection for this draft. Per ], final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace. Final animation is different from standard reels being produced, which as sourced, is currently what this film has produced while no voice recording has occurred. It seems to still be very early in development, and much of the earlier work when this was the second part was reportedly scrapped (as sourced in the draft). I do not believe the mainspace viability ought to be discussed here as that is more for the draft. As for the protection request, it appears to be the same person making these disruptive comments which have become unnecessarily excessive and are detracting from the content of the draft itself. I requested protection (initially as ECP though semi works for the talk) because these comments have not benefitted any actual constructive progress and have largely ranged from the IPs attempting to enforce their own opinions about the delays and trying to remove sources they don't like, which has been ongoing since the end of October. As a draft, not many other editors are editing this, so it becomes quite unrelenting and tiresome to deal with these repeated disruptions. Glad to see this has garnered more attention. ] (]) 01:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tqq|Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace}} ...I'm ''pretty sure'' that BtSV meets ] already, regardless of the state of production, and ''that'' should be the main factor. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I have no problem with the draft being moved, this is just not the normal route to do so and typically NFF is followed for film articles, but I digress. I do caution that this article {{em|could}} be susceptible to further unconstructive comments in the mainspace, but that is a price I'm willing to handle. I can make the move as needed, no worries, I am primarily concerned about these type of comments continuing and if any protection is necessary to prevent or temporarily postpone them from continuing. ] (]) 05:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:There doesn't appear to be enough disruption to the draft page to justify protection at this point. Draft talk definitely should get semi-protection. ] (]/]) 00:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::Really? That seems excessive for a few FOURMy IP comments (likely from the same person). If they continue with it, block the IP, maybe. Protecting talk pages should really be a last resort. ] (] &#124; ]) 00:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:Some people overly use NFF to block any film article that has not confirmed start to production, which is really a bad black/white approach. ''Most'' films prior to production are not notable or may not even happen when they are first hinted at, and thus it is absolutely appropriate to use NFF to hold back on a standalone until production starts. But then you have some exceptional cases like this (the 3rd of the animated Spider-Man movies that have earned a massive amount of money and praise, with a lot of attention already given to the film even before production) as well as my own experience with ] which deals with a film that has numerous delays and other incidents that its still nowhere close to production, but its journey that way is readily sourced. NFF should not be used to block creation of articles on films that have this much detail about the work that is otherwise suitable by notability guidelines. For this specific article on the Spider-man film, I see no reason why it could not be in main space at this point as to avoid the whole draft problem.<span id="Masem:1735450356365:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 05:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</span>
::Yeah, there is a point to be made that even if this final film somehow never finished production, it would still be notable because of the coverage of its attempted production history. There's several films (and video games, among other cultural apocrypha) that meet that notability requirement, even without ever actually having been completed and released to the public. ]]<sup>]</sup> 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Indeed, a number of aborted films projects are notable exactly ''because'' they wound up in ]. ] is a film about my personal favorite never-got-made film. ] ] 02:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


Noting here that Trailblazer101 moved the article from draft space to main space at 22:44, based on the discussion here and ]. I have not seen any objections to that move since it was done. I have not seen any more speculative or forumy edits recently. There is a good chance they will come back, but if they come back in a serious number the article and/or talk page can be given an appropriate level of protection at that point, or, if the responsible IPs/accounts can be blocked. I think it is probably time to close this discussion. ] (]) 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I also find it interesting that Dr. Oboler once had a habit of adding "Zionism on the Web" links to sites that he visited (, ). Given that Misplaced Pages's article about the site was deleted as non-notable (), some might be tempted to interpret this as spamming. Admittedly, these links were posted some time ago and there probably isn't anything that need be done about it now ... but it still strikes me as ironic under the circumstances. ] (]) 03:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
* A lot of links (see ). Is this the next candidate for ]? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC) :The IP has made three unconstructive and uncivil comments on the talk today (see , and they show no signs of stopping. ] (]) 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
** I'm not able to conduct the linksearch for some reason, but I think it may be a viable addition one way or the other. ] (]) 21:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC) ::I have blocked that IP. I note that it is possible that some of the other IPs could be the same users and so will block other IPs and/or apply semi-protection if this continues (or encourage others to do the same if I am away from my computer). ] (]) 11:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{tq|Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF?}} Using draftspace to incubate articles on subjects that are not yet notable but almost certainly will be—unreleased films, upcoming elections, sports events, the next in an "X by year" series, and so on—is a common practice and has been as long as I can remember. As such it's listed at ]. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 12:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:: I would welcome someone checking the links, they were mostly to copies of archived material related to academic boycotts in the UK. This particular set of materials is referenced in an academic paper by Prof Charles Small (Yale University) (note I renamed the subdirectory when the boycotts came back for the second time, but the old link still works - also that link is to google so you can see the paper reference, else you need to pay to get access to the full text). It is also listed as a reference by the Jewish Virtual Library who also acknowledge the use of copyrighted material (specifically photographs related to original research published at ZionismOnTheWeb) . Other links are to pages with relevent original research including photographs and audio recordings of the counter boycott event. I believe there is an explicit provision to link to your own original research. Given I am posting under my own name, and I include the name in the link when it is material I wrote (rather than material I repost under fair use, or with explicit permission which I usually seek and get), I would have thought that was enough evidence of good faith on my part. I can't speak for the good faith of those above however.
**Thank you. ] (]) 15:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:: If someone wishes to review whether Zionism On The Web is notable enough to be included (and wishes to write an article on it) that would also be welcome. I figured it was at the time and was told no, I think things have moved on a bit since then. Zionism On The Web has been given an award from the Jewish Agency, participated in the Global Forum to Combat Antisemitism (the premier event on the topic), you can see Zionism On The Web listed here... but ignore the rest of my profile (someone messed up at their end), and has been mentioned a number of times in the press. The report on Antisemitism 2.0 published by the JCPA is cites all over the place, Zionism On The Web is listed there as well.
:: while I do thank you for the interest, references talking about editors and linking that to their identity and activites outside Misplaced Pages could be considered outing. Even when the editor like myself makes that particularly easy. Just a thought. ] (]) 23:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Based on what is here, I'd say Zionism On The Web is notable enough for an article. I also think Oboler is making sincere efforts to be a productive wiki editor. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 23:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Regarding the first point, it may be worth noting that Zionism on the Web gets a grand total of ''zero'' hits on the Factiva search engine (the phrase "Zionism on the web" appears in one article, but in an unrelated context). This strikes me as a not insignificant point to consider when determining the site's notability.
::::Without commenting on anyone's behaviour, I might also note that several of Misplaced Pages's ZotW links were to simple reproductions of articles ''already available'' on other online sources, including the databanks of the ''Guardian'' and the Anti-Defamation League. While I'm certain these links increased ZotW's traffic rate, I have to wonder if they really added much value to our project. (Some other ZotW links were to original essays of (IMO) dubious encyclopedic merit. To be fair, there were also a few links to transcriptions of archival material ... but even these generally came with non-notable introductions and commentary.)
::::I almost wonder if this could be described as an instance of "spamming, in effect if not intent".
::::In any event, I have yet to see any evidence that materials printed on "Zionism on the Web" are inherently notable or encyclopedic, notwithstanding that the project may have received an occasional award, citation or invitation. If a more established source (like the Jewish Virtual Library) chooses to print their material, a link may be in order. Otherwise, I would say not.
::::Btw, (i) it's permitted to link to one's own original research, but only until strict conditions that do not appear to have been met in this instance, and (ii) it isn't "outing" if someone's identity is already a matter of public knowledge. Cheers, ] (]) 04:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
:The above actions, i.e. Dr. Oboler adding his website, seem to be trying to promote either the website, or its content or both. Thus, this may be a violation of ].] (]) 08:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
:: CJCurrie, If see my talk page you'll notice I started talking with Rlevse after he warned me off for providing the evidence of Bangpound's identity (in the ArbCom evidence page) after he had been outed in the press. By your definition this wasn't outing, but by Rlevse's it was. I don't know which of you is right but the explanations don't tally.
:: As to factiva, try searching for "andre oboler" and you will get two hits now (mentions my name and Zionism On The Web - misformatted though) and (article by me, Zionism On The Web not mentioned). There will soon be another one for this new article (which includes Zionism On The Web). Factiva seems to miss this which has my name but not Zionism On The Web and this which has both my name and Zionism On The Web, not to mention and (both news articles mentioning me and Zionism On the Web). All this said, the information regarding the Antisemitism Conference is in my opinion the most "notable", a quick look at the program and who the other speakers were will explain why.
:: I maintain that the links are to good quality references, much of which may not be available else where. If people want to redirect links to the newspapers archives (where such items are archived and still available, and where I did not link them directly), please feel free. The edits are an improvement to Misplaced Pages, and they are there since 2005. That they are accepted for years by the community might suggest something both about Zionism On The Web as a source for material on this topic (see my comments on this in my earlier post) and on the value of the information to Misplaced Pages. Then there are the links to original materials and these too have been maintained. This is looking more like a witch hunt on the admin board than anything else. ] (]) 12:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
:::My understanding is that these links are subject to our citation guidelines in ], which are more fully explicated in ]. In general, we would have to make an independent determination of the reliability of your website. Misplaced Pages welcomes those who announce their affiliations and open it up for discussion, but in future I would suggest you exercise some caution in adding your own site as a reference. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 13:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
:::: Relata, thank you for the clarifications. I haven't added link to my site in articles on Misplaced Pages in some years. As mentioned above the 2005 academic boycotts were a topic for which Zionism On The Web was the leading resource. I'd suggest we are now also a leading resource on Web 2.0 issues affecting the Jewish community, but as predicted here ], the best material is now published else where (academically or in the press) and then simply republished at the site. The discussion above has covered the issue of whether it is a notable enough site to have a listing (it currently doesn't have one), you've raised the issue of reliability. This was varified independently the Jewish Agency when they gave us an award, but I assume you mean independently by Misplaced Pages admins. If someone wants to go through the site that would be welcome.
:::: Some of the material is originally published in the main stream media (written by myself or quoting me), some is peer reviewed academic work and published originally else where. Some it could be argued is self published, I've looked at ] and in the case where it could be said to be self published, (e.g. excluding original source documents now out of copyright that I've reproduced), the material I believe meets the requirements of being from an expert who is published else where on the topic. Looking at ] it also says that "Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are welcomed", my site is reference by the history teacher site (itself referenced very positively in the NY Times - see their home page), it is also used as a reference at the Jewish Virtual Library which is itself run by an academic and is in many scholarly bibliographies. I've just edited the Jewish Virtual Library page to add references for this (the article said it needed references). Zionism On The Web is also referenced by Library at the University of Southampton .
:::: I hope this information is of help and that someone has the time to review it. ] (]) 19:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::Oboler: ''As mentioned above the 2005 academic boycotts were a topic for which Zionism On The Web was the leading resource.'' My response: That's not exactly right. I believe it would be more accurate to say that "Zionism of the Web" was used to convey the views of certain parties who were ''directly involved'' in the debates concerning a proposed academic boycott, most notably Dr. Oboler himself. It doesn't even come close to being a reliable source, though I see that this didn't prevent someone from referencing it several different Misplaced Pages pages related to the subject.
:::::I might add that being referenced in a handful of academic sources does not make one an "established expert", and that none of the sources you've provided constitute "scholarly bibliographies" in the way that the term is normally used. ] (]) 05:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Oboler: ''CJCurrie, If see my talk page you'll notice I started talking with Rlevse after he warned me off for providing the evidence of Bangpound's identity (in the ArbCom evidence page) after he had been outed in the press. By your definition this wasn't outing, but by Rlevse's it was. I don't know which of you is right but the explanations don't tally.'' My response: I believe the situation is a ''bit'' more complicated than that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Bangpound's identity revealed in the press by Andre Oboler? This strikes me as somehow relevant.
:::Concerning Factiva, you might be interested to know that "Andre Oboler" actually gets eight hits, albeit that two of these are simple reproductions of a previously listed article (and one other is a letter to the editor). I'm not certain the JP piece will be showing up, though, as Factiva (wisely) distinguishes between that paper's print and online editions ... just as it omits the "Comment is Free" section of the ''Guardian'''s website from its archives.
:::I could add that the mere fact of attending a notable conference does not make someone inherently notable.
:::In any event, while it's possible that "Andre Oboler" may deserve his own article page, "Zionism on the Web" clearly does not, and its non-notable commentaries should not be used as authoritative statements for subjects covered in Misplaced Pages. I don't doubt that you've kept a careful record of your press clippings, but the handful of references you've provided cannot possibly justify the staggering number of external links that were added to WP in the last few years. ] (]) 04:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:::: CJCurrie, you seem to have an axe to grind here. You also don't seem to have checked the information I provided above. The references to an academic library (The University of Southampton) is I believe EXACTLY what is meant by scholarly bibliographys (I say that as a scholar), you can argue about the other two but they are highly used resources on the topic designed for educational use - hence are peer reviewed by experts on the topic (in anycase these are additional to the university library listing). The Jerusalem Post does not publish things online that are not in the print edition - so give this new article a little time. The reason the other searches give things for my name but not Zionism On The Web is due to (a) a fault in one article (which inserts a huge space in the middle of the name), (b) because the Jewish Week (respected paper with a large circulation) isn't included in the database, and (c) because you need to search for the URL not the name (with spaces) if you want to catch the jpost articles - the address and not the name is used. These are technical short comings and ignoring them by running the wrong search then claiming there are no results is not helpful. As for the conference, I wasn't attending, I was speaking. That makes a huge difference given people speaking at this conference are (by definition) notable on the topic of antisemitism. You may want to ask an experts in the field to varify this. I spoke specifically on Zionism On The Web. I'm about to be interviewed by RAM FM (if anyone wants to listen online or is in the broadcast range)(... I have a feeling Factiva won't pick that up either - it is a quick tool, not a replacement for other research). All the best, ] (]) 06:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::::: Responses:
::::: (i) You may believe that the University of Southampton's list is "EXACTLY what is meant by scholarly bibliographys ", but you'd be mistaken. A bibliography is a list of books, articles, &c., usually published at the conclusion of a scholarly work. The University of Southampton page you've referenced is simply a list of websites that might be of use to scholars, and it doesn't even link to any particular articles. The fact that one (1) university has chosen to highlight ZotW in this manner (and I trust you would have informed me if there were any others) doesn't make ZotW a reliable source, nor does it provide much evidence of its notability.
::::: (ii) I'm afraid that "highly used/for educational use" isn't quite the same as "peer reviewed". Consider Misplaced Pages.
::::: (iii) Let me first respond to your specific comments regarding Factiva, and then make a more general remark. Specifics: a) I grant that "www.zionism ontheweb.com" gets one (1) hit on Factiva, but this isn't the strongest possible evidence of its notability, b) ''The Jewish Week'' is a credible community-based journal, but it doesn't have a particularly large circulation, and one (1) further article here isn't much evidence of notability either, c) it turns out that Factiva doesn't cover the ''Jerusalem Post'' any longer, a development that I suspect neither of us was aware of until now, d) a search for "zionismontheweb" at the Jerusalem Post's website yields two (2) hits, both of which are articles written by Andre Oboler; in each case, Zionism on the Web is simply mentioned in passing. These two articles may be evidence of ''your'' notability, but not of your site's. General: Quibbling over these specifics misses the point. I'm not at all surprised that ZotW has received a few scattered references in the press, but this doesn't mean very much (and I find it instructive that none of the articles are ''about'' Zionism on the Web). Truth be told, I'm surprised that ZotW hasn't received more coverage, given the absurd number of links Misplaced Pages has provided to the site in recent years.
::::: (iv) I took it for granted that you were speaking at the conference, and my previous comment stands. The conference may have been notable and may have featured many notable speakers, but that doesn't confer automatic notability on all presenters. Every academic conference I've been to has featured a diverse range of participants, but world-renowned to virtually unknown. Beyond which, (i) the fact that you spoke at this conference ''might'' be evidence of your own notability but it doesn't make you an "established expert" on anti-Semitism, (ii) I'm going to assume that you were invited as a representative of NGO Monitor, and not by virtue of the fact that you operate "Zionism on the Web". ] (]) 07:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


I think it makes sense to archive all threads in ]. They are all either forumy or else asking when the page can be moved to article space, which is no longer relevant since it is in article space. ] (]) 20:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::: (iv) I took it for granted that you were speaking at the conference, and my previous comment stands. The conference may have been notable and may have featured many notable speakers, but that doesn't confer automatic notability on all presenters. Every academic conference I've been to has featured a diverse range of participants, but world-renowned to virtually unknown. Beyond which, (i) the fact that you spoke at this conference ''might'' be evidence of your own notability but it doesn't make you an "established expert" on anti-Semitism, (ii) I'm going to assume that you were invited as a representative of NGO Monitor, and not by virtue of the fact that you operate "Zionism on the Web". ] (]) 07:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:I've updated the archive bot on that talk age to act on 1 month old threads. Should get rid of half of the ones on there when it runs next and the rest will follow soon enough. I've always thought 6 months was way too long of a default archive policy. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Yeah, I've always felt 90 days is sufficient for default archival purposes. If no one has contributed to a discussion in three months, it's a dead discussion. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== 43.249.196.179 (again) ==
:::::: CJCurrie, I'm trying to be helpful in pointing out mistakes, but you came into this discussion with a conclusion (see above) then have tried to refute any evidence to the contrary. I had a quick look at your talk pages and see that you have some history of being involved in related disputes. You also keep mis-stating the facts about my editing (something you did from the start), I have explained myself and if you wish to continue maintaining bad faith that is you business. I maintain that most (read practically all) of my addition of links to Zionism On The Web were limited to the 2005 period when the boycotts were news (and I assert again that my site was the leading archive of material on this). To update Misplaced Pages on these matters required links. As my purpose in this discussion is answering questions to establish facts, and as yours seems to be something else, further discussion between us is I think no longer productive except to point out where you are making mistaken assumptions. I do however resent the bad faith assumptions and the attempt (on conceeding certain points) to raise the bar.


See their previous thread here, ]. Continuing to disrupt and remove categories without explanation, decided to after restoring edits without any talk page discussion, and has now moved onto and by removing categories without said user's permission, calling my reversions 'vindicitive' and now considering me their personal 'nemesis' because they don't understand why they're being reverted. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 21:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::: One wrong assumption is the capacity in which I attended the conference. I was there during a couple of days of annual leave and I was there speaking about Zionism On The Web. You'll note that Prof. Gerald Steinberg was also present and officially representing and speaking on NGO Monitor (so I was clearly not doing this). This was not purely an academic conference, it was a diplomatic event... which explains why notability should be treated differently in this case. As to expertise in the area, please see the press articles already refered to and the peer reviewed publication at Please note the reference to Zionism On The Web in the text. Please also note the extensive review this item went through (with computer science, political science, and antisemitism experts). I was also introduced as CEO of Zionism On The Web (in addition to other positions I hold) in the radio interview earlier today , the actual interview can be heard here . As for what is notable etc, I think neither you nor I are the right people to determin where that bar sits. ] (]) 12:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:] is not familiar with some of the WP policies and guidelines especially ] and ]. Also, his obfuscated username is somewhat fustration and is not conducive to efficient editing. ] (]) 21:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:]: Editing user pages has no 'hard policy' prohibition, as this is a wiki. 'End of discussion', seriously? Also see ]. Then, ] is a container category, which clearly says it should only contain subcategories. Even I don't understand why they're being reverted. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::] seems to be unaware of many of the WP polices and guidelines. ] (]) 08:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I've been here nineteen years so obviously I do and I apologize if as mentioned I'm more aggressive about userspace being in control of the user themselves. That said I'm no longer engaging with you or any of your edits as you're now ] and trying to troll some kind of response out of me (and doing the same for Liz, who has the patience of a saint), which you won't get. Understand our guidelines or get blocked. If anyone uninvolved would like to close this, please do so. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Length of time on WP is not a measure of how familiar an editor is with policy and guidelines. Your previous comments show that you are unfamiliar with some of them, but to be fair, it is impossible to know all of them. There are a lot of editors that do not know a lot of the policies and guidelines. THere are content disputes and corrections and reverts happening all the time because of inexperienced editors.
::::I am not trolling. I just want WP to be much better than it currently is. ] (]) 19:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Adressing that final point, I have ] about ] to either remove the ] banner tag or give special sanction to empty user pages from that main category. ] (]) 21:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Category:Wikipedians is at a level of the hierarchy that there should be nothing in it, which is why it is a container category. The contents of it have been added by editors who do not understand how WP works and do not realise that it is a container category. You proposal is not needed. ] (]) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Comment''': ] was cited in ] (a sandbox used for drafting a larger edit needing discussion, where categories were copied along with the rest of the article's content). (] is mentioned explicitly in that guideline.) ] (]) 02:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::Whatever the case, user sandbox space is sacred and unless you have permission to edit there, you don't touch them, that's an unwritten rule. Mathglot certainly . That's the main issue here and if I was wrong on the cats so be it, but they should not be playing in sandboxes they shouldn't be in. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 02:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::: Just to clarify: I have no qualms about others making improvements to pages in my users space—which belong to the community and are not "mine"—as long as they are improvements. That said, IP's edits in my userspace look like vandalism to me. ] (]) 03:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::User namespace is not "sacred". And if there is an unwrittten rule then it is not a rule that needed to be adhered to. Also ]. To be a good editor it is important to be familiar with policis and guidelines. ] (]) 08:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:It was not a "gravedance". I was pointing out to you that other editors dont agree with you edits. ] (]) 09:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


I only just noticed this AN discussion, after placing ] at User talk:43.249.196.179 about vandalizing a Draft template in my user space. Their edits seem somehow to be related to categories, but near as I can guess from their edit summary ], they also had some inscrutable complaint about me using my userspace as "social media". Maybe interested parties here will understand what they are talking about, because I certainly don't. As of this point, I cannot tell if they are well-meaning, but highly misinformed and uncomprehending, or if they are simply trolling everyone. I suspect the latter, but am willing to be proved wrong, especially if enceforth they stick to ] and ], instead of ignoring advice given previously and ]. ] (]) 03:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::: Responses:
: Okay, now I am sure: see ] at my Talk page, quickly reverted by {{u|Remsense}} while I was in the process of reverting it. This is clearly intentional, malicious, vandalism, as well as retaliation. Therefore, I propose an '''indefinite block''' on {{user|43.249.196.179}} as it is a vandalism-only account. ] (]) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::: (i) What you define as "being helpful in pointing out mistakes" would be interpreted very differently by others. ] constrains me from elaborating on this point, but suffice it to say that I'm not convinced there's much point in carrying on this exchange either. If you seriously want to raise the calibre of discussion, I would request that you make an effort to engage with the concerns I've raised (as I've done for you).
::I haven't looked into this editor's edits but we don't indefinitely block IP editors as the IP account can easily be assigned to a different user. But they can receive longtime blocks on the order of months or years. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::: (ii) Please read my comments more carefully. I've written that Misplaced Pages has provided an absurd number of links to ZotW over the last few years (and I stand by this), but I'm not arguing that you were personally responsible for adding ''all'' of them. I'm not "mis-stating the facts about your editing"; I'm indicating that some editors, yourself included, have linked excessively to a site of dubious encyclopedic merit.
::You are looking at two different IP addresses. Getting things right is important. ] (]) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::: (iii) ZotW may have been "the leading archive of material" on the proposed academic boycott in terms of quantity, but not in terms of comprehensiveness or notability (I'm not aware that it received a single mainstream press reference at the time). Andre Oboler was an active participant in these debates, after all, and it's hardly surprising that his website would convey a particular viewpoint on the matter.
:::Honestly, whether that was a Joe Job or not, your behavior is indistinguishable from trolling & deserves a block. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::: (iv) I'll repeat that most of Misplaced Pages's links to ZotW regarding the proposed academic boycott were to non-notable essays, or reproductions of documents that were already available elsewhere. It's possible that you provided these links in good faith and without promotional intent, but the end result was still a situation that strongly resembles spamming.
::::::: (v) The conference agenda -- not the biography section, but the agenda -- identifies you as "Dr Andre Oboler: Legacy Heritage Fellow, NGO Monitor". You may have spoken about ZotW, but it doesn't seem that the conference organizers identified this as your most important project. I'll add again that your involvement in this conference doesn't make you inherently notable, nor does it grant you automatic "expert status" in discussions of anti-Semitism.
::::::: (vi) I'll end with a question: are you aware of any newspaper/journal articles, or academic sources, that discuss ZotW in any detail? ] (]) 07:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


== Incivility at ] ==
Attempts to remove all links to Zionism on the Web seem a bit too opportunistic and ideological for my taste - a bit more of the "making political hay" out of the CAMERA case, which no doubt will be milked for every ounce of propaganda and editorial value possible. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


@] and to a lesser extent @] have been bickering in the talk page for a while now, and the reply chains are so long that they go off my phone's screen. DEB in particular has been noticeably passive aggressive in their comments, such as at me, at AWF, and at ]. Is this actionable? ] (]) 01:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Your aversion to ideological editing is hereby noted. Regarding your specific concern, I've already noted that ZotW's reproductions of archival primary sources (mostly the works of early Labour Zionists) may serve a valid function ... though, unfortunately, they tend to come with non-notable introductions and/or dubious commentary. ] (]) 07:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


:This looks to me like it's covered by ]. ] ] 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:: CJCurrie, you contradict yourself in various posts - others can see themself. There has also be a conflation of the issue of links, the notability of Zionism On The Web (re: creating a page or not), and attempts to attack me as an editor suggests a personal agenda. I don't know you, but you seem to have painted me as a target. When one attack doesn't work you move to another. I don't knwo how one is supposed to deal with this, but given this is already on the admin page advise (from others) will be welcome.
:I have yet to dig through the very length discussions, but on the surface I can say that I'm glad to see it not turning into much of an edit war in the article itself, and remaining mostly on the talk page. Infact the only person who breached 2R's was someone you didn't mention, and interestingly was never warned, but I placed a soft warning on their talk page. As far as the specific diffs provided, I don't see anything in there which is all that problematic, unless you're deeply intrenched in the issue. I would proffer is that if someone says, in it's entirety {{tq|I am stating a fact.}} and you take offence to that, then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days. ]&thinsp;] 02:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:: To make one correction and answer your question above... In (v) you fail to note that it also mentioned Zionism On The Web (why the ommission on your part?). That my employer wants to be associated with things I do outside of work is a matter for them and I, not for public debate. Its bad enough to make a wrong assumption, but to then defend it when it is an assumption about my life and I am here clarifying the matter is absurd (vi) I am aware of the references cited above, as are you. I don't believe there is a requirement for discussion of ZotW "in detail". The requirement is a non trivial mention. If it was your way I can generate a huge list of material that would need removal... and Misplaced Pages would be the poorer for its loss. Where an article has a substantive discussion about Zionism On The Web (as did the conference and the radio interview), or introduces me in relation to Zionism On The Web in a discussion of issues that Zionism On The Web deals with... that would I believe qualify as non trivial. See the Jewish week items for an example of this as well as the Jewish Chronicle item. That Jerusalem Post publish me on these topics it another indication. As we are both in agreement about ending this discussion between ourselves, I wish you good day. ] (]) 14:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
::{{tq|"...then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days".}} You're probably right about that. ] (]) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:This seems entirely unnecessary. ] (]) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::Can you elaborate on which aspect of {{tq|this}} you are referring to that you believe is unnecessary? ]&thinsp;] 03:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @] hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. ] (]) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::It doesn't matter how much someone has been involved in a discussion. If there's misconduct that's not clearly going to get resolved on its own (which I'm not confident saying either way here), then it's a public service, even a responsibility, for an editor to report it. ] (]) 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@] you can see my initial assessment of the situation above. However, I will say uninvolved editors are welcome to bring valid concerns to ANI. It is often far more helpful when someone outside of the situation brings it up here as it ends up being far more neutral. I also would suggest that you might also be too involved right now and need to back away for a few days. The biggest reason is that I believe you read right past Animal lover's and my response which ''basically didn't find you doing anything wrong''. I suggest that a cooling off period might be good for you as well. Not because you're currently doing anything wrong (because that conversation would look quite different), but rather that you're likely too invested in this topic right now to see rationally and objectively. ]&thinsp;] 06:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It was not my intent to ignore those assessments, and I understand what you've said as far as uninvolved editors raising such issues (real or perceived). ] (]) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Also, as a note, this isn't ANI... - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Infact I don't know why such a simple infobox change discussion will resulted in endless arguments. And it happened in mutiple pages, like this ], this ], and now this Azerbaijan Airlines crash case there. And I'm afraid there would be other arguements in previous pages.
:But to be honest, I think I also have some responsibilities on this endless situation: I have known what to do to deal with such major changes, but I didn't really take any action. ] (]) 07:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::The whole "Accident vs Crash" thing has been going on for a while now. It pretty much goes nowhere every time. DEB gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" should be avoided, AWF gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" is perfectly fine, and it all repeats with every new ] article. I just recommended on DEB's talk page that they try to seek a wider consensus to break this endless cycle, because I for one am tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again with no progress. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. ] (]) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to ] and drop the terminology issue forever. ] (]) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It's less "unable to resolve" and more "Dreameditsbrooklyn argues that using 'accident' is original research because the sources use 'crash'" and I wish I was joking. Your modest proposal probably ''would'' get some kind of result though! - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Infact I have already suggested to delete this controversial value ], since it have not much actural use to show, and mostly have the same contents with the "Summary" value. And ironically, it has showed the available value on the doc page, but the example they showed on simply violate it! But since then nobody really talk about it yet. ] (]) 08:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::As someone who has consistently been on the side "accident is fine" of this argument (there really isn't an "accident/crash" binary here, just whether "accident" is original research), I think that's a bit extreme. I laid out a ] on DEB's talk page, which should hopefully help resolve the issue once and for all without the need for more drastic measures. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Respectfully, the descriptions aren't trivial. A "crash" describes what happened. An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability. An "incident" implies some sort of interaction or series of events. I have no specific dog in this fight and I don't believe I've voiced any significant opinion on the matter here or elsewhere, but such a description is not trivial when we are trying to be ] in our descriptions. In this particular case, it very much appears that the act was deliberate and the airliner was acceptable collateral damage (in their opinion). At a minimum, it's disputed. As such, "accident" isn't appropriate as it is at least alleged to be a deliberate act or negligence. "Incident" or "crash" would be more neutral. If we say "accident" it implies no one should be blamed and fails ]. ] (]) 22:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::] (the context of aviation has been from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and ] is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::WP:MOS says: {{tq|If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence.}}
:::::::WP:AT, which follows MOS says: {{tq|Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.}}
:::::::The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because some editors disagree? I am honestly asking. I don't see a policy which overrules MOS here. Also, I'll hold off on any new discussions on this until things have concluded here and at the article talk page, where the same editor who started this discussion opened an RfC on the topic. ] (]) 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple ] articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. ] (]) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tqq|The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply?}} Because ] don't need to "follow the sources", and insisting that they do is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Others have rejected this as the venue to hold this debate, and I will too. I suggest you follow your own advice and drop the stick, at least for now. ] (]) 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{tqq|An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability}} No, it does not. The International Civil Aviation Organization, which is somewhat of an authority on the matter, defines an 'aircraft accident' as {{tqq|Accident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft ..., in which: a) a person is fatally or seriously injured b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible}}. Notice what isn't there - anything about mistakes or culapbility. {{ping|Buffs}} "Accident" is the official internationally recognized term for this sort of occurance, and is entirely neutral in use. Note that "incident" has a very specific term in aviation which is "an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation." {{ping|Dreameditsbrooklyn}} I'd suggest you ] and stop pushing this ] ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? ] (]) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::]. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research ''when in fact it is the correct terminology'' - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly ''incorrect'' terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but ] in the context of aviation is to refer to ''any'' crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. ] (]) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::It’s the very definition of the word jargon! No wonder people are finding you impossible to deal with. ] (]) 18:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::]. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::What is "an occurrence, other than an accident..." if "accident" includes "incidents"? Definition you're claiming here doesn't make a lot of sense. ] (]) 19:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Incident includes accidents AND intentional acts. ] (]) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Not , but this probably ''is'' something best not continued here I reckon. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I did not bring this up to ] to litigate whether to use "crash" or "accident". If you would like to litigate that, I have started a RfC on the Talk page. I brought this here to ask the admins to discuss whether <u>DEB's and AWF's behavior</u> is worth pursuing administrator action. ] (]) 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Since you think this is an "utterly trivial terminology dispute" should I tag you in the RFC at WP:RS when I make it, or not? I don't wish to bother you if it's not important to you. ] (]) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:I know this discussion is about conduct, not about the disagreement which prompted it, but I'll note that the other user named here and who has not responded has since changed instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries and has also since been of violating 3RR on the very entry which prompted this discussion. I've agreed to confine any further conversations to the talk page until a consensus is reached, wherever that may be. ] (]) 02:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::On the very entry for a completely different reason regarding the use of the Aviation Safety Network but I concede that whilst I was within the limits of 3RR, it probably shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place. {{Tq|... since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries}} – The only changes made were either related to a change within the infobox to stay consistent with ] as the occurrence type on the aforementioned article stated {{Tq|Airliner crash}}, or related to changes regarding short descriptions since they were changed to be phrased in a way that is not usually done. It's not like I removed every single mention of the word ''crash'' and replaced it with ''accident''. But back to the main topic, I'm willing to drop the issue as long as it's not an problem to use ''accident'' in articles relating to aviation. ] (]) 03:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


If there's no concrete action being sought here, let's all just move along here, this is all getting quite circular/repetitive.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 15:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Can we close this? The current discussion has next to nothing to do with the original issue and is best continued somewhere else. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 19:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


:Agreed. An admin got involved and simply continued off-topic discussion. ] (]) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
== Moulton (un)ban ==
*'''Warn both to drop the stick''', otherwise, no action at this point. ] (]) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:'''''Hands ] two ]''''' You want to hand them out, or me? ] (]) 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== Topic ban appeal ==
{{userlinks|Moulton}}
{{atop
| result = There is consensus against lifting the topic ban at this time. DesertInfo is advised to find areas where they are willing to edit to show a better history prior to revisiting the topic ban in the future. ] ] 15:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


Hello, I have a topic ban that is approaching one year old on "undiscussed moves, move discussions, deletion discussions, and racial issues broadly construed (including topics associated with the Confederate States of America)". I would like an opportunity to contribute to these topics again. I have been fairly inactive since then but I have edited a few articles without issue. Thank you. ] (]) 04:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Given the recent dramaz relating to this user and ] (see ]), a fair bit of confusion has arisen as to if this user is actually banned or not.


:I'll kick off by asking the standard two questions: (1) please explain in your own words why you were topic banned; (2) do you have anything to say to convince everyone those same issues won't occur again? ]] 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
;Relevant links
::I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. ] (]) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
# ]
:::Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
# ]
::::Found it. ]. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
# ]
:::::Thank you. That is helpful to have. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
#
:* I '''support lifting the ban.''' DI's talk page makes for interesting reading, it shows quite a remarkable change in attitude over a period of a few years, and I believe that's genuine. ]] 08:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose lifting the topic ban''' I think being warned for making edits that violating a topic ban, then being almost completely inactive for six months, and then coming back and asking for it to be lifted and that passing sets a horrible example. ] ] 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:It seemed like a good idea to step away from the site for a time. I was receptive to the warning, even though it was not from an admin, and stopped editing in that area entirely. These are the edits in question: I just forgot that I had to appeal the topic ban here first and haven't gotten around to it until now. It should be noted that the first edit merely restored a previous RFC that had been ignored and the last two were minor changes to articles that have since been restored.
*:I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you ] and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. ] (]) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. ] (]) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. ] (]) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*::There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --] (]) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I have made plenty of edits to articles like ], ], ], and ] in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose lifting the topic ban'''. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see ] for example). --] (]) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose at this time''' I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. ] ] 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects.
*:I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did:
*:This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. ] (]) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*::The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? ] (]) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I would like to participate in move and deletion discussions. I contributed a lot to ] and I would like to update some place names through move requests. I haven't had issues in that area since 2022. ] (]) 05:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I'd say {{tq|"racial issues broadly construed"}} is actually pretty broad given how much of history/geography is touched by it. I'd also say they do appear to have made an effort to improve, though I'd still like to see more. ] (]) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I want to see some real world effort working collaboratively somewhere else on wp, not just a six month gap waiting it, off wikipedia. There is no evidence here that there has been a change. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 08:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Andra Febrian report ==
Let's try and treat this the way we normally treat a ban/unban discussion and put aside the_undertow's antics for a bit. To get the ball rolling I promise we as a community unban (and subsequently, unblock) Moulton and allow him to resume editing. I say this because I see no significant discussion in the original ban discussion (ANI archive 297) and am willing to extend a second chance, over six months later.
{{atop
| result = HiLux duck has been blocked, and no further action is needed here. ] ] 15:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
}}
"Andra Febrian" is disrupting many edits, I have seen many deleted edits by this user, and I would like to report the user for causing many ]s. The edits unreasonably reverted by this user is very disruptive to me, as I only intend for useful contributions. The user has:
- caused many edit wars <br/>
- deleted citations along with deleting correct claims <br/>
- not been cooperative (wikipedia's ]) on many pages that good-] edits have occurred on <br/>
- not explained deletions of citations in a way that other users have been made upset. <br/>
I request that the user is warned.
] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added 22:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
:First: the notice at the top of the page clearly says to place new sections at the bottom of the page, which I have now done for you. Second: you need to provide ] for the edits you are complaining about. Third, you were supposed to notify Andra Febrian per the instructions at the top of the page. Another user has done so for you. - ] 00:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:@]: please sign your comments using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, which will add a timestamp. Additionally, I reverted your edits to ] and to ] because you are changing information in articles without citing ]. You must cite sources when you add or change information in articles. ] (]/]) 00:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::] just filed a new complaint at ANEW and made the exact same mistakes as they did here. I advised them to stop posting complaints on noticeboards until they can follow the instructions. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::FWIW, I have a feeling that HiLux Duck is a sockpuppet of ], but I am holding back until they give themselves enough rope to hang. Same obsession with defining overall lengths for various car classifications and edit warring at length over them. <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 00:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm always impressed when editors can recall editing habits of editors that were blocked years ago. I guess I lack the longterm memory to keep track of sockpuppet habits. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Liz}} MrDavr actually got under my skin at one point; otherwise I probably wouldn't have noticed. Thanks, <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 02:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Looking into this {{duck}} (a HiLux ]?) because yeah, this is ''exactly'' the same editing pattern. Same username pattern as a number of MrDavr socks too (car names/variations thereof - ]). - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::@] - ] (]) 15:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Most likely yes, I knew that the his editing patterns matched an old blocked user but didn't remember the name. ] (]) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::It's also interesting to note that HiLux duck's user page claims they've been on Misplaced Pages since 2019, and having compared edits more extensively I've seen enough and gone ahead and blocked per ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Mr.Choppers warning request ===
But I'm not the community; we are. Comments, please. '']'' <small>(])</small> 10:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:: <small> This was (again) posted at the top instead of the bottom; it seems like it is not really a separate issue. ] (]) 01:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
:I don't think he's banned. Tagging notwithstanding, if there is someone willing to unblock, he's "blocked without consensus to unblock" not banned. I'm not prepared at this time to support an unblock, because I'm not completely sure that Moulton would edit constructively within our norms, based on his own communications with me, but I think there is merit in investigating the matter, especially the manner in which we got to where we are now. There may well be learnings here on how to deal with academics more effectively, in a way that doesn't sour them on wikipedia. Were I to get a positive committment from Moulton to edit within our norms that I felt was credible, I would support an unblock, with probation and monitoring, as we have done for other users. ++]: ]/] 10:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Mr.Choppers has not followed the ] rules because: <br/>
::Yes, I agree that a probation and a commitment from Moulton would be necessary. <small>'''] - ]'''</small> 10:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
'''-''' calling me a "nuisance" because of own ] supporting others in ] that have nothing to do with the user. ] ] <br/>
:Personally I don't see enough "disruptive" behaviour in the original discussions to support a ban on Moulton. He's a bit of an oddball, yeah, but there was no consensus (unless a 'consensus' amongst a small group of editors counts) and I see no wider discussion. To be honest I've never really understood why he was indefinitely blocked in the first place, and would like to see him unblocked and given a chance to make helpful contributions. There is nothing to stop us reblocking if he does turn out to be disruptive, and I'm sure many eyes will be on his contributions should that happen. Moulton is obviously knowledgable on some topics and I think that if there's a chance that we could draw on that knowledge, we should take it :) <small>'''] - ]'''</small> 10:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
'''-''' responded fairly aggressively to another user (me) without me being aggressive back or starting this edit war <br/>
I'd like to see the people who support a continued block lay out reasons as to why it is inadvisable. As is obvious, nobody wants to let a disruptive editor back on. Please try and avoid unnecessarily drama-causing statements such as "recruiting meatpuppets" as also content-free phrases such as "Civil POV-pusher." Reading the original statement at the RfC, I see that the statements that are reported as being disruptive are almost identical to those made by a dozen outside observers in the recent push towards consensus at Talk:Rosalind Picard. I'd like to see more specific complaints about misrepresentation of sources, or extensive POV-pushing. I'd also like to see MastCell comment on talkpage abuse, and Moreschi on what he saw as OR, since those are two editors that I generally agree with. I lean towards not thinking an unblock necessary at this time, but I'd like to see some actual reasons, not mad rushes to judgment. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 11:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
'''-''' note that he also called me a "sockpuppet of a banned user" without reliable clarification, also biased on that <br/>
:Given Moulton's experience with Misplaced Pages, I would be pleasantly surprised if he decided to contribute after this. An unblocking would be a reasonable manner in which to begin to try and resolve Moulton's case (for want of a better word). I believe Moulton's blocking issues stemmed from his opposition to the labelling of scientists (particularly ]) as supporting Intelligent Design on their biographical articles. ] ] 11:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
'''-''' also note the user had not informed me and used aggression to support own claims. <br/>
As one of the editors who interacted with Moulton and tried to meet his concerns, the evidence presented understates the tendentiousness of his talk page insistence on justifying his edit warring by rambling on about his own ideas of "standards" which are very much at odds with Misplaced Pages policies. There is also a question of whether he actually made any constructive edits, his emphasis was very much on removing properly sourced information on the basis of his own original research. He continues to campaign off-wiki for Misplaced Pages to be changed to accord with his ideas. Has there been any indication that he has changed? . . ], ] 11:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
<br/>
::As anyone whose spent as much time whacking fringers and POV-pushers as I have knows, "removing sourced information" is quite frequently a "constructive edit".
I would like to inform that this user has unnecessarily used aggression and claimed things not there. Kind regards, ] (]) 2:29, 6 January 2025 (GMT+12)
::Campaigning off-wiki for changes to WP policy are also, IIRC, not considered inappropriate. Or are we going to ban Phil Sandifer for campaigning on the mailing list prior to trying to change policy on verifiability here? Or Doc Glasgow for doing the same at the Stalk Board?
:Missed this because it was at the top. Very unlikely to have merit and is moot now, given the block. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::If the central problem is that he goes on too much, a strict enforcement of ] should certainly be enough, IMO. I tend to be pretty strict on the subject, removing or blanking off-topic discussion. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 11:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:::Thanks for your advice, I look forward to your support should I find it necessary to apply it. I disagree with your enthusiasm for WR. .. ], ] 14:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
::::What enthusiasm? You really need to try sticking a little more closely to what people actually write. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 13:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
:As some may know, I've chatted a little to Moulton, and will be chatting with him again tomorrow in a public conversation over at ] (all are welcome, and if you'd like to speak with Moulton at all, it's not a bad opportunity). I think it's fair to say (without prejudice) that Moulton is quite angry at how matters played out here, and would like some assurance or recognition that something went awry in his case - I still haven't figured out quite what went on, despite having ploughed through an awful lot of material - it's very very muddy waters from my perspective. I personally would be happy for Moulton to be unblocked - particularly given the obvious level of scrutiny any and all edits would face - he's neither an 'under the radar' kind of guy, nor an irredeemable wiki-editor in my view. ] (]) 11:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


== user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation of ] violation, unfounded vandalism allegation ==
Moulton was banned because he was trying to whitewash away some embarrassing facts about his colleague of his - Rosalind Picard - from her article. It took months of tedious work on the part of several knowledge editors in this area to debunk his claims (that the NY Times are not a reliable source, that they didn't really mean to include her, etc), and he never really did accept that he was flatly wrong. His contributions were not beneficial in any way - he was an SPA whose contribution was to simply waste everyone's time. And he was community banned for it. Now people who did absolutely nothing to deal with the problems he caused the last time around are proposing we forget all of the above, and pretend like he was a useful contributor, or had the potential to be. He was no such thing. ] (]) 11:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
{{archive top|result=I have indefinitely blocked Uwappa per ]. Whilst the legal threat pointed out by multiple editors may be very vague, it certainly is designed to have a chilling effect, and Uwappa has confirmed this with addition to the section. Quite apart from that, we have persistent edit-warring, meritless claims of vandalism against others, and there is a limit to which an editor who thinks all of this is a big joke can be allowed to waste everybody else's time. They can explain themselves in an unblock request if they so desire. ] 22:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::I agree I did nothing to deal with "the problem" when it took place—I wasn't aware of it at the time and am not pretending I was. But that doesn't answer the question being asked—is Moulton banned? And if not, why not give him a second chance? Admittedly, most of his work was done on the Picard article and in relation to other ID related issues, but he also made useful contributions to (to take a random example) . More of this, less of the undiscussed "whitewashing", and we have a good contributor. '']'' <small>(])</small> 12:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
repost from archive:
::Raul, please back up your assertions with arguments, as I requested. Diffs about "whitewashing" that are substantively different from arguments independently made recently by those who have absolutely no connection with either Moulton, Rosemary Picard, or ID-pushers would be a start. Nobody is going to unblock the fellow without taking your concerns into consideration, but surely you need to demonstrate their weight first. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 12:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:::You seem to be asking me to provide a "substantially different" set of problem behaviors Moulton was banned for then was previously discussed on the Rosalind Picard talk page. That simply is a non-starter. He was banned for the reasons he was banned -- that he tried to whitewash the article. This is documented in excruiating detail on his RFC. Edits like (linked from that RFC) are par for the course -- notice the hagiographic tone, the fact that he has completely removed any mention of the fact that she signed the petition (a total whitewash, as it were). ] (]) 15:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


The content disagreement behind this report is trivial in the overall scope of Misplaced Pages (although the articles affected are subject to ]), but the editor behaviour is not. My reason to bring this case to ANI is that ] rejects some basic principles of the project: ] means that a bold edit may be reverted to the '']'' and goes on to say {{tq|don't restore your bold edit, don't ] to this part of the page, don't engage in ], and don't start any of the larger ] processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.}} Despite having been reminded about BRD after their first immediate counter-revert, they responded to the reversion to the ''sqa'' with another counter-revert and, after another editor reinstated the ''sqa'', counter-reverted again. At no stage did they attempt to engage in BRD discussion. Both I and the other editor attempted to engage with them at their talk page: Uwappa characterises my explanation as a personal attack. On another page, Uwappa reverted an edit where I suppressed the questioned <s>material</s> template, declaring it "vandalism" in the edit summary. I recognise the rubric at BRD that says {{tq|BRD is optional, but complying with ''']''' and ''']''' is mandatory}} but Uwappa has done neither.
:::Raul: When I compare the Picard article as it was then to the way it is now, I see a previous article that was a ], because it gave undue weight to one episode in this person's life. That the event was properly sourced is not disputed by me. What is disputed by me is the slant the article had. It was at the time, in my view, a clear ] violation, and badly needed correction. Moulton went about it all wrong. But guess what? So do a lot of other people. See ] for some tangential but related thinking on dealing with newbies that have issues. See also some essays on how the academic model of discourse may not be completely compatible here. In my view, Moulton's old approach wasn't going to work here. But if there is reason to believe he now realises that, and wants to change his approach, I'd support an unblock. At the present time, I don't see that. But a blocked editor that we are willing to unblock under conditions is not a banned editor. ++]: ]/] 13:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
::::I've just had another round of communication with Moulton and I see no change in his position, which is (paraprhased and any inaccuracy introduced is mine) that he does not wish to edit here without a review of what occurred having happened first (in particular, he wishes that be addressed). I'm not sure that's going to happen. Therefore, I see no pressing need to lift the block at this time, but I however continue to state that he is not banned. There are conditions under which I, an administrator in good standing, would lift the block, therefore there is not unanimous consent for a ban, and therefore this user is not banned, merely indefinitely blocked. I have changed the template used on his user page to reflect that. It is a distinction with no practical effect on his ability to edit, but a distinction that matters nonetheless. ++]: ]/] 14:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::As the original blocking admin, I am involved, but would like to state (possibly pointlessly) that Lar is correct: under these conditions "indef blocked" not "banned" is the accurate term. That said, I don't know anyone who hasn't accidentally used the wrong term once or twice, whether "block" when they meant "ban" or similar errors, and it would be nice if everyone overlooked any mis-statements or disagreements about terminology and avoided nasty accusations and ABF. It doesn't help the situation a bit and only introduces bickering about non-issues. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


I consider my escalating this to ANI to be a failure of negotiating skill on my part but, while Uwappa refuses to engage, I am left with no choice. Allowing a few days for logic to intervene has not been fruitful. With great reluctance, because Uwappa has made valuable contributions, I have to ask that they be blocked until they acknowledge and commit to respect the principles that underlie BRD, ] and ].
:What ban? there was no ban - FM just randomly decided he was the community and added the template on his on initiative - but the template does not make it so. ]] 12:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:H<sub>2</sub>O, would you be willing to "keep an eye" on Moultan for a while if you unblock him? Your answer to this question is the same as mine to whether I'd support your unblocking him. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 12:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
::I am if he isn't. Or jointly, because I suspect I already know Giggy's answer will be yes. ++]: ]/] 13:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Speaking as a non-admin idiot who changed his mind about Moulton during the RfC, I wonder if the Arbcom decision not to hear an appeal of his ban (and it's worth reading the arbitrator's opinions) has any bearing on whether or not he should be considered banned.
:::I also wonder why we are having this debate now (other than the_undertow's actions). Is there any evidence that Moulton realises that anything he did was wrong, and if so, where is it? I just can't reconcile the view that he's going to contribute constructively with the view that Misplaced Pages is responsible for turning a respectable academic into a... never mind. Let's just say that, if the WR posts I've read are anything to go by, he's quite sure that any fault lay on the part of Misplaced Pages. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 13:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Although I suspect it goes without saying, I would also find this sufficient. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 13:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
*In these more enlightened times, I'm pretty sure we can link to WR where relevant - Moulton's version of how he came to be blocked is , which I think is relevant. If fifty percent of what he says is accurate, his block was unfair. ] ] 13:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


'''Diffs:''' ''(all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 ) ''
According to ], if no uninvolved admin is willing to overturn the block, he's banned. Maybe the undertow is in fact involved, but if another were to agree with his rationale and call for a review or unblock, would he not be de facto unbanned? ] 13:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
* : Uwappa replaces {{tl|Body roundness index}} with a substantially changed new version
* : JMF (me) reverts to the previous version, with edit summary "sorry but this version is not ready for release. I will explain at talk page."
* : JMF opens ] at template talk page (and leaves notifications at the talk pages of the articles that invoke the template).
* : Uwappa responds minimally at template talk page. {{midsize|] ]}}
* : Uwappa counter-reverts to their new version of the template, no edit summary.
* JMF reverts the counter reversion with edit summary "see WP:BRD: when BRD is invoked, the status quo ante must persist until consensus is reached"
* : Uwappa counter-reverts the template again, no edit summary.
* : at ], JMF advises Uwappa of the BRD convention.
* : {{u|Zefr}} contributes to BRD debate.
* : At Uwappa's talk page, JMF notifies Uwappa of edit-warring using {{tl|uw-editwar}} with edit summary "I advise strongly that you self-revert immediately, otherwise I shall have no choice but to escalate."
* At ], JMF comments out invocation of the template, with edit summary "use of template suspended pending dispute resolution . See talk page."
** (a series of reverts and counter reverts follow, in which Uwappa alleges vandalism by JMF. Neither party breaks 3RR.)
* At their talk page, Uwappa rejects the request to self-revert and invites escalation. Edit summary: "go for it".


* ] reverts the counter-reversion of the template to re-establish ''sqa''
:It seems to me that we're ignoring that it has been raised on Rfar, and we are currently waiting to see if ArbCom will clarify, whether their declining to hear his appeal changed the status of his case at all; it may be that changed his status from indef blocked to banned. It may be that it changed nothing, in which case as Wizardman notes the undertow is arguably involved, and is not the requisite "uninvolved admin". If a completely uninvolved admin were to state his/her willingness to unblock, then I agree, he would be ''de facto'' not banned - but he would still be indef blocked, with no consensus to unblock, as noted by Lar near the beginning of this thread. All that said, FM was justified in stating he was banned per the evidence available - no uninvolved admin was willing to unblock - and I find Viridae's attack on FM sadly divisive to no purpose. Viridae, I suggest you strike that accusation.
:As Moulton is either indef blocked with no consensus to unblock, or banned, what is the best course forward? I concur with SheffieldSteel, nothing has changed regarding Moulton except that the undertow unblocked him, without, I might add, even bothering to post such a potentially disruptive unblock on AN/I, which is done for even fairly minor changes of block duration, let alone for unblocking indef blocked editors. This is insufficient rationale for unblocking - that a rogue, possibly involved, admin unblocked without community input. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
::You are clearly wrong in one point, and with it crumbles much of your statement. An admin deciding that they are willing to unblock does not make them stop being uninvolved. If they were uninvolved before they made that decision, they remain uninvolved after it. I have seen zero evidence presented that the undertow is an involved admin; the lack of such evidence is significant given that almost every other smear under the sun is being thrown at him. With no evidence for the undertow being involved prior to the unblock; he is and remains an uninvolved admin for the purpose of considering Moulton. So it is clear, solely from his action, that Moulton is not now banned. (It is debatable if Moulton was ever banned; I haven't yet concluded on that.) ] 14:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:::If you were at all accurate about my reasoning, you would be accurate, but as you are "clearly" stating my reason is that he's willing to unblock makes him "involved" and you're dead wrong about that, your whole statement is pointless. Feel free to ask any questions about my reasoning, rather than leap to such conclusion in the future. It wastes everyone's time to read such fantasizing. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
::::I would perhaps say that if you were involved at the time, or now, it was not because of the block itself but rather because of previous history, if any, in editing in the somewhat contentious ID related area, which was a focus of some of the article disputes that lead to the block as I understand it. There are those that assert you do edit in that area, is that a correct assertion? ++]: ]/] 15:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::What are you talking about, Lar? GRB and I are discussing whether the undertow is an involved or uninvolved editor. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::To answer Lar's question, which is relevant to the overall discussion but differentfrom this subthread, I think this is sufficient evidence that KC listed himself as an editor in the intelligent design area. He remains listed as a participant in that project. ] 16:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


* Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template.
::Nod. to KC (the first reply :) ): I would note that in my imperfect understanding, ArbCom declined to review the matter (with one possible outcome being an overturn of a community banning), that is, declined to review the actions OF the community. If there is no longer consensus for a community ban, that overrides ArbCom's decline to review it, in my view. Unblocking him is, in my view, not going against an ArbCom finding. (but I see no pressing need for an unblock, unless we are applying something akin to a "we don't think we did anything wrong but we are unblocking you anyway so you can go away in good grace" reasoning that has been used with other WR regulars, given what I said above that he's not likely to edit constructively, or at all, for that matter, at this time) To GRB: I agree, I don't see 'tow as involved the way that others such as Raul, Fill, FM, etc are. ++]: ]/] 14:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
* Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also ] for escalation in progress.".
* JMF reverts to ''sqa'' again, with edit summary " rv to consensus version, pending BRD discussion. That is now also a WP:3RR violation." {{midsize|My 3RR challenge was not valid as reversion was outside the 24-hour window.}}
* At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing.
* At their talk page, Uwappa alleges ] violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit.


---
I support the unblock of Moulton, and don't believe a community of six involved editors have the authority to ban someone. Powers were abused in this case, and I believe Moulton deserves a second chance, as he did make constructive edits. I'd also be willing to keep an eye on his contributions and be available to answer questions for him. ''']''']''']''' 14:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
* At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI.
:Powers were abused? Really? Whose? Mine, as the one who indef'd? If not, then who? Please either be specific or retract that very serious accusation. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
* Uwappa replies to refuse de-escalation.


As of 11:48 (UTC) on 30/12, the live version of the template is the one that has consensus support. --] (]) 11:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm opposed to unblocking. Strongly. And a community ban remains a ''ban'' by definition: ] "''Users who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Misplaced Pages community" '''". Moulton was not and remains not interested in collaboratively writing an encyclopedia, only in promoting a certain view on a single topic, consensus or NPOV be damned. . As seen in his comments and efforts offsite, nothing has changed with Moulton, and he's simply unsuited to be editing Misplaced Pages, a fact the Arbcom recognized. ] (]) 14:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


:Well, Uwappa hasn't edited on the project in 12 hours so it's pretty sage to assume they haven't seen this complaint yet. I'd like to hear their response and whether or not they are willing to collaborate before passing any judgment. Very through presentation of the dispute, easy to follow, so thank you for that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:Ah, I'd forgotten that, so yes, he's banned. No amount of discussion changes that. However, my point about bickering about terminology still stands - and I'm pleased to see that FM at least is not accusing those debating this point of BF. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, that is why I felt it important to make clear that our time zones are very widely spaced, which makes collaboration difficult in the best of circumstances. When they do see it, I would expect they will take some time offline to polish their response before posting it{{snd}} and consequently it is likely to be as long again before I respond. ] (]) 20:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


Reposted above from archive, see ]
::Actually, FeloniousMonk is misrepresenting what happend in that ArbComm appeal. Moulton asked the AbComm "to review the issues of due process that I am placing before the ArbCom" Misplaced Pages and the ArbComm doesn't do due process; so of course they rejected that request. The committee did not reject an appeal to be unblocked; the rejected a request for due process. As such, their decision there matters nought at all. ] 14:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Precisely. Further, a community ban requires consensus. Just as in the Mantammoreland case, in which a lack of consensus resulted in a reversal of a block, there is not demonstrated consensus for a community ban in this matter at this time. Certainly some are arguing for it, yes. And some are arguing against it. ++]: ]/] 15:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page:
I think unblocking Moulton is a singularly '''bad idea'''. Aside from the actual edit warring at ]'s biography, and ]'s biography and at ], which was considerable, and threats and other assorted bad behavior on the talk pages, the most fundamental problem with ] was his belief that a large fraction of the traditions, conventions, rules and policies of Misplaced Pages must be changed immediately if not sooner, by fiat issued by him. He has never renounced this belief to my knowledge and in fact continues to lobby for this position off-wiki extensively.


::::You escaped sanction because there were too many more egregious cases in the pipeline and it is a first offence. ANI does not adjudicate on content disputes, only on behaviour and compliance with fundamental principles. The evidence against you was really unarguable; I have seen quite a few cases and I know how they play out: if it had reached a conclusion, you would have been blocked until you acknowledged that you had gotten carried away in the heat of the moment, that you understand and accept ], ], ] and ], and that from now on you commit to respecting them. I strongly advise that you take the message anyway. --] (]) 12:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
A more extensive discussion of my position is found --] (]) 14:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::Mate, sorry I was late for the escalation party. End of the year was a madhouse here, both in business and with social activities.
:::::I was very happy you did escalate and will be happy to reply now that I have spare time available for WP. My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.
:::::Would you like me to repost your escalation? ] (]) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I strongly advise that you read ] before you write another line. ] (]) 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
{{od}}
I am so sorry I was late to join this party. End of the year was a bit too hectic, did not leave much spare time for fun activities like WP.


] What would you like me to do now? ] (]) 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Having thought about this a while, and reviewed more of the evidence than I had previously, I come to the following conclusions. 1) The original block and the RFC are quite problematic, because the articles he was accused of whitewashing or otherwise inappropriately editing were at the time egregious violations of our policies, most importantly WP:BLP, but also WP:NPOV. 2) The undertow's unblock was quite bold, but reasonable; in the original ANI thread announcing the block, the blocking admin said "Per usual, if anyone wishes to unblock feel free." As such, the unblock could reasonably be understood as having the explicit consent of the blocking admin, so no discussion prior to unblocking was needed. 3) There are conditions under which I would be willing to unblock Moulton. They are broadly similar to those Lar has described, namely editing within norms and being willing to work with our communal processes. 4) Moulton is not now a banned editor. (It is not worth concluding whether he ever was.) 5) I doubt that Moulton is ''currently'' willing to deal with the fact that this is encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but I could be wrong on this point. 6) It is unlikely that a consensus for an unsupervised unblock will emerge soon. 7) It would be best if his return was accompanied by supervision, but I expect the supervisors will have as much to do in educating those opposed to Moulton but in the wrong themselves as they will in educating Moulton. 8) If any admin receives any private indication of willingness to edit within norms, Moulton's talk page should be unprotected so he can make such statements publicly here. ] 15:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:It was not clear on your talk page, and it's even less clear here since you did not repost your response to JMF's last line there. You do explicitly retract the apparent legal threat that was made? - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::I did not make a legal threat. ] (]) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@]: your reference to your "business legal team" could certainly be construed as a veiled one, at the very least. You are being asked to clarify by either confirming or retracting this. -- ] (]) 08:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tqq|My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.}} is either a legal threat or indistinguishable from one. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::No it is not a legal threat. It is about <b>"WP rules and regulations"</b>, not about law.
::::* To who would this be a threat?
::::* Which law?
::::* In which country?
::::] (]) 09:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 12:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It certainly looks like a legal threat. ] (]) 14:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::@]. Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Wow, I am glad you asked.
::::::* to have a bit of fun, take a break from the normal, pretty serious work. It will be like kids in a candy store.
::::::* It will be fun for me too. I can't wait to get going with this once the pandemonium calms down.
::::::* The accusation "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage" is utterly wrong.
::::::] (]) 22:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not at all experienced in the legal world, but I don't think any professional legal team that you're paying money towards would ever be excited to save you from a website "like kids in a candy store". ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 22:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Why would a legal department be excited about you being reported on Misplaced Pages unless you're planning to use them in some way? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I suspect, from context, that Uwappa was trying to suggest they would have assistance of a professional team in interrogating rules and regulations. But "I have the spend to wikilawyer this more than you can" isn't really all that much better than an outright legal threat. Between that and what surprises me is that they're not blocked yet frankly. ] (]) 17:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


:I agree to a certain extent with 1. I disagree with 2 -- when you have someone who has been indefinitely blocked for a substantial period of time, an unblocking should always be preceded by discussion. The block belongs not only to the original admin, but also to all those who did not unblock immediately. While the "one admin willing to unblock" standard is good for creating bans, it should not be interpreted legalistically when it comes to judging whether they should continue. I think the undertow had a significant lapse in judgment here.
:With 4 -- the difference between "indefinitely blocked with no immediate prospect of unblocking" and "indefinitey banned" is very small. I would say, personally, that it is pretty much meaningless. Is he banned? Well, he can't edit Misplaced Pages from that account. That's the actual reality, rather than the theory, which can be highly misleading.
:The question that needs answering is not "is this block valid?" (I say "block" rather than "ban" solely to avoid legalistic disputation) but "is this block right?" I would be interested in hearing from him -- he can feel free to email me (). ] <sup>]</sup> 16:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
::Which is what I've been trying to say with my pleas to stop bickering about the terminology. Thanks, Sam. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


:and just to throw some more fuel on the bushfire, you have just accused me twice more of vandalism., . --] (]) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Moulton was blocked because of his behaviour. There's no indication that he has any desire to change his behaviour. So why should he be unblocked?


* I would say that for Uwappa to read this AN filing, reply to it (including something which could ''well'' be taken as a legal threat), and ''then'' immediately go back and the template for the fifth time (with an edit-summary of "Revert vandalism again", no less) shows a serious lack of self-awareness of the situation. ] 12:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Moulton's problem is with the core principles of Misplaced Pages - he appears to be unable to grasp the fact that he cannot substitute his own experience for a reliable source. It isn't all that strange a situation for a new editor. I'm sure most people have read a newspaper article and thought "they got that completely wrong. And many of us have, early in our Misplaced Pages career, ''changed'' an article, despite it being sourced, because we "knew better". It's a typical newbie mistake. But it's explained to us, we accept it as "the rules", and eventually, we come to embrace sourcing because we see how important it is to the accuracy of the project as a whole. Moulton never made it past the first step. As late as his RFC, he still expressed surprise when he was told that Misplaced Pages is not the place to publish original thought - that despite being told that Misplaced Pages is not the place to publish original thought <s>for months</s> repeatedly prior to his RFC.
*:Putting aside the possible legal threat, if Uwappa's business legal department is involved it seems likely to be a cause of ] or at least a ] which really should have been declared which doesn't seem to have happened. This also means Uwappa shouldn't be editing the article directly. ] (]) 14:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*::It’s hard to see a paid or COI element to the behaviour at {{tl|Body roundness index}}. — ] (]) 14:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::It is fairly weird, but I can't see any reason a business legal department would have any interest unless the editor's activity relates to their business activity. ] (]) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I expect it’s just empty talk to get an upper hand in the dispute. — ] (]) 14:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::: Indeed. It is night where Uwappa is now, but my inclination is to see what reaction there is when they restart editing. If it is another revert or a lack of discussion, a block (or at least a prtial block) is indicated. ] 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::], how do you know where I am? Are you spying on me, disclosing personal information?
*::::::* Anybody in the room who ]?
*::::::* Reverted vandalism 3rd time in 24 hours. Anybody curious about what the vandalism is?
*::::::* Anybody in the room that wonders why I had to do the repost? Isn't that odd in combination with "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process"? Did anybody read ]?
*::::::* Did anybody read ] and ]?
*::::::* Did anybody spot any incompleteness in the accusations?
*::::::* Anybody interested in my to answers to the accusations?
*::::::] (]) 16:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::* JMF above said you were in Australia and I had no reason to disbelieve him. If you aren't, it's irrelevant really, I was just pointing out that you may not edit for a few hours. No-one here is required to answer your questions, but I will; the point was that you invoked something that could be a legal threat {{tq|My business legal department is pretty exited about it ... can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.}} You say that isn't a legal threat, well fine, but you haven't explained what it ''was''. Meanwhile, you're ''still'' edit-warring on the template and claiming that other's edits are vandalism, which they clearly aren't, which is why you can no longer edit it. Have I missed anything? ] 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::* Again, that was either a legal threat or actions indistinguishable from a legal threat in an attempt to cause a ]. When called on it you have continually ] instead of straight-up saying "no, that was not a legal threat and I am not involving any legal actions in this". So to make it very clear: you need to clearly state that or be blocked per ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


And just to add to the excitement, Uwappa has just repeated their allegation of vandalism against me and reverted to their preferred version of the template for the ''sixth'' time. (Their edit note adds ''3rd time in 24 hours'': are they boasting of a 3RR vio? {{u|Zefr}} undid their fourth attempt, I undid their fifth attempt, but possibly they misread the sequence.) --] (]) 17:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Moutlon was blocked because he was unwilling to adhere to our core principles. If there was some indication that he recognised the problem and was willing to change, then an unban may be in order. But he has done no such thing. So why unban him? ] (]) 16:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
* Yes, I noticed. I have pblocked them indefinitely from the template, and reverted that edit myself so that no-one else is required to violate 3RR. ] 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


:* Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous. {{Blockquote|text=An editor must not perform {{strong|more}} than three reverts on a single page whether involving the same or different material—within a {{strong|24-hour period}}.|source=]}}.
I support unblocking him. I'm not sure whether or not his initial treatment was fair, but either way it's been long enough and he should get another chance. ] (]) 16:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:* Suggestion: Add the following calculator to ]:


{{calculator|id=edits|type=number|steps=1|size=3|default=3|min=0}}
:So what has changed?--] (]) 16:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
{{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifless(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is less than three.}}
::The fact that we should never consider anyone beyond redemption. We ] people who are actively damaging the encyclopedia, to prevent further harm to the encyclopedia. If Moulton returns and edits within our communal norms, then he's no longer damaging the encyclopedia. If he repeats offensive behavior patterns, he can be blocked again. So where's the harm? ] (]) 17:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
{{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifequal(edits,3)|is equal to three.}}
{{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifgreater(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is more than three.}}


:* ] (]) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
As an uninvolved administrator, I give notice here that I am willing to unblock Moulton, on the (standard) requirement that he edits within communal norms and policies. I will not do so immediately, in the interests of reducing Wikidrama, but will give time for those opposed to propose good reasons as to why this should not be done. ] (]) 17:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
::* From ]; {{tq|Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring}}. Which this quite obviously does, especially as you've reverted ''twice'' whilst this report was ongoing. Frankly, you're quite fortunate it was only a partial block. ] 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


:To admins, please ] Uwappa from further work on the calculator template for the body roundness index and waist-to-height ratio, and from further editing and talk page input on those articles. Uwappa has done admirable extensive work, but the simple calculator is finished and sufficient as it is. Uwappa has created voluminous ]/] talk page discussions for articles with under 50 watchers and few talk page discussants; few editors would read through those long posts, and few are engaged.
:I agree that no one should be considered beyond redemption. However, this should be considered extremely carefully, given that someone who unblocks Moulton is most likely demanding the commitment of hundreds of wasted hours of other volunteer's time.
:In recent edits on templates, Uwappa reverts changes to the basic template as "vandalism". No, what we're saying is "leave it alone, take a rest, and come back in a few years when more clinical research is completed." ] (]) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
{{ab}}
*This was closed, but...Uwappa's reply to their block was . Suggest revoking TPA. {{ping|Black Kite}} - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
**. I've revoked TPA. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


== Kansascitt1225 ban appeal ==
:I also ask, are you in favor of discarding ] and ] and ] and ] ? Are you in favor of unleashing someone who has repeatedly stated and continues to state repeatedly and aggressively he will not abide by Misplaced Pages's core principles, and summarily rejects them in favor of his own dictates and fiats and fatwas? If you are in favor of these things, then unblock/unban Moulton. Because that is what you will get.
{{atop green|result=Appeal successful. There were some murmurings requesting a topic ban from Kansas, but nothing approaching consensus. Of course, ] would be well-advised to be careful not to go back to the behaviors that led to a block in the first place. But in the meantime, welcome back. <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 19:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
I am posting the following appeal on behalf of {{user21|Kansascitt1225}}, who is considered banned by the community per ]:


(keeping it short for WP:TLDR) Hi Misplaced Pages community, it has been over 1 year since I edited on Misplaced Pages without evading my block or breaking community rules. I would like to be given another chance to edit. I realized that my blocking was due to my behavior of creating multiple accounts and using them on the same page and creating issues during a disagreement. I was younger then and am now able to communicate more effectively with others. I intend to respect community rules and not be disruptive to the community. I was upset years ago when I mentioned Kansas City’s urban decay and it was reverted as false and I improperly reacted in a disruptive way that violated the community rules. The mistake I made which caused the disruptive behavior was that I genuinely thought people were reverting my edits due to the racist past of this county and keeping out blacks and having a dislike for the county. I also thought suburbs always had more single family housing and less jobs than cities. In this part of the United States a suburb means something different than what it means in other parts of the world and is more of a political term for other municipalities which caught me off guard and wasn’t what I grew up thinking a suburb was.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://slate.com/business/2015/05/urban-density-nearly-half-of-america-s-biggest-cities-look-like-giant-suburbs.html}}</ref> Some of these suburbs have lower single family housing rates and higher population density and this specific county has more jobs than the “major city” (referenced in previous unblock request if interested). This doesn’t excuse my behavior but shows why I was confused and I should have properly addressed it in the talk pages instead of edit warring or creating accounts. After my initial blocking, I made edits trying to improve the project thinking that would help my case when it actually does the opposite because I was bypassing my block which got me community banned to due the automatic 3 strikes rule. I have not since bypassed my block. I’m interested in car related things as well as cities and populations of the United States and want to improve these articles using good strong references. Thanks for reading. ] (]) 04:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:Until such time as Moulton renounces his current positions and shows some acknowledgement of the part his own positions and actions played in this saga, I fear this will be a collosal waste, and a price that the person who unblocks will be visiting upon the community.--] (]) 17:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}} ] (]/]) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
FCYTravis states it rather well here. If he returns and is not disruptive, where's the problem? It's pretty much self-evident that Moulton was never banned but remains indefinitely blocked. Blocks are meant to prevent disruption to the project and right now, I'm not seeing him as being much of a risk. Having said that, I was not involved with this editor in the past, as many others here obviously are, so may not be aware of the entire history. If someone like ] can survive more than two indef blocks yet return rehabilitated, I daresay Moulton could too - ] <sup>]</sup> 17:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
* '''(mildly involved) Support'''. I gave feedback on an earlier version of their ban appeal. This is five years since the initial block. Five years and many, many socks, and many, many arguments. But with no recent ban evasion and a commitment to communicate better, I think it's time to give a second chance. -- ] (]) 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per asilvering and ]. ] (]/]) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Five years is a long time. Willing to trust for a second chance.] (]) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* Ideally I'd want to see some indication that they don't intend to ] as the issue seems to be rather ideological in nature and I don't see that addressed in the appeal. I also don't love the failure to understand a lot of issues around their block/conduct and their inability to effectively communicate ] and on their ]. ] (]) 00:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Would a topic ban from Kansas-related topics help? This was floated as a bare minimum two or so years ago. -- ] (]) 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I'm not that concerned by the RGW issue. Their communication on this appeal has been clear, they responded to my feedback regarding their unblock request, and they've indicated they'll not edit war and seek consensus for their edits. ] (]/]) 00:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five? In any event it's been a long time since they tried to evade. I'm leaning toward giving a second chance but I'd really like them to understand that walls of text are not a good way to communicate, that they need to post in paragraphs, and that Misplaced Pages is not a place for righting great wrongs. ] (]) 16:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{tq|Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five?}} ssssshhh. -- ] (]) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:] from KC:{{tq2|Yes I can write in paragraphs and list different ideas in separate paragraphs instead of a giant run on sentence.{{pb}}I wasn’t trying to right great wrongs but noticed the contrast of the definition of ] on Misplaced Pages and these communities being described as suburban (meanwhile some of these suburbs verifiably having lower residential to job ratio than the city and also a higher overall population density with some suburbs gaining population during the day due to commuters coming into them). This is essentially why on my case page It says I feel as tho something had to be “fixed”. I thought my edits were being removed simply because people didn’t like this place or some of its past so I felt as tho I was simply being purposefully misled which caused me to not follow proper civility.{{pb}}I just wanted to clarify that these places weren’t only residential and were major employment areas that they sometimes have a lower percentage of single family homes. This to me was always the opposite of what suburban meant, atleast what I learned during grade school and what it says on Misplaced Pages. That’s where the confusion came from. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}} ] (]/]) 02:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Six years is a long time, and they have shown growth. I do not think what is actually happening here is ], instead they ] and things went downhill from there. I think ] of {{tq|Jackson county being THE central county of the metropolitan area}} (which Misplaced Pages deems urban) {{tq|when you can see in the census reference here there are actually 6 central counties}} (which Misplaced Pages deems suburban) is reasonable. I researched it, but found the concerns are inconsistent with ] page which provides the definition that {{tq|An urban area is a human settlement with a high population density and an infrastructure of built environment. This is the core of a metropolitan statistical area in the United States, if it contains a population of more than 50,000.}} An urban area is the most urban area compared to its surroundings, even though its surroundings are quite dense. I hope this helps. ] (]) 22:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I add that their concerns that suburban designation misleads people seem to have merit. It is not the suburban designation that misleads people though, but the definition of suburban itself on the ] article seems to be misleading. I know this is not a place to discuss content, but discuss conduct. But some insight into content can help resolve problems. ] (]) 11:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== ftools is back! ==
:In answer to the question of "why no?" I would direct people to MastCell's section ]. He does not appear to have acknowledged that his blocking was in any way related to his behaviour, let alone resolved to change his behaviour. No one is beyond redemption, but there has to be, at the very least, a commitment to change. ] (]) 17:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


I am proud to announce that I have become the new maintainer of Fastily's <code>ftools</code>, which is live ]. And yes, this includes the IP range calculator! ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
===Deconstructing "recruiting meatpuppets"===
What others seem to call "recruiting meatpuppets" actually follows a simple pattern - and one that involves no wrongdoing on anyone's part. Moulton says there is a problem with an article (he's allowed to have an opinion, and he's allowed to state his opinion, and this is as far as his actions go, full stop). Someone else, who is not banned and therefore who is free to edit articles, *gasp* _agrees_ that the article violates BLP or whatever, and makes an edit using their own judgement.


:{{like}} -] (]) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
This is NOT meatpuppetry, this is not "proxy editing", this is nothing more than people fixing BLP issues with articles on people that for some reason a certain group of editors wants to smear as "anti-evolution". --] (]) 13:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:Note: {{no ping|DreamRimmer}} is now also a maintainer. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:My congratulations/condolences. ] (]) 15:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:So, will ftools be renamed or not? Congratulations. ] (]) 02:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


:Here Moulton calls for very specific edits to two specific articles: And here a new user, one who is engaged in the same behavior as Moulton in the same context, and who appears to be editing Misplaced Pages solely for that purpose - ], making his first two and only edits in the article namespace matching Moulton's above requested content word-for-word within hours of Moulton's request: And here's the new editor acknowledging he acted in response to Moulton's call: An editor who is engaged in the same behavior as Moulton and in the same context, and who appears to be editing solely for that purpose is by defintion ]. I have 16 more links of Moulton directing others, calling for certain edits. Would you like to go through each one as above? ] (]) 14:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
::Go ahead. If someone "calls" for an edit to an article by proposing text (on a talk page, in a blog, at some other site that I happen to read, or by mailing to me or whatever form the communication takes), and I happen to think that, after reviewing the article, that the text is good, or close to good, and thus use it verbatim or with little modification, that does not mean I am that person's meat puppet. It means that I am happy to take constructive input about ways to improve articles where ever I may happen to find it, and ''I'' stand behind the edit I made, not the other person. That was pointed out to you (in rather less detail) on your talk page, in the very diff you cite as evidence of puppetry. I think you may have overstepped a bit in your use of terms here. For the record, I am always happy to receive suggestions about improvements to articles, which I will act on or not, as I choose, and I am no one's puppet. ++]: ]/] 15:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:::By the way, this does NOT contradict my stated intention to blanket mass revert the edits of editors who are banned and "singularly unwelcome" here. Mass reverting allows for someone else to then come in and selectively choose to incorporate material and stand behind it themselves. If I saw a sock of Moulton editing here I could very well revert all the edits that sock made without any inconsistency. ++]: ]/] 15:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


== Block appeal for ] ==
:::Lar speaks very sensibly here. A good edit should never be considered "tainted" because of who supports it. Content can be considered strictly on its own merits, without regard to who is on which side. ] ] 15:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
{{atop
::I'm puzzled. Are you saying it's ok to recruit meatpuppets if some editors in good standing decide to adopt the advice as their own? . . ], ] 15:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
| status = unblock denied
:::No, he's saying making a reasonable edit after noticing a blocked editor had suggested it does not amount to "recruiting meatpuppets" in the first place. If I see a blocked user point out a BLP violation on Misplaced Pages Review or anywhere else, my first instinct is to check it out, and fix it. I don't care if a blocked user was the first to notice it. I wouldn't consider myself to then be a meatpuppet for that user. Just in case I wasn't clear earlier, I support unblocking Moulton, as the circumstances of his indef block (not a ban - a ban indicates consensus - for which there is none, based on the above) were dubious, and as there's no doubt his actions would be monitored by more than one admin, if he does end up broaching policies, he can always be reblocked. ] ] 15:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


| result = AKG has withdrawn the request. In any case, I see too many misgivings even on the "support" side to consider an unblock at this time. ] (]) 02:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I would direct anyone who agrees with this line of reasoning to consider the recently forged and hard-fought consensus at ] which was almost immediately discarded by a new editor who admitted he was following Moulton's off-wiki direction. Is this the kind of editing environment you advocate? Where consensus stands for nothing?--] (]) 15:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
}}
:No, not remotely. Coming in and disregarding existing consensus is disruptive. This is true regardless of whether he was following some instructions or not. ] ] 15:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
::I am unsure what this has do to with the discussion, really. I'm also not sure Moulton saying "I do not agree with the content of this article" can fairly be characterised as "off-wiki direction". ] ] 15:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Agree with Friday and Neil, but I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of the consensus. Are you sure that the lowering of the amount of coatracking this article contains is due to your personal efforts, or is it more likely that it was a consensus reached against your wishes, that is, that the article is in a state you do not personally agree with is the correct weighting in that it doesn't emphasise the petition ''enough''? The article in my view, still could stand improvement, even now. ++]: ]/] 15:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Seriously, I was on that talk page trying to get some discussion rather than the insult flinging and hate spewing I saw. I got threatened for my efforts with some sort of "outing". Consensus should not be built via wikibullying those who disagree with you away. ] (]) 16:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::As I stated before, you were not threatened and that was a poorly stated post and a misunderstanding. I apologized before for any misunderstanding and I apologize again. That is off-topic in any case.--] (]) 16:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Accepted. I will now disengage. ] (]) 16:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
<undent>I would dispute some of the characterization of my position and editing as recounted above. But is this really the place for such a debate?--] (]) 16:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
=== Arbitrary section break ===
This will be a bit lengthy, but please bear with me. I'm going to speak carefully here, recognizing that Moulton is a real and identifiable person with a real career and real feelings. There are a couple of issues here:
* The legitimacy of his block/ban/what-have-you. Several editors have questioned this, some in more unfortunate and inflammatory language than others. The fact is that Moulton was indefinitely blocked after an RfC; his block was posted to ] for comment; he appealed through numerous channels, from emailing various admins to unblock-en-l to Mike Godwin to ArbCom; and all of those lines of appeal were rejected. That was a legitimate and transparent block, according to Misplaced Pages's current standards - it was not unilateral, or unreviewed, or underhanded, or nefariously contrived by a handful of evil people, and anyone suggesting that it was is either ignorant of the facts or twisting this case to pursue a wider agenda (or both). The process of undoing such a block begins with discussion, not with a unilateral unblock, and I'd like to think that most admins have at least that much common sense. That said, there's clearly a feeling right now that this block needs to be reviewed again, so let's do it.
* My views were expressed back in 12/07, and haven't changed much. When it comes to unblocking someone, the most useful question is: "Has anything ''changed'' since the block? Is there any reason to think that anything will be different?" I see nothing to suggest that it will. Virtually all of Moulton's attempts to get unblocked, here and on WR, are couched in terms of smiting people he believes have wronged him. Nowhere is any acknowledgement that his own actions or behavior might have played some role in the outcome of the situation, nor an indication of a desire to contribute useful content. These absences makes it much harder to believe that an unblock will prove constructive.
* I had no involvement in the whole ] thing; my take on the essential problem was that Moulton interacted largely in the form of abstract meta-diatribes. I hesitate to use the T-word, but I found his approach to be "trolling" in the pure sense - that is, editing with the primary goal of getting a rise or reaction out of other editors. It was a singularly unconstructive approach. Interestingly, my sense is that Misplaced Pages Review has been much more successful at handling Moulton's MO than we were. Many or most of his posts are simply ignored on WR, whereas Wikipedians, unfortunately, were unable to avoid engaging him on his terms with a resultant death spiral of argumentative silliness, to which Moulton was not the sole contributor.
I wish Moulton the best in general, but I'm against an unblock on practical terms - I see no benefit coming to the encyclopedia, particularly given that Moulton is still filing Petitions for Redress of Grievances which admit no responsibility, and has given no reason for us to expect anything other than a repetition of the same issues if he's unblocked. I'd like to see a separation between the fundamental question - whether an unblock will help the encyclopedia - and subsidiary issues like block vs. ban, grievances about the community ban process, etc. If the community consensus is to unblock, then I'd like to see specific guidelines in place on appropriate talk page use, along with one or more dedicated mentors to guide him on working within Misplaced Pages's policies and structures and review of his contributions at set periods to determine whether he should remain unblocked. I'm happy to go into more detail or discuss this further, but I think this post is long enough, so I'll leave it there for now. Incidentally, as the admin who protected Moulton's talk page, I'm going to unprotect it so that he can post directly there rather than having to email or post offsite to participate. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 17:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
*Firstly, I would like to commend Dihydrogen for bringing this to the AN board for a review. I think we can all agree that this is the best manner to go about any controversial unblock. If we learned anything from ]'s handling ] case, its that these sort of things need to be explained in full view of the community, as he did. If the_undertow would have done this, a great deal of the drama would have been avoided. Since we can't live in the past, let’s look at the case. What this boils down to is should a user who exhausted the good faith of the large majority of editors he dealt with be allowed to return, as many have previously mentioned. We have to temper that with the knowledge that Moulton has actively attacked the entire membership of the WikiProject for intelligent design and additional editors that he feels are associated with the ID project. Of course, he is not the only person to attack this group on WR. He has also engaged in what could best be described as drive-by psychoanalysis of several of the members of the project. It was a little insulting, to say the least and I am sure the other members will agree, especially those who were on the receiving end of the doctoring. I guess you could say that I am involved with this because Moulton believes I am a sock puppet and/or a troll of some sort and has made his feelings public about this. He had also, during his very brief period, contributed nearly nothing of value to the project. So, basically we have some very respectable admins and editors asking for a good faith unblock for a user who has attacked other editors, showed no remorse for any of his actions, and appeared to be incapable of working within WP policies to construct an encyclopedia and would rather argue for his own ideas on policy. With Lar clearly stating that Moulton shows no change in his behavior, there is no way that this block can be overturned, without proper consensus. Also, someone previously mentioned how campaigning off-wiki is not always frowned upon. But we need to use common sense on this one. Are we seriously going to extend any good faith to a website that has entire sections devoted to vehemently attacking single editors? I am sure SlimVirgin and JzG would love to know that we think so highly of this sort of off-wiki canvassing, since they are some of the favorite targets. If there are editors wishing to mentor Moulton, as a few have mentioned they are willing to do, if Moulton agrees to stay away from articles in which he has a serious COI problem, and if he ceases his attacks on the editors who he has had previous dealings, the unblock could be considered. Short of these being addressed, I see no reason to overturn this block. ] (]) 17:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


I am bringing a somewhat unusual unblock request here for broader community input. {{u|Aman.kumar.goel}} has been blocked for more than a year for sockpuppetry (see ]). As you can see in the unblock request at ], they have agreed to a one-account restriction as an unblock condition, and there is no CU-confirmed evidence of recent sockpuppetry. However, {{u|Ivanvector}}, who made that check, is skeptical and has declined to support an unblock. A topic ban from ] and ] were floated as additional possible conditions, but no agreement was reached, and Aman.kumar.goel has requested that their unblock request be considered by the wider community. Their statement is as follows:
Sure, Moulton hasn't done enough admitting that at least some of his problems are caused by his own improper behavior, and some of his views are mistaken or inappropriate. But the same can be said of some of those here who are fighting him; some of them still don't seem to admit that there was any problem whatsoever with the "coatrack" status of some of the versions of the articles in question. Perhaps some apologies and adoption of greater humility would be in order on more than one side. ] (]) 18:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


:I was blocked for sockpuppetry. There was no doubt throughout the discussion over that. I have agreed to a one-account restriction. However, during the unblock request, a topic ban on me was proposed from ] (WP:ARBPIA) and also from ] (WP:ARBIPA). Though no proper evidence was provided to substantiate such proposals.
:I would respectfully beg to differ. I was the editor who constructed the RfC. I was also the editor who volunteered to call Moulton and talk to him for several hours about his concerns about the biography and tried to help him resolve these problems, with repeated emails and phone calls to a variety of Wikipedians and others. I have never denied there was a problem with the biography on August 22, 2007; otherwise, why would I have devoted so much time and energy trying to fix it? There are reasons why it was in that state which I will not bore anyone with here. There are reasons it did not change to its current consensus state for a few months after, which I will not bore anyone with here. If you want a more complete explanation, contact me.--] (]) 18:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


:While the proposal to topic ban me from WP:ARBPIA does not make any sense because I haven't even edited that area, I would nevertheless reject the proposed topic ban from WP:ARBIPA with explanation because in this area I have been significantly active.


:My edits on WP:ARBIPA were clearly net-positive, and they fixed the long-term problems that were otherwise overlooked for a long time. You can find the deletion of a number of non-notable pro-Hindutva articles, creation of SPIs of future LTAs, and multiple DYKs. That said, the idea to topic ban me achieves nothing good. Black Kite himself said "{{tq|The edits aren't the issue here, it's socking in the IPA area that is.}}". However, for the offense of sockpuppetry, I have already agreed to one-account restriction and spent over 1 year blocked.
::Well, for instance, there's Raul654's comments way up on this page, "he never really did accept that he was flatly wrong". This exhibits a mindset of "he's totally wrong; we're totally right; we must never even think about un-banning him until he admits it and grovels before us." This excludes a position where both sides have made mistakes and have problems. ] (]) 20:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


:Once unblocked, I would like to improve drafts such as ] and ]. Looking forward to positive feedback. ''']''' <sup>('']'')</sup> 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I do not have to defend the behavior and attitudes of everyone else. I can speak for myself and relate the positions of those who have shared those positions with me. I do not believe that everyone maintains that "he's totally wrong; we're totally right". It is not a matter of groveling. It is a matter of writing an encyclopedia according to our accepted principles. Do you favor discarding the five pillars? Do you favor unleashing people who have not demonstrated any evidence of being able to work with others on Misplaced Pages and follow the principles of Misplaced Pages?--] (]) 20:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


] (]) 01:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:Although I do not speak for others who engaged Moulton in discussions, it has been my observation that many others were unhappy with its status on August 22, 2007 for similar reasons to Moulton. However, again, there is a lot more to this story. And just pointing fingers without any knowledge of the background or the facts is not helpful. Sorry.--] (]) 18:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support unblock without TBANs and with single account restriction.'''] (]) 01:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


*'''Support''' as requested. The request is sincere. Having edited a fair amount of articles where I discovered this editor's edits, I found his edits thoroughly productive and that is absolutely uncommon in this area. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 01:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*It appears the ball is now in Moulton's court. There were real BLP problems with that bio (since improved by the community), and he made mistakes common to overeager new editors. He had the door closed on him quickly, and several of the accusations made in the RfC were simply unfair. But as MastCell outlines, his willingness as a new user to understand and edit within ''all'' of Misplaced Pages's policies was wanting. We're not a justice system; in the end, "what's good for the encyclopedia" must win out; he needs to put aside his bitterness and acknowledge that he will live within the rules. - ] (]) 18:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:* '''Comment''' "Support as requested" sounds like a canvassed vote, did you mean it in a different way? ] 08:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
**To go back to Dan's point, I think there's some validity there, in that these sorts of disputes are rarely purely one-sided. Moulton's not crazy - he had some legitimate points (though his manner of addressing them was unproductive), and the ensuing fracas didn't bring out the best in any of its participants. The more all of us recognize that, the better, and I understand the appeal to basic fairness. Still, the immediate question, to me at least, is whether unblocking Moulton is going to help the goal of building the encyclopedia. Even if we accept that the actions of others warrant individual scrutiny, I don't see the answer being yes. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 18:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:*:You need to re-check. , AKG posted a "request" for "unblock". By "as requested" , I meant how AKG requested himself to be unblocked, that is without any topic bans. Also, see ]. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 11:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::* I did AGF, otherwise my sentence would not have included the second clause. I understand what you mean ''now'' but I did not from the original posting. ] 15:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*Aman.kumar.goel's explanation for the relationship with Editorkamran is {{tq|we knew each other in real life, and we used the same internet and the same system sometime, and also helped each other at times with Misplaced Pages editing}}, but Ivanvector says the CU data indicates {{tq|someone who had been carefully using two or probably more accounts for quite some time and going to lengths to obscure the connection, but made a mistake just one time that exposed them}}. I don't know who's right, but this is a CU block, so if Aman.kumar.goel stands by his answer, I'd be uncomfortable unblocking unless another CU has a different interpretation of what happened. ] (]) 01:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@], ] from AKG copied over:{{tq2|Hope you will check my statement above where I explained, "{{tq|However, upon reading further following the block, I realised that what I did was a violation of WP:SOCK because the use of both these accounts was prohibited by the policy, especially WP:SHARE and WP:MEAT.}}" That means the CU finding does not really challenge my admission because I don't deny using multiple accounts. The only thing I happened to clarify was that the two accounts belonged to two different persons before they were used by the same person, which is me. That's why, in my unblock request (for ]), I have also cited the edits of Editorkamran account as part of my edits into this area. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} ] (]/]) 02:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::All I know about this case is what I can glean by reading the private case notes, which do indeed support what Ivanvector has said. But given that AKG has admitted (on their talk page) to using the Editorkamran account, that's all kind of moot. I'd still like to hear Ivan's latest opinion on this, and I've also pinged off-wiki another CU who is familiar with this case, but my personal feeling is that we should draw a line in the sand and accept the unblock request with the single account restriction, no ARBPIA/IPA/API/TLA restriction, and an understanding that AKG's account at the bank of AGF is empty. ] ] 03:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Oh, the other thing I wanted to mention is that on unblock requests, we're often left wondering what the user plans to work on if unblocked. In this case, they've specified two extant drafts they want to complete, both of which look like they have the potential to be useful articles. So that's a plus. ] ] 03:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Am I the only one to feel that their earlier statements, even if they did mention ] would not reasonably be understood to an admission that they did eventually user the Editorkamran account? Especially with all that comment about "we used the same internet and the same system sometime" etc? To my read the earlier statement gives the impression that they each account was only ever used by one person even if they did communicate and coordinate their editing at times. It's only most recently that I feel they've finally made it clear they it wasn't simply a matter of communication and coordination but rather that did use the other account directly. This also leads to the obvious question. How could any editor actually think it's okay for them to use some other editor's account just because it primarily belongs to another editor? Whether you consider it ]ing or whatever, you should not need any real experience to know it's unacceptable and definitely any editor with AKG's experience should know that. Note that I'm not suggesting that an editor who did what AKG did can never be unblocked, definitely they can be. But IMO there are good reasons to call into question whether the editor is ready for an unblock when they seem to have been so dishonest in their unblock request. In other words, if said something like 'yes I did X, I knew it was wrong and should not have done it, I promise not to do it again' rather than what they actually said, I'd be much more inclined to consider an unblock. ] (]) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:For what it's worth: I'm the other CU mentioned by Roy. I had run the initial checks and written some contemporaneous notes. I agree with {{u|Ivanvector}}'s assessment at the talk page appeal; there was a concerted, long-term effort to obfuscate the connection between these accounts, which doesn't really fit with the ] that they only realised they were doing something wrong after the fact. Whether a second individual ''also'' had access to either account at times can't really be retroactively assessed with any certainty, but it also seems immaterial to the finding of socking. --] (]) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with 1 account restriction. A prolific editor with no recurring issues. Understands where he was wrong. ] (]) 03:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''': I have edited in South Asian-related topics and have run across some edits made by User:Aman.kumar.goel. Of these, I have seen several constructive edits made by him that have overall improved Misplaced Pages. Additionally, being blocked for one year is enough of a penance, which I'm sure has given him time to reflect. In view of this, I support his request in good faith. I hope this helps. With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 03:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with one account restriction and no topic restriction. We need competent editors working in the India topic area, as long as they follow policies and guidelines. The editor should be aware that ] applies here. ] (]) 05:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I warned AKG ] for tag-team editing with Srijanx22, after many instances of one showing up to a content dispute the other was in to back them up. AKG didn't understand then what the issue was. He didn't understand it when he was blocked for socking with Editorkamran. He doesn't seem to understand it now. The semantics of sockpuppetry vs. "just" meatpuppetry are uncompelling. We indeed need more competent editors in the India topic area. We are not going to get closer to that by letting in someone who has shown willingness to serially manipulate interactions in that topic area, who managed to evade detection for years, who continued doing so after a first warning, and whose explanation is, apparently, unpersuasive to CUs who have reviewed the evidence. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 06:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:It has been sufficiently confirmed throughout these years that the false allegation of tag teaming was indeed false. Do you see me in any of the events that have been mentioned so far in this unblock request? You don't. It is disappointing to see you bringing up your misleading observation you made when you weren't even an admin. You did not even ping me. Oh, and don't ask me how I got here because I watch this noticeboard and have edited it before.] (]) 07:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I'm glad that you heeded my warning and stopped tag-teaming with AKG. AKG, however, continued to manipulate consensus in the topic area, which is what he got indeffed for. I didn't ping you because I'm not making any comment on your fitness as an editor; I just wanted to be clear that that 2021 report was separate from the Editorkamran case. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 08:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::To quote what I had said then, "{{blue|I am comfortable with ignoring your 'warning' since it lacks policy backing.}}" I said that because no tag teaming on my part ever happened in the first place and the time has proven me correct. I would reiterate that you are supposed to ping the editor whose behavior is being discussed. In this case, you had to. ] (]) 09:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::: Actually, the SPI makes it clear that there ''were'' multiple examples of you reverting to the same version as AKG in rapid succession, whether you were co-ordinating off-wiki with AKG or not. As well as those, I could add ] on 1st December 2020 and 21st February 2021 and ] on 19 April 2020. So please give it a rest with the denials and instead ensure that it doesn't happen in the future if AKG is unblocked. ] 11:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::That's totally superficial. I have also edited both of these popular articles and so have many others I can count on my fingers. ] (]) 16:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::: Yes, but that's not the point; have you reverted to a version also reverted to by AKG within < 24h on multiple occasions? I suspect not. ] 18:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per NxCrypto and RoySmith. I don't see any issue with unblocking right away. The presence of this editor is a net-benefit for this area. ] (]) 07:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' If unblocked, I would like to see AKG stay away from ]. There were a number of times - I count at least nine times between 2020 and 2023 - that they opened cases here trying to get editors on the "opposing" side blocked, and I don't think continuing this is a good idea. I also note that they were very active at SPI cases involving other editors in ARBIPA, which is another sign of BATTLEGROUND behaviour. ] 08:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:That, and the refusal to accept TBANs, gives me bad vibes.
*:I also don't think that agreeing to use only one account is much of a concession, that's kind of a given, but I guess it's at least better than ''not'' agreeing to it. -- ] (]) 08:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:: Yes, this is also my concern. I would have ''thought'' that we would expect an editor banned for socking in a CTOP to at least demonstrate their ability to collaborate well ''outside'' that CTOP before being allowed to edit it. I can understand the Support !votes above from other editors who generally edit from the same POV as AKG, but I'm still not thinking this is a brilliant idea. ] 11:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::What is that "same POV as AKG"? It is certainly not their fault that you are assuming bad faith. ] (]) 16:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::: I don't need to AGF when the evidence is quite plain, as with the editor I mentioned above where I pointed out their tag-teaming issues. ] 19:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. This user edits via proxy with IPBE, and the breadth and depth of the deception shown at that SPI is considerable. Now they're back with a semi-plausible explanation, and I don't buy it. And the one-account restriction is more challenging to police with a proxy/IPBE setup.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:*If he has agreed to one account restriction and this socking episode makes him ineligible for any future IPBE right, so what's wrong in allowing him back in since he has already served a year of block? Unless you are suggesting we completely ban those who have engaged in sock puppetry altogether, which is unrealistic. ] (]) 11:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::*What's wrong in allowing him back is everything Ivanvector says in that SPI. Please read it carefully and then re-read AKG's unblock request with a critical eye.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 12:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I would support unblocking with an ARBIPA topic ban (which could be appealed later when AKG has proved they can edit well outside that area). But since AKG will not accept that TBAN I can only Oppose at the moment. ] 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - The request is convincing and to-the-point. Those opposing are seemingly forgetting that it has been more than a year since this editor has been blocked. ] (]) 12:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per above without any topic ban. It is totally unreasonable to seek punishment over the same offense even after WP:SO has been sufficiently met. ] (]) 12:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:It is not at all unusual for editors seeking an unblock to be required to accept a topic ban as a precondition to that unblock. are are recent examples from this noticeboard. ] (]) 15:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Whilst I don't support the topic ban, it would not be done as ''punishment'', but as a measure reducing the likelihood of further disruption. ] (]) 16:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Caeciliusinhorto-public not good to compare community banned editors with this case. ] (]) 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per {{u|Ivanvector}}: i.e. dependent on {{blue|a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA and WP:ARBPIA and a single-account restriction}}. This will deal with the meat of the issue, while WP:ROPE should take care of the crust. ]'']''] 13:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I find myself agreeing with {{U|Black Kite}} - if they are willing to come back with a topic ban that'd be one thing. Without it I'm concerned we'll just end up back at AN/I, SPI or AE again. ] (]) 13:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I will tentatively change my position to support provided it includes the topic ban. ] (]) 18:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' While I appreciate that brevity is required in unblock requests and people have different ways of writing stuff, as I noted above I feel the original unblock request was at a minimum intentionally evasive if not even misleading on whether Aman.kumar.goel had used the Editorkamran account directly. While they've now made it clear that they did so, the fact this only happened after editor questioned their story compared to the CU view makes me question whether it's because they didn't realise they were unclear or instead because they realised their evasiveness wasn't working. If they were evasive in their recent unblock request, this makes it very hard to trust Aman.kumar.goel. Further, even if Akg wasn't being evasive, it's very unclear why an editor with their experience didn't realise what they were doing was wrong until recently. I was originally willing to accept with a topic ban but frankly I'm now not even sure that's enough, but it's moot anyway. If this fails, I'd suggest on their next appeal Aman.kumar.goel ensures what they're telling us is clear from the get go. ] (]) 15:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' without topic ban. Sockpuppetry was the sole concern for the indefinite block. There is no evidence of any disruptive edits, as such the idea of topic ban makes zero sense. ] (]) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Black Kite. Any unblock that doesn't involve a restriction on AKG's original area of disruption will simply allow for further disruption. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Not at all. Very recently, several editors editing this subject and socked were unblocked recently without any topic bans, including one more editor who was banned per 3x. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 16:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Nil Einne. Being "intentionally evasive if not even misleading" during this unblock request and previously makes it very hard for me to trust this user. I'm glad they owned up to their outright sockpuppetry with Editorkamran and had they done so from the beginning of the request, I'd have considered supporting the request, provided they accepted the topic ban(s) suggested (so as to increase the odds of their future success). --] (]) 16:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' unless an ARBIPA TBAN is applied. AKG's edits have not always been a positive: their approach to contentious matters has often been needlessly aggressive, and they haven't always been able to engage constructively with users and sources they disagree with. In that context sockpuppetry is more than "just" sockpuppetry. Some examples: , , , , , , and (These are discussions, not diffs, but I believe the context is needed to demonstrate the pattern I see). ] (]) 16:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:<s>I would tentatively '''support''' with the TBAN they have now agreed to.</s> I have no opinion on whether a PIA ban is needed: if they have edited in that area I haven't seen it. I was considering suggesting a ban from bring others to AE/AN/ANI, but perhaps some rope is appropriate there. In any case they should be aware that they are on thin ice. I would also note that under no circumstances should they be given IPBE in the foreseeable future. ] (]) 18:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) I'm sorry to vacillate like this, but based on comments by Ivanvector and Girth Summit I simply cannot support <small>(NB: while I am a CU, I am obviously not acting as a CU in this case)</small>. Despite our past disagreements I had been willing to give AKG another chance, but that was based on the assumption that they were being fully forthcoming, and based on the comments of CUs familiar with this situation, it doesn't appear that they have come clean. Put me down as a neutral, I suppose, though I remain opposed absent a TBAN. ] (]) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': Per Vanamonde, Tamzin, and Black Kite. It's telling that they won't accept a TBAN from my point of view. They were disruptive prior to their block and, as much as I want to assume good faith, I feel strongly that their refusal signals their intent to immediate jump into said area. There's also the concern that they may end up chasing other editors away from the site if they continue their aggressive behaviour and approach, which frankly I expect based on the lengths they went to in the past and the TBAN issue. I think this user was a net negative, chased people away from those areas, and made it more difficult for others to get involved with. Unblocking this user would end up leading to editor time wasted and would be a further net negative. ] (]) 17:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Noting that I still oppose the unblock, even though they accepted the condition about a TBAN. I agree with Girth Summit that this seems to just be someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them. I also firmly believe that allowing them back onto the project will be a net negative. ] (]) 20:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Aman.kumar.goel has requested this comment to be posted here from their talkpage:
{{Talkquote|After seeing a number of editors, some of whom I respect, are supporting my unblock but only with a topic ban from ], I would like to accept the topic ban from the said area. Ping {{u|Yamla}}, {{u|The Kip}}, {{u|Black Kite}}, {{u|Caeciliusinhorto-public}}, {{u|Simonm223}} and {{u|Vanamonde93}}. Thanks ''']''' <sup>('']'')</sup> 17:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
- ] (]) 17:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


:Would they also consent to the ] topic ban? Because my understanding is that the ask was for both. ] (]) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
To respond to the request that I back my claim that tools were abused. These are the <s>admins</s> editors that formed the "community ban":
:: I don't believe the PIA issue is a problem, only the IPA one. ] 18:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
#]
*'''Oppose''' an unblock based on this request. When I'm looking at an unblock request, I try to get a sense of whether someone is actually coming clean and saying 'I did this thing, I recognise that was out of order and I undertake that I won't do it again', or something along those lines. In this case, I don't see that. In their unblock request of 10 December 2024 (just a month ago), AKG seems still to be saying that they were not using multiple accounts - their argument seems to be that they accept there was a violation of ] and ], but the two accounts were used by two different people from the same device. They have since swung round to acknowledging that they were in fact using the Editorkamram account, but are saying that they thought that was OK since the account really belonged to somebody else and they only used it from time to time. I'm afraid I simply don't believe that story, and I don't know what to think about their shifting narratives - I get the sense of someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them, changing their story when it becomes apparent that it's not working, and failing to actually come clean about what they did and why they did it. If I don't trust someone in what they are saying in their unblock appeal, I don't trust them to abide by a one-account restriction - so, yeah, I don't think we can accept this request. Do some self-reflection, come back in six months with a frank and believable unblock request. ]] 18:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
#]
*'''Support'''. Seeing that AKG has agreed to the proposed IPA topic ban, the unblocking would be fine now. See no other issues. ] (]) 19:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
#]
*'''Support''' based on the comments from RoySmith and agree with their point that the AGF tank is gone for A.K.G. Any issues beyond a minor oops with their editing should be an immediate indef. No warnings, no "one last chance". That bridge was crossed, burned, torn down and barriers put up to block it from being rebuilt. ''']''' (]) 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
#]
::I hope A.K.G recognizes that is a last chance for them, and returning quickly to a contentious topic could be challenging for them to stay cool, engage in discussions but not disruption and that there will be enhanced scrutiny on their edits and willingness to take concerns to an admin board. They can't edit as they did before. ''']''' (]) 19:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
#]
*'''Oppose''' - I gave my reasons on the talk page; I don't trust this user. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
#]
*:Also I should point out that I was not involved whatsoever in the checks that led to this block; my comments on the talk page refer to emails I remember reading a year earlier on the private checkuser mailing list, which does not archive. I did check in relation to their unblock request recently and in my opinion that check was inconclusive; I elaborated on their user talk at the time. The result gives me pause because they had been using multiple accounts and evading checkuser for quite a long time before being blocked, while editing in one of our longest-designated contentious topics, one that's known to be very badly impacted by sockpuppetry and state-sanctioned disinformation campaigns. I suggested a topic ban from India-Pakistan for reasons that I think are already obvious from previous comments in this thread, and from Israel-Palestine because of something I thought I read on their talk page about a dispute in that topic, but I can't find that now and so I have to say I was probably out of line to have suggested it. But on the whole, I do not support unblocking, even with the proposed restriction. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
#]
*Very, very '''weak support''' on unblocking here with a one-account and indefinite IPA topic ban restriction. I found my engagement with the editor at their talk page today to be somewhere between obstructionist and disingenuous — and from reading the comments above, others have got similar vibes from different comments earlier in this process regarding the sockpuppetry and willingness to accept a topic ban condition. As Ravensfire notes above, the assume good faith tank is just about empty here — which means any non-trivial lapse or return to suboptimal behaviours is going to end up with a pretty swift reblock. I am very sympathetic to the number of very experienced editors above saying that this editor is a time sink and a net negative, and while I don't necessarily disagree based on what I've seen at their talk page and the evidence presented here, I think it's worth trying here one more time — armed with account and topic ban restrictions, and a pretty clear sentiment from a number of admins commenting (both on the support and oppose sides) that any issues upon resuming editing will be handled swiftly. ] (]) 22:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Three are members of ], five participated in the ], which the result of was the basis for the block. The RFC was initiated by ]. Among the certifying parties, ] was listed. The discussion was closed by WP:ID member KillerChihuahua, who had otherwise participated only in keeping order. <s>The block was then carried out by involved FeloniousMonk.</s> And then KC carried out the block. ''']''']''']''' 19:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support, but''' only with IPA topic ban, 1-account restriction, no VPN use, and no IPBE. That should allow us to be able to detect recidivism and limit potential damage. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 22:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Black Kite, Tamzin, S Marshall, Girth Summit, and Ivanvector. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', agreeing with a number of editors above. I don't know if the two drafts, for Indian companies, would fall under ]. Unfortunately, the editor does not seem trustworthy. ]] 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - At the end of the day, the ] has been followed by this user for a long time. Don't see anything wrong with providing one more chance. ] (]) 23:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per comments of Blablubbs, Tamzin, etc. If they are unblocked, they should be under an India--Pakistan CTOP topic ban. --] (]) 00:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. The CheckUser evidence of overt sock puppetry (not meat puppetry) is pretty strong, and the repeated denials, which seem to get walked back over time, make this user seem untrustworthy. ] (]) 00:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Noting the opposes above, AKG has nevertheless agreed with a topic ban inline with many of the opposes. It shows he is willing to minimize any possible concerns and that is a good sign. ] (]) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' calling socking the sole issue is a red herring when there was disruption in addition, but the socking alone merited the block so they didn't need to be blocked for both. I think accepting the t-ban is more telling us what he thinks we want to hear, vs. awareness of why AKG shouldn't edit there. I do not think an unblock would be productive. ] ] 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Import request ==
:I have to agree with LaraLove here that the situation was handled in a less than ideal manner. I'd always rather see a neutral, uninvolved party enact "consensus", and I would have also liked to see greater participation from a wider array of editors before the actual block was ultimately enacted. '''<font face="times new roman">]]</font>''' 19:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = A list without citations or an indication that it meets ] is not going to be imported here. ] (]/]) 18:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


Can you import, ] from simple Misplaced Pages. I created the page there.<span id="Cactusisme:1736493543617:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
::Consensus was developed in a publicised RFC. The decision was posted to AN/I for consideration by the community. The decision was reviewed by the arbcomm. How do you suggest that one widen the array of editors involved? ] (]) 19:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:I suppose you mean , which you ''didn't'' create at all though, and which is completely unsuitable for enwiki as it stands, being unsourced and lacking all indication of notability. ] (]) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::Well, they create the page. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::], oh, okay<span id="Cactusisme:1736586978195:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 09:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
{{abot}}


== Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators ==
:::Yes, but the ] discussion could have used more editors who did not have prominent roles in the RfC. '''<font face="times new roman">]]</font>''' 19:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


The Arbitration Committee has resolved by ] that:
::::How? We can't force people to participate. Generally, if something is uncontroversial and uncontested, people don't chime in. The question posed with a block review at AN/I is, in essence, "anyone have a problem with this block?" I'm pretty sure I've posted blocks before that got zero feedback on AN/I. I didn't take that as an indication that I should undo the block, and I don't think that anyone else would either. ] (]) 19:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


{{ivmbox|1=
:::::I'm just talking about this type of situation in general. I didn't even say that I objected to the actions of any editors. However, in ideally, things would certainly be different. However, I readily realize that an ideal situation is not always possible, as well. '''<font face="times new roman">]]</font>''' 20:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The ] are amended by adding the following section:

::::::To be clear, no, those are not the admins who "formed the community ban". Those are editors who felt that a block was appropriate, following a public RfC. The block was then posted for review on ], the most public and widely-read forum on Misplaced Pages. It was reviewed via an {{tl|unblock}} template, by the uninvolved admins at unblock-en-l, by the Foundation legal counsel, and by at least one admin whom Moulton contacted by email. The entire situation was then reviewed by ArbCom. ''After'' all of that exposure, which goes well beyond "6 admins", no one was willing to unblock Moulton. It is reasonable to equate that situation - a block which no admin is willing to undo - with a community ban, just as it's reasonable to consider Moulton unbanned since there are now admins willing to consider unblocking him. This whole line of argument - that the block lacked transparency or was not properly reviewed - is completely at odds with the easily verifiable reality of the situation, and I'd suggest that further discussion be informed more by those facts and less by zOMG cabalism. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 21:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

:Not all of those people are administrators. Not that they would have to be to comment on a block notice. Just trying to set facts straight, Lara. Mahalo. --] 20:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's take a look at some rough numbers. About 17 editors expressed displeasure with Moulton's editing style at his RfC. In addition, Killer Chihuahua closed the RfC and has expressed her unhappiness with how Moulton was behaving, and this is still true, as can be observed above. Only 3 other editors supported Moulton at his RfC and expressed no reservations with his editing style, and 2 of those had not edited with him or interacted with him. Some of these clearly were doing so for ideological reasons, and not to do with the subject of the RfC, which was inability to follow Misplaced Pages policy. At the RfAr another 3 independent editors chimed in, of which only one thought that an Arbcomm examination of the situation was warranted. So if one adds this up, one finds in the two proceedings, about 20 editors expressed some misgivings about Moulton's editing style, and only one editor who had edited together with Moulton did not (while 2 further editors supported him, but based on limited experience and knowledge). This does not appear to be a particularly good ratio, at least in my opinion. What do you think?--] (]) 20:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

::There is, though, a tendency for some fairly tight cliques to develop and to gang up on people they dislike for whatever reason. ] (]) 20:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, that does seem to be how WikipediaReview operates. ] (]) 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not dislike Moulton, no matter what you have read. I would not have put so much effort into trying to help him otherwise. Unfortunately, Moulton showed no willingness to follow the principles of Misplaced Pages, and has stated repeatedly that he does not want to abide by the principles that Misplaced Pages is founded on. And that is why Moulton was the subject of an administrative action. It was not because he was ganged up on by a clique or a "cabal".--] (]) 20:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

:I corrected the admins to editors. My issue is how the RFC closed and how an involved editor carried out the block. I believe an uninvolved editor should have done this. ''']''']''']''' 21:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

===Clarifying meatpuppetry edits and banned users===
Just to clarify a running thread in this discussion (no opinion on the fate of Moulton from me). So... if a banned user says "] on Misplaced Pages has a problem with content A-B-C for reasons X-Y-Z," anyone here making matching changes is then editing on behalf of a banned user? What if they are ''good'' edits--removing typos, BLP violations, or just really good suggestions for a content change? If that is reversible, because it's on "behalf of a banned user", if we enforse this, all that is required is for the banned people at Wiki Review to just keep giving good suggestions. Am I misunderstanding this? Wouldn't it make sense to only apply this standard to BAD edits? If, for example, someone at WR says to say Abraham Lincoln had a pet elephant, and someone added that fact (beyond it being stupid vandalism) that would be bad. But if someone at WR says that the 7th footnote on Abe's article would be better with different wording--and gosh, someone agrees--and implements that wording: is this a bad act? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 17:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:In the example given above, a careful consensus was achieved by discussion on the article talk page, then at Moulton's bidding a new user (albeit one who says they had edited previously under a different account) effectively reverted the agreed version to a previous version which had not been accepted. Is that a BAD edit? Does that make it ok to recruit editors to make changes that disregard consensus on Misplaced Pages, to conform to arguments put on an outside forum? ... ], ] 17:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:This is a case by case sorta thing. Considering Moulton's past and his attacks on the ID project, making edits he advocates are questionable at best. ] (]) 17:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
::Not all criticism is an attack. was the state of the article just before Moulton's first edit. If anyone thinks that this is an appropriate biography of a living person, we don't really have anything further to talk about. This is an attack piece containing nothing but criticism of ]. When Moulton attempted to fix it, he was attacked by the ID project, who turned around and banned him. The vast majority of those commenting on the RFC are ID project members. The person who instituted the block is an ID project member. When someone does something worthy of criticism and is criticized for it, that is not a personal attack. The way that this "ban" was handled was absolutely terrible and is very much worthy of criticism. There comes a point where the differences are irreconcilable, even though the fault may be Misplaced Pages's not Moulton's and an unban isn't helpful to anyone. I haven't formed an opinion yet as to whether we are at that point, but I have formed an opinion that Moulton was wronged at least as much as he was in the wrong. --] (]) 18:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:::B, saying that was the state of the article when Moulton first editing it, as if that were the consensus on the article, is deeply misleading and prejudicial. Hrafn, then a brand new editor, had the unsourced material ''per BLP''. What ensued was some heated between two new editors; one (Hrafn) who understood sourcing, but not the idea of (UN)DUE weight, and the other who did not understand the idea of sourcing. Neither of them ''properly'' understood sourcing policy. So what happened? They managed to hash things out to the point where the article reflected the sources that they had. Not bad for a couple of newbies. Then what? Moulton spent the next few weeks insisting that the article should explain that Picard signed a blank petition, that she didn't know what she was signing, that she wasn't a supporter of intelligent design (and that he could knew it as a fact because he knew "Roz"). And since then - Hrafn, like any newbie, refined his understanding of policy. And Moulton continued to complain about the system. Both started out with an incomplete understanding of policy. One editor adapted to the principles of Misplaced Pages. The other insisted that Misplaced Pages adapt to him. ] (]) 19:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, no disrespect intended, but did you even read my post above? If I did not feel the biography should not be cleaned up when I first talked to Moulton August 23, 2007, why did I devote many hours to trying to do so? I sent out emails and made many phone calls. Why did I do so if I wanted to keep the biography in its August 22nd, 2007 state? Your claims are not supported by the evidence.

As I offered above, I will be glad to give you some information about why the biography was in that state on August 22nd, 2007 and why it did not drastically improve until a week or two ago, if you want to contact me. Otherwise, I will not clog this page with trivia that most people are not interested in. Ask me if you want to know; '''do not assume.'''--] (]) 18:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

*I will not unban Moulton, as I am going out of town shortly and will not be around to be responsible for the consequences. However, as giving difficult users second chances is SOP, and given the issues surrounding the article and block, it seems that a second chance is appropriate. ] 19:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
**Even though the editor does not seem to be aware of the problem with his behaviour? That seems rather odd. ] (]) 19:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
***In brief, yes. The block button will still be there in the event it is required again. ] 19:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
****Odd. Then why do we permaban anyone at all? It seems to me that there needs to be, at the very least, some sort of assurance that the problematic behaviour will change, a willingness to abide by our core principles, like ]. ] (]) 19:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
*****We have blocked or banned (for example) Hkelkar and his socks so many times that it is clear he will never be an asset. I'm talking about a ''second'' chance, not a sixth. ] 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
*Here is my current position on the situation: ]. If you want more details about the Picard biography and why it was a mess and why it remained a mess for a few months, then ask me and I will be happy to help you out. This is not the result of some nefarious plot or an attempt to smear someone or to get revenge. This has a far more prosaic set of reasons, and in fact I suggested repeatedly that we just delete the Picard biography if it was going to cause so much rancor, but I was overruled.--] (]) 19:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
**Alternatively to asking you for your view, one could just walk the edit history of the article and its talk. That's what I did. Why exactly several of the ID project members are viewed by many as apparently seeming to favor giving undue weight to this petition seems a different and larger matter, that may not be amenable to determining from the histories of the articles, so perhaps you could shed some light on whether that is an accurate impression, and why or why not, and if it's inaccurate, why it seems to be held by at least a few folk? As for deleting the article entirely I would probably now comment favorably if it were brought to AfD again. ++]: ]/] 21:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

=== Why he was, and why he is, blocked ===
We seem to have different ideas of just _what_ he did "wrong" to get blocked. The RFC seems unusually focused on the blatantly false claim that he is anti-evolution and is lying about it and is lying about other people not being anti-evolution. To all accounts this seems to be what he was, at the end of the day, banned for. Yet now people are saying that his engagement style is disruptive. Well - maybe the two are related - maybe he was driven to it - to the "trolling", even, by people who were making false accusations about him and trying to keep BLP-violating stuff in articles. He can't commit to improving his behavior if he isn't even told that _this_ (whatever exactly "this" is) - rather than supposedly lying about his own and others' beliefs - is what he's doing wrong. And continuing with extremely tenuous accusations such as "recruiting meatpuppets" isn't the way to go - let's focus on what (if anything) he's ACTUALLY doing wrong, rather than trumped-up misinterpretations. --] (]) 19:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:That is incorrect. The fundamental reason he was blocked was that he could not work with others, could not work towards consensus, and disregarded the policies of Misplaced Pages like ] and ] and ] and so on. And announced frequently that he intended to do so and continue to do. And still does.--] (]) 20:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:(edit conflict) In short - if he keeps being told that he is a liar and a creationist, then of course he's not going to accept that there are problems with his behavior, and of course he's going to think the problem is the people telling him that, because he '''knows''' that those are false accusations. I think that the ID project members in general, and Filll and FeloniousMonk in particular, need to post a retraction of those accusations before we can move forward. (or, if you still think he _is_ a liar and a creationist, we can redo the RFC - if your evidence of those claims is as good today as it was then, I should have no trouble refuting it.) --] (]) 20:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe I ever claimed he ''was'' a ]. I am not sure what I believe about his personal position, since he changed what he claimed often. He could have easily been "gaming" the system or testing us and our responses, as he claimed he was doing in outside publications documenting his experiences on Misplaced Pages.

I do not believe it is relevant, frankly. I think the ''only'' thing that is relevant is the reason the RfC was filed; inability or unwillingness to work with others and abide by the principles of Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 20:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

:"In addition Moulton presented himself as a supporter of evolution, someone opposed to intelligent design, someone opposed to creationism and the agenda of the Discovery Institute. Moulton did this in private emails, on the telephone and in numerous Misplaced Pages postings (for example, ). However, this actually is incorrect, and Moulton was falsely representing himself and his views: , which became copiously clear." these being links that, to my reading, contain neither evidence that he was falsely representing himself and his views, nor '''that his views were other than being pro-evolution / opposed to ID/creationism / opposed to the DI''' which you all but explicitly claim. Still want to say you haven't claimed that? --] (]) 20:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

::As Random points out, the RFC did contain strong accusations that Moulton was an ID/creationist sympathizer (from several different editors). But the evidence presented did not back that up, and I haven't seen any statements from him since then that do. This doesn't change the fact he needs to promise to change his behavior, but in turn we as a community need to be more careful about what we do claim about another editor's real thoughts and intentions. - ] (]) 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

:And you say NOW that inability to work with others was the reason the RFC was filed, but from what I can tell, calling him a liar is what the RFC is all about - and I wouldn't want to work with people who call me a liar either. --] (]) 20:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


::You are picking out one small section of the RfC to focus on. The actual complaint, without endorsements, has 95 links and is 18,430 bytes, and does not include this material at all, but only focuses on some behavioral problems. The "Inside View from Filll" has 12 links and 2755 bytes, and is ''not'' the main complaint but a small addendum to clarify something that I found dismaying that I felt I had to reveal and complain about.

::The "Inside View from Filll" describes my experience at being manipulated by Moulton, which really took advantage of my ]. I have no idea what Moulton's personal religious positions and beliefs are, nor do I care. What I object to is being manipulated. I am not sure I would call it "lying" exactly, since from his later publications, he maintained that he was trying to cause disruption on Misplaced Pages on purpose to test Misplaced Pages's response to disruption so he could publish about it. This was certainly being disingenuous, and a misrepresentation of Moulton's purpose on Misplaced Pages, but I am not sure I would call Moulton a "liar".--] (]) 21:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)



And, if it's simply behavioral problems rather than anything wrong with his ideas, then it's not clear why he shouldn't be allowed to point out problems in articles for others to fix in their own way, and how this "recruiting meatpuppets" is even an offence at all (since despite you calling them meatpuppets there's clearly no-one that's offering to uncritically regurgitate any and all edits he suggests) --] (]) 20:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I read this long thread, and do not find any convincing arguments to lift the block. ] <small>]</small> 21:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Moulton would be willing to abide by Misplaced Pages's rules, if unblocked. I was ] shortly before he was originally blocked, and found him to be pretty reasonable, once he had calmed down from his interaction with several members of Wikiproject intelligent design, which had left him a bit aggravated and confused, IMO. I don't know if he has much interest in editing beyond addressing the coatrack, undue weight, and BLP issues he ran into on ] and ], but I do believe it's time to give him a real chance here. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:::No offense but that really is not particularly compelling since this is at best 2nd hand. --] (]) 17:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

:His behaviour is closely tied to his ideas that WP should produce original research in some sort of "journalistic standards". The suspicion that he was claiming to be anti-ID while appearing to support their views was only part of the RfC which came in the context of his tendentious conduct on talk pages, and was not commented on or supported by all those taking part. Looking over the evidence now it seems to me that his expressed support for an ID proponent comes from some similarities in ideas and his use of buzzwords gave an unfortunate impression, but that's not the meat of the problem. The essential is that he conform to policies and talk page guidelines, but there has been no indication that he is willing to make such changes in behaviour. .. ], ] 21:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
::Actually, after only a few exchanges with him, Moulton told me that "I'm inclined to believe your estimate, that authentic journalism isn't likely to ever become a feature of Misplaced Pages." Also note in that diff that he had been confused by the use of sarcasm, and had not picked up on the misconceptions regarding his beliefs.
::So of course his exchanges with Wikiproject intelligent design did not help him become a good editor. They didn't deal with his actual issues and attacked him for something he didn't believe in, serving to further confuse him. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:::You miss out the rest of his paragraph – "I'm inclined to believe your estimate, that authentic journalism isn't likely to ever become a feature of Misplaced Pages. Which begs the obvious question. If Misplaced Pages is ''not'' an instance of journalism, then what the devil ''is'' it? Is it ''sui generis''?" That's hardly an agreement to work within the constraints of Misplaced Pages policies.
:::I assure you that I did my utmost to deal with his genuine concerns about biographies, but as stated earlier in that thread do not consider that Misplaced Pages should exercise censorship of reliably sourced non-defamatory information on the basis of hearsay evidence. His beliefs remain obscure, but his citing at least one ID proponent with apparent approval and his use of the common creationist claim that microevolution and macroevolution are distinct gave the impression of some sympathy with their cause. However, open creationists have been welcomed at ID articles when they discuss issues constructively and work within policy. My concern, and evidently MastCell's, was with his tendentious and extended arguments and failure to accept NOR. .. ], ] 23:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
::::I wasn't saying that the comment was the end of the dialog, but it clearly demonstrates that Moulton is not as inflexible as he's made out to be. He has been willing to learn and understand what Misplaced Pages is and how to go about it. I have also seen that he's learned a lot about Misplaced Pages's policies in the time since his block was enacted.
::::However, I don't see why he would understand policies at that time, when they were applied unevenly. It took intervention by far more experienced editors on two separate occasions in order to improve the undue weight, coatrack, and BLP issues on Picard's article. He didn't know policy, but he knew the article was wrong, so why would he accept policy when it was quoted in order to defend something clearly wrong? Now that he's got a better understanding of policies regarding undue weight, coatrack articles, and BLP, I believe he's likely to accept policies against OR as well. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

::::That is a mischaracterization of the situation isn't it? After all, when did we finally get access to a statement of Picard's personal beliefs? Just last week, even though we and others had asked for it many many many times for months and months. If she supposedly thought that intelligent design was nonsense, then we had to have a source. Were we supposed to publish this with no sources based on nothing? You think that would have been reasonable and ethical, even even reasonable and ethical "journalism"? And the reason there were many editors involved was that a huge war erupted when people attempted to white wash the sourced material out of the article. And the reason the article became a "COATRACK", or violated UNDUE, was material that violated copyright, or was plagiarized was removed from it last August. And although assorted BLP warriors such as Moulton appeared, they were unwilling to actually write anything, but instead just wanted to fight. This could all be solved if people (1) followed the sources (2) actually wrote something instead of plagiarizing.--] (]) 12:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::It is blatantly obvious that if an article has some content that was a copyvio, it should be removed; if the article then winds up blatantly lopsided and unbalanced, that should be corrected by further removal. None of this is unusual except, apparently, in this particular sector of Misplaced Pages. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 13:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::Absolutely. For example, see the history of ]. I found version. It had copyvio, I threw up a , announced my intentions on the talk page and waited. I then removed the copyvio and unsourced/unreliably sourced text, what remained was massively unbalanced, so it went too, and we are left with a stub. This is standard practice in handling BLP articles. If the ID project doesn't do things that way, that's a matter for considerable concern, I'd say. ++]: ]/] 16:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::::I do not believe that the ID Wikiproject is any different from any other in this respect. And I did not remove the copyright violation and I do not know if a current member of the project removed the copyright violation at that time, but it was removed. And it was unbalanced. So Moulton and I and others tried to address it. And things went downhill from there. And it was so contentious I suggested several times just removing the article completely, as you suggested. But others did not want to go down that route. And so it had certain things done that needed to be corrected, and there was a request to the parties involved to correct them since last August. And finally, the cooperation that had been requested repeatedly materialized, and then things moved to their present much improved state and continue to improve, with a small firestorm or two in the last couple of weeks that was uncalled for. So what is the problem?--] (]) 17:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Um... "what is the problem?" That it took this long and caused this much contention to fix one coatrack that seemed apparently to be a focus of the ID project. Take a read through what Sam Korn says, below. His dispassionate review of matters draws significantly different conclusions about several matters about which you and other ID members have been asserting, and I for one am a bit curious as to why that is. ++]: ]/] 21:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Several people have already mentioned that the ID wikiproject is different in terms of BLP cleanup, so your basic premise is wrong. I note with amusement that the recent improvements, which were at the time attacked as meatpuppeting, are now being touted as a success. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 20:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

:And for that matter - on the ground, Misplaced Pages _does_ have some elements of journalism. For example, ]. Or ]. Yes, it's not supposed to be, but in practice articles do violate that principle, more often than ]. --] (]) 03:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

So you claim that most Misplaced Pages articles violate ] and ] and that these are standards we should discard? Do I have that correct? --] (]) 12:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
:Filll: That is a ], and I suspect you already know it, but used it for rhetorical effect anyway. To be precise: ''I can feel that there are some (who said "most" ??) articles that violate ] and ] without wanting to discard them.'', the two views are not dichtomic. If this is the typical level of your argument I can see why Moulton had trouble with trying to work with you, but I'm going to assume instead that you've overexcited by matters and it wasn't typical at all. Just as a tip though, if you want to be taken seriously outside your own project where everyone knows you, and make effective points, it may be more effective not to use such rhetorical flourishes when they are likely to confuse or distract. ++]: ]/] 16:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I will ask you to spare me the ] and to ] it at all possible and avoid such aggresive and tortuous argumentation. It reflects quite poorly on you. Just a friendly suggestion.

And I of course was asking this for clarification because I wanted to repeat back what I thought I had heard since it seemed a little hard to believe. Do you think this is not permitted? I was under the impression that was a good technique to avoid misunderstanding. Do you dispute that?

Also, I interpreted "more often than not" to mean "most". Do you dispute that might be a common interpretation of the phrase "more often than not"? How would you interpret the phrase "more often than not"?

Also, the aspects of asserting that Misplaced Pages should function as "online journalism" that Moulton was advocating that got him into trouble were pushing for the discard of ] and ], among other principles. Now in a journalistic setting, you can argue a point or take some sort of editorial stance that is decidedly not NPOV. And you are expected to do your investigation and not follow NOR. But those are our principles here, at least at the moment. So I was asking for clarification, since I did not want to misinterpret what positions of Moulton's you were advocating we adopt, or what positions you were defending. Is this inappropriate? Please show me the place in policy where it shows that I cannot ask these questions to understand better what you position you are a proponent of. Thanks.--] (]) 17:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

:"So you claim that most Misplaced Pages articles violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and that these are standards we should discard?" which is a quote of your statement, is the FIRST mention of NPOV and NOR in this section. So it's not clear who you are talking to, now that I think about it. Who were you asking that of, anyway? Random832? Note that his "more often than ]" was a link to a section of ], rather than just an assertion about probability. Couched that way, it's too clever, and thus both confusing and true. True, because ] says "never should an article be X" for a lot of different Xs, including "news story like". But it is true that there is at least one article in WP that is "news story like" (I could find one, and so could you). Hence that's ''more often than'' "NOT" (which == 0 by that reasoning, 1 is more than 0). But it is also confusing, because it does read, at first glance, like "51%" which is the conventional meaning of "more often than not". It confused you, it confused me, and it was a rhetorical flourish I wouldn't have used were I Random. So, apologies there for not spotting why you were confused and jumping on that point. But I still think your own false dichotomy wasn't useful. As to you or anyone asking for clarification, it is absolutely a good idea. I just don't think that it's a good idea if it's not clear what you were asking! ...which I don't think it was in this case... The way your phrase was worded, it read like you were only posing that as a "have you stopped beating your wife" question. I'm not Random, but I don't think Random, you, ''or'' I are claiming that ''most'' articles actually are news stories at present, although some are. Apologies if you took offense.

:All that aside... I personally don't think that Misplaced Pages should be "online journalism". We have Wikinews for that. I also don't think that "journalistic ethics" are a perfect fit for our environment. SOME sort of ethics clearly are, though, in my personal opinion (some others disagree but I think they're wrong, an ethics free project is not a good project). And starting from some tenets of journalistic ethics to develop ours may give some value (rather than starting from, say, ditch digger ethics, which have far less in common with writing articles...) From journalistic ethics, I'd keep the part about not deliberately doing harm, and telling the truth, or at least reporting accurately on what others are saying, but drop the part about it being OK to have an editorial opinion (a POV, in other words) that is so common in journalism which is often written to persuade rather than inform. We don't have POV here, nor should we. We have RS and V rather than "truth" and we have NPOV rather than editorial opinion. Those are foundational principles, and no one can edit effectively here for long without editing within the lines they proscribe. One doesn't have to AGREE with them, you just have to abide. Moulton did not abide before. Until and unless he does agree to abide now, regardless of his personal view, he would get blocked again for straying, (you know lots of people would be watching for any straying), sooner or later. That being so, it is still completely seperable from whether he found a problem in some of the articles that ID was apparently perceived (at least by some) as "owning" at the time. He did. ++]: ]/] 22:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

::I'm sorry for any confusion caused by "more often than NOT" - I saw an opportunity to use a pun to emphasize the issue, and took it. That said, while it's obviously not really a straight majority of articles, the problem ''is'' systemic, and we ''should'' be responsible in the way we - if at all - cover recent events and in particular real people that are related to those events. To put it in clearer terms, my point is that whether we should or not, we '''do''' often engage - irresponsibly in some cases - in what can only be called journalism, and that Moulton should not be faulted for calling it what it is. My post was specifically in reaction to the statement ''"I'm inclined to believe your estimate, that authentic journalism isn't likely to ever become a feature of Misplaced Pages. Which begs the obvious question. If Misplaced Pages is not an instance of journalism, then what the devil is it? Is it sui generis?" That's hardly an agreement to work within the constraints of Misplaced Pages policies.'' --] (]) 07:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
:::I absolutely think you are right. It certainly isn't such an agreement on his part. And until Moulton agrees to work within the constraints of Misplaced Pages policies, unblocking him would be a symbolic gesture, because as soon as he didn't, bzzt, that would be it. You know it, because lots of people would be watching. That's why my primary advocacy here hasn't been for an unblocking, it's been that there be some examination of how we interact with academics. Further on, Filll relates an excellent example of how his experiences and Moulton's presuably were very similar, up until the part where Filll apparently decided "OK, there's a lot here that's different but I am going to work within the system" and Moulton apparently decided "This is BS, this will never work, these people need to have some other principles explained to them" and flamed out. I posit that both Filll and Moulton are outliers. The vast majority of academics, I suspect, merely give up in frustration, quietly, and go away, and then have nothing kind to say about Misplaced Pages or working there to their peers and students. Successful participation here is rare. Too rare. That's the bigger problem than unblocking one academic who is by his own admission not likely to change his approach from one of "here's what you all need to do to change, embrace it now!" to "I'm here to work with you under the current terms, and as I work and build credibility maybe I can advocate for some changes". ++]: ]/] 13:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
::::I think you misunderstood me just now. My original statements about the problems with current events coverage were, rather, a reaction to the statement by dave souza: <<''"I'm inclined to believe your estimate, that authentic journalism isn't likely to ever become a feature of Misplaced Pages. Which begs the obvious question. If Misplaced Pages is not an instance of journalism, then what the devil is it? Is it sui generis?" That's hardly an agreement to work within the constraints of Misplaced Pages policies.''>>, which I marked by placing in italics - you seemed to think I was talking about the statement of Moulton's in quote marks, and that souza's remarks were my own. --] (]) 03:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::I'm not so sure that that argument -- WP engages in journalism -- will gain much traction. But, I could be wrong. Nonetheless, even if you and Moulton are correct in that assertion, it certainly ''does not'' excuse his behaviour. Not sure what part of this is difficult. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

===Not requesting an unblock===
Note that Moulton is , which may moot some of the discussion above. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 21:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:I think the question should be asked rather than making an assumption. When I read his arbcom statement way back when, I remember thinking that while he was probably right more than he was wrong, it was a non-starter because it was all lawyering. If he is saying and attempting to prove, "I was blocked unjustly" as a prerequisite to "please unblock me", then that's fine and it deserves a legitimate review. But if he merely wants to point out flaws in the system and does not wish to return (]) then you are correct, it's time to move on with life. --] (]) 22:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
::Actually, before we possibly move away from the Moulton issue, a lot of important notions have been raised about what to do with a community ban/indef block, including the difference between the two, and how to go about bringing back a user if an admin is willing to unblock (which negates the community ban). While this probably should be expounded on in a new thread, this is something that does need to be addressed and, if possible, standardized. We have recently had two separate editors come up for block reviews that elicited a lot of response and confusion about the lack of a system that is in place. I know that these have been carried out on the AN/I board and/or on this board, but it seems clear the community is confused by the whole issue. Short of any guidance from ArbCom, maybe we could work this out somewhere. Thoughts on that? ] (]) 23:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Current practice is that an indefinite block must have the unanimous ] of those with the ability to undo the block (administrators). In society outside of Misplaced Pages, such cases are tried by a selected jury. The problem with a decision based on a popular vote on the former ] or on ANI is that it would be like impaneling your jury from whoever happened to show up in court that day. So if 12 of the prosecutor's best friends show up in court, the evidence doesn't really matter. So in order to demonstrate that a ban is a community ban, rather than merely a lynching, it needs to have unanimous consent or it needs to be determined by an impartial select group (Arbcom). --] (]) 23:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
::::But there is obviously still confusion about the whole issue. Codifying it can't hurt. ] (]) 18:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
::@B: I was looking at his statement in the above diff: "I am ''not'' seeking to be unblocked." Of course you're right, this all may be a prelude to an unblock request, but I'm not sure how much more angst we need to expend on the unblock issue at present when he's flatly stated he isn't seeking to be unblocked. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 23:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:::I was looking at the next sentence, "Rather I am seeking a review of the circumstances surrounding my encounter with the WikiProject on Intelligent Design." If that review is for the purpose of saying "ha ha, told you so", we have better ways of spending our time. If that review is for the purpose of demonstrating that the block is invalid and asking to be permitted to contribute to the development of the encyclopedia, then it is more worthwhile. --] (]) 23:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
::::That he is requesting a general review of events, rather than an unblock, suggests to me that he really doesn't understand how Misplaced Pages operates at all, which is very surprising given the amount of time he spends on WR. I was sympathetic to unblocking him earlier, but now I agree that it may be best to just forget about him. ] (]) 03:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::Listen to his statements in the NTWW episode below. He wants to demand huge reforms of Misplaced Pages, based on his whims, including discard of several of its core principles, and he wants to have bad things happen to all those who "wronged" him. And ''then'' and only then will he be interested in returning. Or at least that is how I understand the situation.--] (]) 13:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::Anyone is free to advocate whatever reforms they wish on the appropriate policy talkpages and off-wiki. I don't see the relevance of that. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 13:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Absolutely. I've advocated several myself, quite radical indeed. That in no way shape or form means that I am "demanding" them as a condition of my participation here (and such a statement should be met with "ok, then, don't participate, then..." ] is a special case statement of that notion, and you'll find it on my user talk). But the issue I have is that I'm not seeing Moulton's statements before the block as "demanding" changes in governance. I see them as suggestions. To the extent that they interfered with his ability to edit effectively, with his ability to participate in article discussions, in policy discussions, etc, they were a self imposed hindrance. But I don't see them as a blockable offense in and of themselves or else we would never be able to propose any policy changes at all. So I see Filll as presenting a bit of a red herring here with this. ++]: ]/] 16:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I think there is no problem with advocating changes at Misplaced Pages. After all, what am I doing at ] and ], among other places? The reason this is relevant is (1) it is expressed as part of the preconditions and (2) it is expressed as part of Moulton's goals, and always was, and was the root problem that Moulton ran into at Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 16:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

::This whole issue is surreal. Claiming, ''in essence'', that Moulton was standing on principle in refusing to follow WP's various policies -- no he was flouting the policies -- and that his absolute abject refusal to cooperate, his extreme COI problems, his inability to either comprehend or abide by NPOV and NOR are also indicative of a principled stand, is singularly ridiculous. There are things I think are problematic (i.e., broken) at WP, but I don't go around wreaking havoc to make a ]; and that, my friends is precisely what Moulton has done: wreaked havoc at every conceivable opportunity. And, in light of all this, some folks think that, despite his continued belligerence garbed as martyrdom, he should get a second chance. If at first you don't totally screw the project up, try, try again? Meh. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Not that I care awfully, but a couple of examples of said havoc would be good. None in this entire thread. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 20:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Jim62sch speaks strongly. I think others come to different conclusions, including myself. I think Sam's analysis below rather belies Jim62sch's assertions. It will be helpful if Jim62sch internalizes that the fault in this case may not be entirely with one party. ++]: ]/] 22:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::Well, Lar, I didn't realise that you were involved with Moulton from the get go. Oh, you weren't? Those of us who were there remember the series of events quite well.
::::::As far as anyone's analysis belying anything, that's really just a matter of interpretation, both on the part of the analyst (in what he chooses to present) and the audience (in how they choose to internalise the presentation). ]<sup>]</sup> 15:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Oddly, I don't have to be involved with something from the get go to be able to recognize when something is not completely one sided. Your recounting of things makes it seem like everyone else acted perfectly throughout and the fault is ''all'' Moulton's. Others come to different conclusions. Why is that? They're all confused and only you have the truth here? ++]: ]/] 22:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Lar, I am astounded about this drum you have decided you have to beat over and over about "one-sidedness" of culpability. A day or so before you posted this, Dave souza made a pointed admission that "mistakes were made". Baegis and others have also made the same allusion in this same thread. However, if it makes you happier, I have compiled my own evaluation of the mistakes made .--] (]) 13:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::That is sure not how I read Sam's analysis. And that is sure not how I read the RfC. To claim the RfC contains not one example of problematic behavior? My goodness. Incredible. And no one caught that? Not the Arbcomm during the appeal. Not the handful of editors supporting Moulton. Not the 20 or so editors who thought Moulton was problematic. That is quite a story.--] (]) 11:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::Filll: Sometimes I'm amazed at your perceptiveness (my comment made just before this one references your analysis of your experience and Moulton's as similar up to a point) and at the good work you do (such as ] ... were you ever going to do some rollup analysis on what was said?), and sometimes I am not sure you're reading what I am saying and/or twisting it around. This is one of the latter times. Focus on my last sentence... "It will be helpful if Jim62sch internalizes that the fault in this case may not be entirely with one party." That's what I see here. Certain parties continue to assert that the fault here is ''entirely'' Moulton's. I think the truth is more nuanced than that. I think Moulton went about a lot of things all wrong, and there is a lot of truth in that RfC. " To claim the RfC contains not one example of problematic behavior?" Please give me a precise cite where I say there is no fault for Moulton. I after all have been saying I didn't support an unblock without a commitment to adhere. (now it's been advanced that it could be symbolic... ok...) Filll, please slow down and read what I say more carefully. "may not be entirely with one party" != "is all with the other party" Unless of course you were talking to Relata??? In which case never mind... (this is where using the "to userX"/"@ userX" construction or sticking your remark above the other so it is below who you are replying to, but indenting it deeper to show it came later, might be effective) ++]: ]/] 13:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I choose to make vague comments on some occasions, undirected towards anyone in particular given the treacherousness of this environment. However, it is my perception, accurate or not, that some have maintained or suggested that there is no evidence of difficult behavior by Moulton. I would like to disabuse anyone who holds that position of any such notion; that does not mean Moulton could not reform and should not be given a second chance. And as stated by Dave souza and others repeatedly, "mistakes were made" on all sides. To satisfy your somewhat peculiar desire to see a partial compilation of some of these mistakes, I present .--] (]) 13:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::::While I'm sure that everyone has done things that can be criticised, editors accept the need to negotiate towards a consensus and then accept that consensus or follow dispute resolution procedures. The problem I found with Moulton was that he would agree to a compromise aimed at meeting his objectives, then resume tendentious demands for changes, while describing Misplaced Pages as a "profoundly dysfunctional" "rigidly rule-driven bureaucracy" unable to meet his ideas of "ethics on online journalism". . . ], ] 14:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

===Conversation with Moulton===
] has just finished an audio conversation in which Moulton participated. You can hear it (episode 16). I believe it's fair to characterise Moulton's position as wanting / demanding some sort of statement that his treatment was not representative of 'due process' before he would be willing to re-engage in the editing processes. We had some discussion as to how this might work (an arbcom statement?) - or indeed if it is even possible. I would support an unblock as and when Moulton lets us know that he wants one. cheers, ] (]) 00:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
:That's a great idea there. Demand a statement/apology for the way he was treated even though he contributed nothing to the project. So when can I expect his apology for calling me a sock and a troll? Or when can the entire ID group expect apologies, both to the group and many of the individuals? I demand an apology from him for his behavior. Since I have contributed far more to the project, I would hope my request is honored if his is honored. I also want the apology written out and certified by a notary. Maybe gold leaf printing, I will get back to you on that. Come on... ] (]) 01:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Baegis, I looked through your contribs and basically you created your account, went head on straight into Moulton (without editing near him before) Then after he was banned you went after others supporting a few counter to the ID crowd (reverting vandalism off and on but usually between 10 or so "rough" sounding "talk" with people that didn't agree with the Project ID crowd. Odd. ] (]) 07:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Considering you are hiding behind an IP address I will take your flimsy accusations that I am either a sock (well, technically this account is, but in line with policies), a troll, a meat puppet or what have you with a big giant chunk of salt. Did you ever think that maybe I was watching a great number of these articles before I ever started editing? Probably not, because it is so much easier to hide behind an IP and throw around accusations. Methinks this whole thing is slowly becoming less and less about Moulton and more about attacking the people who work on the ID articles. Strange that they have been advocating this attack on the WR pages for some time now. Strange times indeed. And I do want that apology from Moulton with gold leaf lettering. ] (]) 13:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
::Some of the ID group also owe apologies. I don't recall that _he_ ever demanded them, but specific blatantly false accusations were made. --] (]) 03:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
::"He contributed nothing to the project" is bullshit - he certainly drew attention to BLP problems. But I guess that's not worth anything, nor is anything else he could have done in the past eight months had he not been banned. --] (]) 03:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

:::He created more BLP problems than he solved, NPOV problems too. In fact, the articles he campaigned on remain essentially the same, in fact are now more complete, than before his attempts to whitewash them. Furthermore, you have a strange notion of solving problems: tendentious editing, edit warring and ignoring consensus are far from best practices if your goal is solving problems; creating problems, certainly, not never solving them. ] (]) 03:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

::::If you waste several hundred hours of volunteer's time, and end up with an article that is essentially unchanged in the particulars you are complaining about, I do not see that you have really solved many problems.--] (]) 13:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::I'm not sure everyone agrees with that characterization. I'm assuming you were talking about ]... it is just before Moulton appears on the scene. The last section is a ] of unduly weighted, negatively slanted material about what is, after all, a relatively minor incident, and it is placed out of the proper context. And that's AFTER considerable editing, including edit warring, had happened. The way the petition section reads now is much better, it places this controversy in a larger context of her overall views, all appropriately cited. If that is your view of an "essentially unchanged" article, then I suggest you may not be the best person to work on BLP issues. Now, was Moulton the only person to try to improve the article? Hardly. Did Moulton go about it the right way? Hardly. (but go read ] for some perspective here... we have a real problem with fitting academics into our processes effectively). Yes, it took the efforts of others to fix it. But how long would it have sat unfixed? Therefore, to say that Moulton did not contribute to the encyclopedia in a positive way is false, in my view. Bringing problems to the attention of those that can effectively resolve them is goodness. Oh, and strolling through the talk page briefly, I'm not seeing your positive contributions, but I may have missed them. What I see is that it took Kim Bruning to try to straighten this out and that a goodly number of the same voices here decrying Moulton's every word, decrying his very presence here, were the very ones that seemed to be advocating that the article stay all nice and coatracky instead of balanced. ++]: ]/] 16:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

::::::I think before you make any such claims, you should know a bit more than you do. Because almost everything you just claimed is wrong or a misrepresentation of what the situation was and what happened. Is this really the time and place to rehash this? And how many times do I have to repeat myself? If I do it a couple times, and people exhibit ], then it is clear that there is some other agenda being pursued here. And that is what starts to become apparent. Sorry.--] (]) 17:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Some other agenda? Yes, I suppose there is. I'd prefer that we not have even the appearance of projects exerting ownership over articles to retain problematic information. I'd prefer not to see so much difficulty and resistance in fixing one BLP. We have 250,000 plus of them after all, with conservative estimates that hundreds or thousands are problematic or highly problematic. I'd prefer we find better ways to deal with editors that don't understand our ways. I'd prefer that we not move from an RfC to an indefinite block quite so fast. I'd prefer that we learn to accept valid input even if it's presented in invalid ways. I'd prefer that we not let things fester so long but address them sooner. I'd prefer that ArbCom not summarily dismiss quite so many things but instead maybe put a bit of effort into explaining matters. Again, I found Sam's analysis quite illuminating. Why is he not on ArbCom any more? As to the suggestion that the claims I make are invalid, I gave the diffs. The article was a mess before Moulton arrived. Now, it's not as bad a mess but it still has issues. I only go by what I saw, and what I found on the talk page. ++]: ]/] 22:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see Moulton make any statement that one, acknowledges his behavior was a source of disruption and pledging to not recreate the same situation, and two, expressing any interest in actually contributing to building a neutral accurate and complete encyclopedia. If that were indeed his goal, rather than returning to the same articles he's disrupted, he's be clamoring with guarantees and solemn promises that he would avoid those topics and edit constructively elsewhere, I'd think. Unfortunately, Moulton has made no such statements, so I see no reason to let him return to his old ways. ] (]) 03:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
:No-one has, to my knowledge, yet explained exactly _how_ his behavior was a source of disruption in a way that was not intermingled with demonstrably false claims about the nature of his behavior. Could it not have been other users whose behavior caused the disruption? --] (]) 04:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
:: ] is a good start. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
:::As I mention above, I find few article-specific diffs reported there that are different in content from what a dozen previously uninvolved (and unrecruited!) editors have recently argued at Talk:Rosalind Picard in that article's recent push towards consensus. So your statement is going to need something more than that link to be credible, I think. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 13:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
::::I find that to be an absolutely amazing and fantastic claim.--] (]) 13:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::Ah, thanks. I aim to please. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 13:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Bearing in mind that they are polysemes of course.--] (]) 17:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Of course, but I'm assuming the only meaning compatible with good faith and basic rationality. :) --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 20:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

* I find it interesting that Privatemusings is so keen to give a platform banned users through this medium. Perhaps he should hand the microphone to someone with better taste in friends. Moulton was banned for good cause, and his whining and special pleading are simply offensive to the many users he attacked. I'm pleased that Moulton demands an apology before he will deign to grace us with his presence again, that makes it much easier to keep him away by simply not apologising for doing the unambigously correct thing. While we're laying down conditions, I'd not let Moulton back until he acknowledges that ] does not trump ], ] and ], since he violated the last three in pursuit of the first and without acknowledging the problem he's not going to overcome it. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
:I think Guy sums this up quite well and with much less sarcasm than my message about this apology. Since when do blocked users get the chance to demand things from WP before they will return? How asinine is that? And who even speaks for WP? The ArbCom doesn’t speak for the whole of WP. Arguably, Jimbo is the only one who does (maybe WMF), so maybe Moulton should take this up for him. ] (]) 13:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
:::People can make whatever demands they like. But I would say that a statement of the form "I can't return to supporting the Republican Party until they drop their plank advocating school prayer" is not a demand to the GOP, it's a statement of principle. Moulton's communications to me highlight that he sees serious problems with project governance and other issues and that until they are addressed and corrected, he won't return. That's not a demand, it's a statement of principle. I happen to not agree, I see problems with WP but not such that I wish to withdraw, but to call it a demand , as Baegis and others seem to be doing, is rhetorical twisting, in my view. That seems actually less helpful to matters than making principled statements. To say that one would like one's case looked into is not unreasonable either, if one feels that the previous investigations didn't get to the root of the matter. It may not be one that ArbCom, the community, whatever, choose to do (my reading of the tea leaves says probably not going to happen in this case), but it also isn't a demand. ++]: ]/] 17:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Look, Lar, I respect you as an editor and admin. But it appears as though you are just fighting for Moulton’s right to do and say whatever he wants and it appears you want to give him anything he so desires. Moulton claims he was not afforded due process. But he had an ArbCom appeal rejected regarding the circumstances of his block, in which he felt it was more appropriate to ramble instead of appealing his block and admitting any fault. Since I gather you may not have examined the serious details of this case, I can assure you that Moulton has been making these “statements of principles” for quite a long period of time. There comes a point where these are no longer “statements of principles” so much as they are declarations of ill intent and of a wish to be the center of attention. If someone continually harped on the same topic over and over and clearly stated their goals, especially when they are clearly not inline with the betterment of the encyclopedia, when can we call a spade a spade? Moulton has become a less prolific version of Awbrey, with his arguing tendencies (bet $ that comment gets mentioned on WR). This is nothing more than a user who was blocked continually throwing up the unblock template, looking for a sympathetic admin. ] (]) 18:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::Sorry if I've confused matters. I am not "fighting for Moulton’s right to do and say whatever he wants". (much less to give him whatever he wants...) No one has that right here. We ALL must edit within the project's boundaries and basic principles, and do so civilly, or we lose the right to do so. I can say both that Moulton still doesn't look likely to be willing or able to do that, and also at the same time decry the way that he's been portrayed by some of his detractors. He seems to have been railroaded, at least a little. See Sam's analysis, below. The thing is, the project doesn't DO due process. There is no reason to expect it. This is not a governance experiment, a society, or even fair. Asking for systemic correction is going too far and Moulton isn't going to get that just on his say so... When we see an out and out troll or vandal, we don't give them much other than a swift block, we don't have time for more. But still, that said, Moulton wasn't an out and out troll. Didn't fit in here? Sure. (the encyclopedia that anyone can edit is PR. It's more true that not just anyone can edit here for long, it takes a certain mentality and willingness to do things the wikipedia way to fit in and be successful) But his detractors paint too black and white a picture. I haven't changed my view that I don't see the absolute need to unblock him at this time, what's the point? We're not going to change things to fit his conditions and he's not going to edit if we don't. But I also don't see the harm. As many have said, if he DOES act up, that's it, second chance done, gone.
:::::At this point I'm more interested in what could be done differently in future with the next very smart person who comes along and points out things in articles that really do need fixing, but who doesn't fit in here (again, as I said before, see ] for some views on this, they are tangential but very appropriate)... rather than just rushing them off and feeling self satisfied that we blocked another troll, maybe flappers/consiglieries/editorial assistants, whatever you want to call it, are needed. Because we don't need the bad PR from treating academics roughly.
:::::I'm also more interested in trying to undestand what is going on with the ID project. Why are there these things swirling around saying that "the Anti ID forces are taking things too far" and the like? What really is going on there? ++]: ]/] 22:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::Moulton has been advertising his intellect for some time now. I don't doubt that he is smart in many ways, but he showed a disdain for nearly every other editor he faced and dismissed them while basically trying to bore them to death the long meta threads about tangential topics. Awbrey was arguably a very bright person as well, but he was shown the door because could not properly apply his intellect to the betterment of the project. Frankly, it wouldn't matter how smart a person was who came to edit. The current president of Mensa could try to edit here. But if they can't adhere to policies, tough shit for them. The policies can't be bent to accommodate every editor that is "smart". If they could be, can you imagine the chaos? And we already have a somewhat questionable reputation with academics as it is. The supposed mistreatment of one very minor person in academia is not going to cause any great problems. The problems that academics see with us have been noted in a variety of other places so I will not explore them here. But this incident is just a grain of sand in that desert. And that is not a problem easily fixed.
::::::As great as this entire conversation has been, including the large amount of space devoted to it, the simple fact remains that there is an editor who has expressed zero, zip, zilch, nada, no concessions that his editing created problems. He has made no statement that could even be considered to indicate a modicum of change. When has a user ever been unblocked when they have never even admitted fault for their actions? I am not against the unblocking as much as some others, as long as it is tempered with a full assurance from Moulton that he will avoid all areas in which he has a COI violation and his attacks on other editors will cease. But I have yet to see that statement. So, for however much longer people want to continue this, Moulton should never be unblocked if he shows no signs of change. It is as simple as that. And it really goes no further,
::::::The "problem" with the ID articles is that the editors of those articles are constantly bombarded by a trolls, vandals, and POV-pushers who seek to change the articles. It is the same problem that occurs on creationism articles and evolution articles (among others). But some of the editors may have become a bit jaded because, I would wager, that at least 70% of what gets posted on those talk pages is nothing more than trolling. A number of those posts are reverted or archived on sight, per ] because they do seek to improve the article. I guess some people have a problem with how we carry out business on what is probably the most trolled/vandalized group of articles on the project. Of course those people don't edit the topic or articles, so it is easy to make a drive-by assessment of the problems. ] (]) 05:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::ID is only one of many different areas of this encyclopaedia regularly bombarded by trolls and cranks, and nowhere near the worst. (That changes from time to time.) We do not need special pleading on behalf of its overzealous defenders. May I note that the people "don't edit" but "who have a problem" might well be those whom your methods of "carrying on business" are likely to cause them to merely "drive by." --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 13:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Sorry, but I have edited in 3 different controversial areas. And several other areas. And the Intelligent Design Wikiproject editors operate no different than those in any other area.--] (]) 20:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::I accept that it is possible that you genuinely believe that to be true. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 20:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::::To Baegis: "But if they can't adhere to policies, tough shit for them." At one level I agree. At another level, I think that's why Filll is an outlier, an academic who can edit here successfully. Those are too rare, unless you think we don't need any academics here at all. For some topics we don't, but for many encyclopedic topics, we do. That's a much bigger problem. I think it stems from how very hard it is to get an understanding of how things are done here, really. There is a forest of rather impenetrable jargon and policy. Most academics don't get that adequately packaged up in a usable form. Moulton was an outlier too... an academic who had it all patiently explained (that's rarer than the more common, 3RR and you're out sort of interaction) and chose to insist on doing things as he personally thought they should be done. You can call that "disdains us", I guess. I've pled with Moulton privately to commit to edit within the rules and with guidance, and he has declined. I haven't yet pled with him to look within himself and admit the things that he could have done differently (that is, admit there is some fault on his side), but I suspect I know the outcome there too. So, unblocking would be symbolic. But the problem here, the reason I keep worrying at this, is larger than Moulton. If he stays blocked, it's not the end of the world, it's one small pebble (maybe a bit bigger than a grain of sand! but not much). I'll again advance the notion that maybe we need a more structured assimilation program for academics. Not bending rules, but working to help guide. Maybe even interpret and stage material back and forth or something. Because we do need academics. Badly.
:::::::(cont'd) As for the ID project, I think you put your finger on part of the problem. We don't as a rule suffer fools gladly, and when a project sees a lot of fools turn up, it may cause members to get a bit embittered and rigid, and then throw some of the wheat out with the masses of chaff. Perhaps your project needs some new blood. If that new blood gets in turn corrupted, or if the older members drive that new blood out, then there is a bigger problem. But I'm also concerned that some of the charges that are being levied (about pursuing those that signed that stupid petition by making their articles coatracky...) that either there is some validity to those charges, or you have a big PR problem. Again, it's a sign of siege mentality to say "the problem here lies ENTIRELY with the other side, not at all with anyone involved with the project, and we refuse to apologise for anything" which (it is my perception that) some of the ID members have been saying, right here in this very thread. Relato rightly calls you on the special pleading aspect. ++]: ]/] 13:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I think you are confusing the need for academics with the need for academic experts. What the project does not need are academics, like Moulton, who come and and make no sincere attempt to understand our policies or to understand how things operate and instead would rather bellow from the top of the nearest soapbox about how things need to change because they say things should. The project does not need these kind of academics. We have enough as it is. We don't need people who will constantly tell us we are doing it wrong and apply their own personal standards. We don't need an editor who has mentioned, on numerous occasions (damned if I can't locate the diffs for this message) mentioned how his entire case has developed into something that he is planning to write about as a study. These are the people we don't need. What we do need and should address, and the conversation has been raging for years, most notably on the Expert Withdrawal page (link further up) is the lack of experts, specifically ones from academia. These are the people the project needs to apply their specialized knowledge within the areas in which said knowledge applies. Moulton never did that. But we need to attract experts to the project and retain them. These are the people who need to be taught how to work within WP policies to contribute. They will help the collective articles and total knowledge base grow exponentially. Moulton, for all of his vitriol, never made an attempt to edit within the areas he was most knowledgeable. I am all for bringing in and retaining experts. There probably aren't many who would be opposed to that general premise.
::::::::And with regards to ID, Relato's comment must be taken with the knowledge that, until recently, he never (maybe rarely) appeared on these article. He made one brief appearance a month or so ago and is now holding what will probably be the world's longest grudge because his case for a source being unreliable meet with serious opposition. He has constantly sniped at any and all he feels wronged him, so it is hard to take anything he mentions with any seriousness. Sorry, but if you are going to hold a grudge like that, your advice will go wanting.
::::::::But there is a problem with the whole petition issue you brought up, Lar. This petition that these people signed should always be mentioned in their bio and in accordance with policy. Undue weight should not be placed on it. But when does it become the entire ID project's fault when a number of these people have a bio so short that any mention of the petition places it in violation of undue? The bio's need worked on, that is true. But why does it come back to us to fix them because we entered relevant information about them signing this document. Moulton's goal was never to work on adding to the bio of Picard. It was to eliminate or minimize the references to her signing the petition. For a person who claimed to know Picard so well, he was able to contribute shockingly little to flesing out her bio. Moving away from the Moulton issue, I don't know if some of the people here properly grasp what signing this petition means. No matter how much some will try to minimize or distort the implications of the petition, especially since the ultimate use of the petition has been made quite clear, putting your name on this petition is akin to signing a petition declaring the Earth is flat. It is at that level of complete ignorance for everything involving science. Does anyone wonder why no prominent biologist or evolutionary scientists signed this petition? You don't see Dawkins putting his name on this. So, in the world of academia in which Picard and many of these people exist, where your name and work is the best form of currency, the signing of the petition will be mentioned. They, being consenting adults, put their name to a propaganda piece that is being used by a group to try to hijack science education in the States. But I do concede that it should be mentioned in the bio's in accordance to the undue weight clause. But this is an issue that should be addressed on each biography article. Some of the outside commentators on this case feel that we are, for lack of a better word, libeling these people by making prominent mention of these the petition. In reality, these people signed this petition and are fully capable of removing their names. Remeber, it is verifiability not truth. We can't parse their intentions, we can only report that they signed it and how the petition was used. ] (]) 16:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::In response only to the bits addressed to me specifically: my dear chap, if you think a month is a long time to bear a grudge....! In any case, if I noticed that the manner in which doing some routine BLP cleanup was exceptional, I would have forgotten. If it appeared to be merely unusual, I would have not bothered. If I observed that it happened all the time but had no major effect on article quality, I would have not have given it a second thought. None of those things are true. However, I note that since then I have ''not even once'' brought up my own experience; and have, with one 48-hour exception, followed the order handed out on my talkpage to "stay away from our articles". I do wish that ''other'' people would stop bringing it up, though it does tend to poke a rather large hole in the claim that ''I'' am the one "holding a grudge".
:::::::::As for the rest - "But why does it come back to us to fix them because we entered relevant information about them signing this document...'" and ", I don't know if some of the people here properly grasp what signing this petition means...They, being consenting adults, put their name to a propaganda piece that is being used by a group to try to hijack science education in the States" pretty much sums up why BLPs in this area, as in Middle Eastern studies, are unduly politicised. WP isn't anyone's weapon to strike back at those harming teh childrenz, thanks. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 20:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Frankly, for people who are constantly claiming that our goals are to be '''neutral''' or to be '''unbiased''' or not to take sides in any way, I find it somewhat comical that all of a sudden the signing of this petition is viewed as negative. Hey I thought we were not supposed to take sides? Do you think that the ] views signing their petition as negative? Do you think that the ] thinks signing a similar petition some sort of black mark? What do you think ] would say by the implication that standing up for what you believe in is some terrible slur against someone? This is the biggest load of hypocrisy I have seen in a long time. '''Whoever said signing was bad?''' Claiming it is bad stinks of bias and nonneutrality and assumptions, which we are forbidden to make. The only thing that is bad about stating a person signed the petition ''is if'' the person did not really sign it, or the subject does not adhere to the beliefs expressed in the petition and was tricked into signing. Then, the person has to ask to be removed from the petition, or to issue a statement rejecting the position of the petition, so we can use that as a source, which many have done. What is the problem?--] (]) 20:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::For anyone wondering: yes, that is a genuine argument, not sarcasm, amused wordplay, or some form of irony. It has been made several times to support the retention of poorly-referenced negative - sorry "negative" - material in and about BLPs, by implying that it is a violation of NPOV to claim that such material is negative. The mind reels. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 20:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::::I am stunned that you try to argue that it is negative necessarily. Huh? We are not here to judge. If they want to believe, what is wrong with that? You know there are claims that it is discrimination to not let people just believe what they want? I would agree. Don't judge. --] (]) 21:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Well if I am not mistaken he has had his case looked into a few times and continues to do so in variety of fora. Am I wrong?--] (]) 17:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Nope. But the germane question is was it adequately looked at? Perhaps not. ++]: ]/] 22:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
::Sockpuppets? Please elaborate, that is the first time I heard of that accusation... Why don't we toss around some more accusations... I'm sure he's a vandal, a terrorist (oh wait, WR makes you a terrorist automatically), and ... actually I'm not very good at fabricating accusations... I'll let the experts handle that, they're doing very well atm. ] (]) 11:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
:Guy's statement about how Privatemusings ought to find "better friends" brings to mind this exchange from the first ] book:
:'''Draco Malfoy:''' ''You'll soon find out some wizarding families are much better than others, Potter. You don't want to go making friends with the wrong sort. I can help you there.''
:'''Harry Potter:''' ''I think I can tell who the wrong sort are for myself, thanks.''
:] (]) 23:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

====Comment from someone who was there====
The episode itself primarily dealt with the present conflict as a springboard for a conversation about relevant policies and procedures. One observation raised in that discussion was that the community tends to deal with these flash point situations as if they were microcosms unto themselves: too much focus gets placed on evaluations of individual editors without enough attention to whether they may have been acting in faithful accordance with flawed policy. This very discussion about the episode--unfortunately--has become a demonstration of that dynamic.

When I recorded ] I opened ] regarding one banned user who was part of the panel, and the responses were not only unanimous but somewhat indignant that a discussion was necessary at all. Now Privatemusings initiates a similar thread and the responses are radically different. I wonder why this dichotomy exists.

It's no secret that Privatemusings spent a short time as a banned editor and that he's made a legitimate return. He's one of a couple of editors whose bans I once supported and whose returns I also supported: both he and I are interested in finding out what works in these situations and how to replicate the success stories. We don't expect perfect success (or anyway, I don't) yet we've also observed that sometimes a voice environment is better than a text environment for communicating nuances and finding common ground.

That's not the only reason NTWW exists; we discuss plenty of other things also and try to provide a good menu of topics and guests for the community. If you'd like to see new items on the menu, please come over to ] and propose them: this kitchen accepts requests. :)

Regards from Chef <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 23:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

=== moar evidence of meatpuppetry ===

See my self-accusation here . Basically, all the section at <s>]</s> ] is just an attempt to make ] guilty of meatpuppetry, using evidence that has undergone no review and has gone through no sockpuppet case. Notice that this same evidence is what caused ], and now it's being added to a page linked from there. If there is really meatpuppetry, then open a frigging case at ] even if the user is blocked, but don't post unproven unreviewed evidence on old unrelated cases. This RfC had nothing to do with puppets, and the timing is terrible. --] (]) 10:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

=== Sam Korn's review of the case ===

I mentioned before that I invited Moulton to email me with his side of the story and how he sees the situation. He has done so and, I think, has presented his views reasonably. I think he feels aggrieved that his ban resulted from his trying to help the encyclopaedia and to achieve the important goals that are set out in ]. There can, I think, be no doubt that his intentions were positive.

Furthermore, he is aggrieved that "due process" was not afforded him (he frames this as "I am not sure whether due process was afforded me, and so whether my treatment was systemic or accidental"). My impression is that this is, to a certain extent, true. The move from the RFC to an indefinite ban (I hold the distinction between an indefinite ban and an indefinite block without immediate prospect of unblocking to be spurious) was out of order. Indefinite bans should not be handed out so incautiously -- they are a big deal and they should be given with proper consideration. You should be very careful when considering a user in whose good faith there is no particular reason to doubt. The process by which it was affirmed was rather dodgy -- the brief conversation on ] and ] were rather cursory (admittedly through no fault of the participants).

Frankly, I also think the Arbitration Committee got this one pretty badly wrong. This is exactly the kind of case where the Committee should be involved -- a good faith user who is apparently incapable (as I shall discuss below) of complying with Misplaced Pages's norms in a certain area. Community sanctions are a tool far too blunt to deal with situations like this: it needed the careful consideration of the Committee. As I shall explain below, I think there were ways in which this could have been more effectively managed with greater subtlty and care. Being so bold as to suggest the reason for the Committee's wrong decision, I would suggest that the wording of the request -- with its emphasis on "due process" -- would have been off-putting to the Committee members (had I been on the Committee, it would have been off-putting to me!); it would have made them think Moulton was attempting to rules-lawyer his way to an unblock. That said, the idea that the Committee should take on some kind of abstract "was the system wrong?" case is absurd: the Committee should make decisions that are entirely based on the future and ensuring the correct solutions are in place.

I have said all this in Moulton's defence to emphasise that his grievances have some merit. However, I do not wish to give the impression that I think there were no major issues with Moulton's editing. Moulton undoubtedly ''did'' engage in POV-pushing. I don't think he fully understands what the verifiability policy is about (in his emails to me he suggested that policies in this area were contradictory) means. This is a serious problem. Although the conflict of interest guidelines do not prohibit anyone from editing a particular area (and nor should they, as long as we have anonymous editing), they do rightly advise that anyone incapable of editing neutrally and without emotional involvement should recuse himself. This was a situation where that advice should have been heeded. Moulton's editing was not satisfactory and some remedy was necessary. The trouble was that the action taken was somewhat akin to knitting with a barge-pole.

The other policy violations that are alleged are somewhat spurious. The charges of edit-warring are, I think, accurate, but not particularly serious. The idea of "disruptive editing" is, again, accurate, but comprehensible, particularly as others in the dispute were also conducting themselves in an unhelpful manner. The charges of "personal attacks" are wholly unfounded -- while he may have (unreasonably) accused editors of malfeasance, I do not personally feel that his statements did indeed become personal attacks. The accusation of "disruption to cause a point" is similar if one makes a basic assumption of Moulton's good faith. The accusation of meat-puppetry fundamentally misunderstands what meat-puppetry is.

So what now? Moulton indicates that what he wants is some kind of statement that due process was not afforded. This is a problem because Misplaced Pages is not focussed on due process -- and rightly so. What it important here is that the action taken was not whollyy appropriate: that is indicative of the process being wrong. I don't know who Moulton would like to make this statement: I for one am happy to say "no, we didn't get this one quite right". From what he has expressed to me privately, though, he wants some declaration one way or the other: "this was the system as it should work" or "this was a malfunctioning system"; I am not sure we can give that declaration.

As to whether Moulton should be permitted to resume editing... As can probably be understood from what I have written above, I don't think the original block was correct. It could much more effectively have been managed with sanctions prohibiting the behaviour that earned the ban. Now, however, the situation is different. Moulton indicates to me (and I believe also in the NTWW conversation) that he requires the declaration of whether the system worked before he would continue editing: were the answer to be "yes", he would not want to; were the answer "no", he would want the system to be massively overhauled before he would consider editing again. Quite plainly, therefore, unblocking would have no practical effect.

That said, I advocate it in any case. A wrong should be righted. I advocate unblocking with a strict prohibition from editing in areas concerned with the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. We should, as a community, be prepared to say "we would like to see you editing productively", whether or not that will be upheld. We unblocked Lir and were right to do so. If Moulton is willing to return, there should be no obstacle preventing him from doing so; I see every reason to think he could be a productive editor if he was willing to engage with Misplaced Pages's policies.

Frankly, there is nothing to be lost from unblocking Moulton.

] <sup>]</sup> 21:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

:Well said Sam - hear hear. ] (]) 21:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

:Regarding your belief that arbcom got this one wrong, I hope that this is being discussed on Arbcom-L (which I know you are a member of) as well. Do committee members agree that they got it wrong? Or are you alone in this belief? ] (]) 21:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
::I perceive there are two lists now, one for those currently arbitrators and one including alumni. Sam is an ] I believe. ++]: ]/] 22:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, that is correct, Lar. This is very much my opinion; I have no idea what any other member of arbcom-l thinks. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
:There is merit in unblocking on the basis that we (the community) may have got it wrong, because we can always reblock if we later determine that we were wrong about being wrong - we were right but perhaps for the wrong reasons. ] (]) 21:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
:Excellent analysis, Sam. ++]: ]/] 22:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Sam, this is greatly appreciated. Thank you. '']'' <small>(])</small> 00:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If he resumes editing Misplaced Pages, many people are going to emotionally experience first hand why the Athenian community finally told Socrates he had to leave one way or the other. ] (]) 01:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
:Perhaps. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
::I would bet on it.

::So that is why, since we now know of a few areas in which Moulton has been ''unable'' or unwilling to contribute productively, we try to find some areas in which Moulton ''can'' potentially contribute productively. Just as we do here conventionally with hundreds if not thousands of similar problem editors. What do we do? We topic ban them. And we direct them to other places on the wiki to learn the principles of Misplaced Pages and to try to contribute.

::In Moulton's case, this is what was requested in the RfC. This is what I have maintained personally for a long time and do suggest currently. And for those who are so loud and aggressive here on this topic, why do they not take Moulton into their own editing areas, and under their wing, and show him how Misplaced Pages works and why we have the principles we do, like ], ], ], ], which are the principles Moulton frantically wants to scrap or ignore. If you can turn Moulton into a productive editor on your part of the project, more power to you. I already tried. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. ''Next!''-] (]) 11:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
:::To Sam: If all Moulton wanted was a statement that "due process wasn't afforded", he already has that: ... (note that this was a quote of what I said , which says what I've been saying here all along... I've been consistent the whole time) If there isn't any in the general case, then there wasn't any in his case. That comment of mine was meant to be in the context of what Misplaced Pages is not... it's not a government, not a system of justice, not something that is designed first and foremost to be fair... it's a ''project'' to produce something. We don't necessarily need due process, it's not necessarily relevant to projects. We need effective remedies that move the project forward. Which is for the most part what we get.
:::To Fill:I'll gladly take Moulton under my wing, ''if'' he first committed to work within our policies and guidelines, and I'd reblock him myself if he strayed and became a disruptive influence again. As to a topic ban, we've used it before. I'd support one to be reevaluated after some time. But this is all hypothetical, Moulton has made no such committment and I don't think he will. If he gets unblocked symbolically, without such committment, and then starts editing in ways not compatible with our ways, I'll block him myself. If I could beat everyone else to it. I think Sam's statement: ''What it important here is that the action taken was not wholly appropriate: that is indicative of the process being wrong. I don't know who Moulton would like to make this statement: I for one am happy to say "no, we didn't get this one quite right".'' is spot on (and I'd like to see more people acknowledging that the fault is not entirely in one place, that the block may have been hasty, etc.), but I don't think it will satisfy Moulton. He wants a systemic reexamination of quite a bit of our underlying culture and processes. Even if we agreed that was needed (and I'm not saying that it is or it isn't, I've advocated for changes, but I'm not sure the basic model is as flawed as he thinks), we don't do that as a precursor condition of unblocking one editor, nor should we. Perhaps at some future date if there are changes, he'll feel the conditions are satisfied, and agree to abide, and come back. I'd like to consider that the door is open here for him to do that. But meanwhile we do have other fish to fry. ++]: ]/] 14:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
:(Response to WAS 4.250) And the names of the Athenians who were no longer able to tolerate ] are...?
::Fully agree that we didn't get this one quite right. A caution, don't know that there was a right way, the context was an accelerating waste of time situation and there's no way such a superior being could be satisfied. On the bright side it's provided plenty of material for a thesis or two on multi user internets collaboration systemic interaction failure and online ethics. Whatever :-/ . . ], ] 20:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

: I cannot speak to the nuances of Misplaced Pages dispute resolution, so I won't try. What I can say is that various by Moulton commenting on the involvement of the Discovery Institute with the "Scientific Dissent from Darwin" are erroneous. Moulton has asserted that the list arose as a community effort around 2001 and was only misappropriated by the DI starting in 2006. In fact, the list was conceived, organized, and by the DI in late 2001. At this point, it seems doubtful that the one content area that Moulton has demonstrated any enthusiasm for editing could be improved by his apparent level of knowledge there. That, perhaps, is not the point in this discussion, but it seems to me that a good deal of the procedural wrangle that emerged had its origin in the persistence with with Moulton applied his misapprehensions on the topic to Misplaced Pages editing. While a statement that there has been a shift in Moulton's perceptions with respect to Misplaced Pages policy would be an absolute essential step (absent, AFAICT, at this point) in a process to re-admit him as an editor, it seems to me that without an acknowledgment that he was quite badly mistaken on the content, too, that the same situation would obtain as it did before. --] (]) 18:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

===Why Moulton disdains WP principles===
It might not be obvious to those here why Moulton would be dismissive of the principles of Misplaced Pages. He is a lifelong research engineer and research scientist and academic. And frankly, although there is some similarity between Misplaced Pages and academic writing, it is far from identical, particularly in the sciences and engineering.

And I can say this with some authority, since my background and experience is quite similar to Moulton's.

When I first came to Misplaced Pages, I saw pages and pages of contradictory policy. I didn't read it. It was too long. It was poorly organized. And I was sure I didn't need to waste the time reading irrelevant drivel. ''Just like Moulton.''

When I first encountered ], I was stunned. ''No research?'' Huh? That is what academics and scientists are always seeking. That is the goal. Original thought. Novel interpretations. New ideas. Innovation. And it is forbidden here? I was stunned and dismayed and confused. I was sure this was a mistake. ''Just like Moulton.''

When I first encountered ], I was shocked. First, the very name seems contradictory. How can something containing all views ''in proportion to their prominence'' be neutral; it makes no sense. Then, we are not allowed to advocate for one position or another? Or at least not supposed to? Even ] does that in their articles, written by experts! What on earth? I didn't get it. I could not understand what the reason for this was. ''Just like Moulton.''

The ideas behind ] and ] were a little more clear, but still confusing. For example, academics often use ''personal communication'' as a reliable source, which is forbidden here on Misplaced Pages. Some of what is a reasonable source on Misplaced Pages would be unlikely to be accepted in academia, like the New York Times. After all, reporters are just basically boobs; they are not academics, or research scientists. They get stories wrong. They misquote. They are idiots, right? So I did not understand this either. ''Just like Moulton.''

Even the principle of ] struck me as dumb when I first encountered it. Putting together two or three disparate sources to demonstrate a point is exactly what you are supposed to do and trained to do in academia and research. But you are not supposed to do it here. I was puzzled about ] when I first encountered it. ''Just like Moulton.''

However, I had senior editors here mentor me and explain these principles to me. And after a while, I came to understand why the principles of Misplaced Pages were what they are. And to realize the wisdom of them. But I was willing to learn. Moulton has had decades of experience in designing and using online environments. He is positive he knows better. He has rejected any effort to coach him or tutor him. After all, why should someone with his experience submit to tutoring by someone who is probably a teenager or an undergraduate ? (or at least, this is probably what he thinks). Moulton has not been interested in learning, at least so far. He is sure he knows better. And maybe he does. But while people have tried to educate him, he was ''extremely'' disruptive.

Therefore, it was ''quite natural'' that Moulton rejected all the principles Misplaced Pages operates under. It was to be expected in fact; I did. I understand perfectly. And it is also ''quite natural'' that Moulton continues to reject all the principles that Misplaced Pages operates under. And it is quite natural that Moulton is resistant to learning about Misplaced Pages principles and accepting them. This is no mystery. I was the same way for a considerable time at first. But I was more submissive and willing to learn, and eventually I did. Moulton has not reached that point yet, and might never. But if Moulton is to learn how to operate in this environment, I would prefer that someone besides me try to train him, in their areas, rather than me and my associates, in the areas in which he has already demonstrated he has difficulty. Fair enough?--] (]) 12:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

:With respect, I don't think anyone is going to necessarily believe your interpretation of Moulton's refusal to understand NPOV, V, OR, and SYNTH without specific diffs.
:As far as I can see, he raised questions about those policies that other people on the mailing list and on the policy talkpages do all the time. See the old Covered Bridge discussion. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 13:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
::(1) I believe there is an RfC which has over 100 diffs. Did you not see it? (2)RR is not particularly credible in these matters given his past performance in interpreting these kinds of policies, IMHO.--] (]) 13:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, people have pointed out the problems with those diffs elsewhere on this page, perhaps you didnthearthat.
:::My credibility, of course, is another matter. I admit that I do tend to admit to being mistaken now and then, but in my estimation that does not necessarily lessen my credibility. You, no doubt, think differently about such admissions. :) --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 14:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

::::You have to read what was claimed about the diffs and the responses. And do you really think that so many would look at them and miss some huge mistakes? Check for yourself. Maybe you are suffering from ].

::::As for your credibility, I have seen 3 examples now. And just confirmed a fourth misrepresentation of yours by probing official channels. I won't embarass you by dragging it out here. But... what can I say?--] (]) 14:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::A lot of the diffs don't back up what they claim to. I don't accuse anyone of deception -- for most of them the mistaken understanding is actually reasonable. A lot of the diffs in that RFC do stand up, but a lot don't. I have addressed this in my statement. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::(ec with Sam) Official channels? Oh, my. I wonder what. I don't remember claiming to have had lunch with Jimbo, so I hardly think that "official channels" have any information on me. My dear fellow, I've told you before, endless gibes about the "credibility" of all the people who disagree with you over some trifling matter, and dark hints about the possession of damning private information are ''so'' tiresome. Nobody really listens beyond a certain point.
:::::"..so many would look at them and miss some huge mistakes..." I believe that is an accurate, if extreme, statement of exactly the concern that most people have expressed. It is an understandable if regrettable consequence of editing in what can become something of an echo chamber. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 14:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

::::::Quite right. This is about Moulton, not about you, and I do not want to belittle you unnecessarily or expose past infelicities.--] (]) 16:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Please feel free to start a new section on this page with all possible exposure of past infelicities. I look forward to hearing them.
:::::::Incidentally, I believe what has caused a small proportion of the concern is the level of belittling considered "necessary" in these section of WP. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 18:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
:Oh, and may I draw everyone's attention to "me and my associates in the area..." etc. I note, again, nobody but he and his associates seem to be permitted in that area without being bitten.... someone really needs to do something about that sometime. <span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 13:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In these areas new editors are welcomed all the time and edit productively. However, it is required that editors learn to abide by the principles of Misplaced Pages in these areas, as they are in all parts of Misplaced Pages. Is this a problem?--] (]) 13:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
:Not at all, merely unrecognisable. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 14:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

:Filll: I think this is an excellent analysis, and as I said before, it highlights the "academic participation problem". I assert both you and Moulton are outliers. You figured the system out, he flamed out. Most academics, I suspect, just give up and go away quietly, or never even try to participate here, based on what they've heard already. That's a guess from anecdotes, rather than something backed up by study data but I think I'm right. That said, I think Relata makes some valid points. ++]: ]/] 14:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I am '''not''' claiming that Moulton ''will never'' be able to come to terms with the system. I just would prefer someone else do Moulton's training, not me. And not in my area, if possible.--] (]) 14:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


In his WR post of 6 May 2008, Moulton refers to his essays which conclude "Misplaced Pages is a rigidly rule-driven bureaucracy without sufficient responsible supervision to ensure that the chess games produces anything of lasting value to the general public (such as accurate stories that one can rely on). No wonder teachers don't allow their students to cite Misplaced Pages as a reliable source. But Misplaced Pages does provide an interesting example of a good idea gone awry. And it provides a good example of how a rule-driven system becomes profoundly dysfunctional" and "Not surprisingly, the ethical scholar or journalist would find Misplaced Pages a bizarre medium in which to craft a high quality article, especially on a controversial subject where competing factions are pushing competing points of view. To survive on Misplaced Pages, it helps to be mean-spirited, evasive, and allied to a powerful guild. The ethical and scholarly journalist need not apply." "..putting a spotlight on the failings of Misplaced Pages. That's what the reformers of WR are here for." Has he changed his views? ... ], ] 15:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC) clarify last quote ], ] 15:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

:Yes, we need to do some fact finding. I have asked him some questions at ]. ] (]) 21:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
:Thinking Misplaced Pages is ridiculous is not a reason to ban someone. Frankly, I don't think Moulton will ever be a productive editor for Misplaced Pages. There is, however, an enormous difference between us holding him to be banned and him deciding that Misplaced Pages's systems are not good enough to merit his editing. Everything I have seen tells me that Moulton is a person of very high integrity; his issues come from having different philosophical ideas about how the encyclopaedia should be run. We don't, however, ban for the opinions people hold. Also, be careful lumping every critic of Misplaced Pages with the worst. There are many who are against the site on not unreasonable grounds and who don't carry out vicious personal campaigns. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Moulton was not banned or blocked ''because'' he thought Misplaced Pages is ridiculous. I find many features of Misplaced Pages ridiculous, as I have stated repeatedly, and am working with others to try to change these aspects.

What happened to Moulton was that he was extremely disruptive and a net negative to the project. And he was disruptive and a net negative because he did not want to follow Misplaced Pages principles and policies and conventions. It was not that he was not told of these principles and policies and conventions. He was told what these are and instructed how to reach his goals within the system over and over and over. And he dismissed that approach, thinking he knew better, and became a disruptive element, unable to work constructively and productively with others in a consensus-driven framework. And ''that'' is what lead to him being blocked/banned.

Not that he "lied". Not that he had any particular view on some ideological issue. Not that he was not part of a clique or a cabal. Not that he was an academic. Not because he wants to change Misplaced Pages. Not for any of the myriad and sundry reasons I have seen posted to this thread. No, it was for something far more basic and far more fundamental and far more crucial. We have a way of doing things, and he did not want to do it that way, and did not want to follow advice. --] (]) 02:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

:I did not say that was the reason he was blocked. It is, however, the reason a lot of people are advocating that he remain blocked. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
::''What'' is the reason? Because he's academic? Part of a cabal? Ideology? ''"IT"'' is only of value when it refers to a specific antecedent. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

===Comment===
tl;dr. Can someone who's not part of the supposed "ID clique" summarise what exactly Moulton did to get banned? I know I'm going to come under fire for even using the phrase, but I have seen a bit of banding together from some of people opposing Moultion, and I (and I suppose many others) would like a true neutral summary. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 02:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

:Although I am part of the purported clique, let me try:
:*neutral summaries do not exist
:*he didn't follow the rules and just fought instead--] (]) 02:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

::Neutral summaries can exist. Someone can just read the discussions leading to the banning and make a summary based on the reasons and such. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 02:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Re neutral, see ]. I gave my summary. --] (]) 03:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

:Essentially, POV-pushing on a couple of BLPs (arguing that the presentation of facts related to the ] was inaccurate and biased). He undoubtedly did have a point; however, he did not edit according to the standards we should expect. He did not conform, especially, to ] or ]. Whether this merited the ban it got is questionable. If you want to comment usefully on the matter, can I suggest you at least read the RFC (with care -- not all the claims it makes are substantiated) and my analysis above. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
::More like he "had" a ], and took every opportunity to ] WP. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
:::That's your view, yes. It's not necessarily universally shared, or even where perceived to be correct as far as it goes, may not be perceived to tell the whole story. I sense that we're not developing new ideas here, though. ++]: ]/] 21:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Of course it not necessarily universally shared. Just by 18 of the 19 who encountered him and participated in the RfC. But that is not universal.--] (]) 19:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

===Call the question===
We have talked about this for a while. I'd like to suggest that maybe we should look for a consensus here, explicitly. Sam Korn has suggested an unblock, with limitations and restrictions. How do we feel about that? (keeping in mind that it's likely that Moulton won't actually edit much if at all after he's unblocked, if we go by what he's said). Is there a clear consensus that the original outcome was correct, Sam's analysis was wrong? Or is there a consensus that maybe it was incorrect but there's no point in unblocking as it would likely have no practical effect? Or is there a consensus that maybe we should unblock to correct the bad outcome? Or something else? Please note, I'm suggesting a consensus check, not more discussion of an open ended nature... ++]: ]/] 21:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
::(bump) I think this needs wider input before any change from the status quo would be appropriate. At this point I think less folk have commented here than did in the RfC... ++]: ]/] 14:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:What's going to happen is that, since there is the group of editors and admins who have dealt with Moulton in the past who do not wish to see him unblocked, especially without any statement from him about his past behavior that gives a hope for a new future AND a group of editors and admins who have less actual on WP dealings with Moulton but have listened to him give his skewed version of the story on WR for the past few months, there will be a wheel war if he is unblocked and everyone will become even more embittered. Since WP doesn't do symbolic unblocks and he shows no sign of changing, we are left right at the same place. Moulton stays blocked, he continues his campaign on WR for whatever grandiose change he advocates, and we just move on. And, frankly speaking, thats probably what is best for everyone involved. ] (]) 00:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::Um, if there is a consensus to remain blocked, you won't see me unblocking, and I don't suspect you'll see anyone else doing so either. On the other hand if there is a consensus to unblock, if I read you right, you are saying that there is some group of editors with long experience who would go against consensus and wheel war. I'm not seeing any such group, except for those that were at the start, the ID members... Am I understanding what you are saying rightly? I hope that I'm misunderstanding you. I'd strongly recommend against wheel warring to reblock, which seems to be what you're suggesting might happen. Sorry for replying but your statement wasn't a clear "I favour outcome X" sort of thing that we would use during a consensus check. Do you have such a statement? ++]: ]/] 03:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:::I'll break it down real simple like for you Lar. Let's just see if I have this right. You want to unblock an editor who has not made a net positive contribution, an editor who has shown a clear disdain for and attacked several members of ID Wikiproject, and an editor who has not made a single statement than can be construed that he will change for the betterment of this project. When in the hell has someone ever been unblocked when they haven't even acknowledged that their behavior needs to change in order for them to be a contributor here? You seem to gloss over that point. But please continue to talk to Moulton on WR, as opposed to his talk page which is currently open for editing. Double trouble! So, no, he should not be unblocked. Nothing should change and everyone should just step away because this entire discussion is nothing but a farce. You already decided to unblock him long before anything was decided. That's been clear. But please, continue to ignore the advice of the people who actually dealt with Moulton before in favor of him telling his side of the story. Next time I get into any sort of wiki trouble, I am going to use the scorned academic route to get out of it. It seems a very effective method. ] (]) 11:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::::You didn't answer my question about who it was you thought likely to wheel war... that seems a rather important point. You also give the appearance that haven't been reading what I've been saying very closely, since you did not acknowledge that I said from the start that I wasn't in favour of unblocking to make a symbolic point, and that I don't see where Moulton has acknowledged that he has to edit within our norms or not at all, so therefore I'm not in favour at this time, other than to leave the door open. What I did say was that IF he was unblocked, I'd keep an eye on him, take him under my wing as it were, and reblock him at the first sign that he was coloring outside the lines. I agree with Sam (an outside observer who came in after the fact to do a dispassionate analysis...) Moulton was not entirely at fault here. That's not the same as saying he's blameless. If this binary yes/no assertion style (rather than acknowledging there are shades of gray here) is the quality of the argument put forward by ID regulars (I've seen it now from you, from Filll, from Jim62sch...) I can see why people have concerns. Again, who do you think is likely to wheel war? ++]: ]/] 12:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::I don't know if anyone will wheel war, but I would think that the admins who have actually worked with Moulton will be very displeased to see such a move especially when the consensus on this will never be reached for an unblock. You are the one who keeps bringing up the symbolic nature of such an unblock. I am fairly certain that one could entertain the notion that the undertow already made the symbolic unblock and that just worked out super for everyone. You do keep ignoring the issue of his previous behavior through the classic "yeah, but..." line of reasoning. "He was disruptive...yeah, but it wasn't his fault." "He showed no concern for following policy...yeah, but he was just advocating for change." etc. The shades of gray are minimal at best. If Moulton really wanted an unblock, he would have asked for one at ArbCom. Since he has already said that if unblocked he will make an edit similar to Krimpets, ie plow right back into the same disaster he started last year, I really don't understand why you think this is a good idea. And with regards to the line of reasoning used by the "ID regulars" perhaps it is because we have actually dealt with him and we hold our particular thoughts. Just an idea. So no, he should never be unblocked until he makes a statement that shows hope for the future. Even then, I would have reservations. ] (]) 14:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:I agree with Sam - the last three paragraphs of his analysis I found to be particularly clear (and concise). ] (]) 00:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sam's analysis might be clear and concise. It is just inaccurate. But feel free to unleash a destructive force on your own project, if you feel so inclined. Just remember I warned you.

I see post after post from editors who have no experience edting with Moulton and who have not reviewed his record, or even the little bit of his record in the RfC. But they would do not seem to care about all the danger signals, or just want to ignore them. It is an interesting study in human dynamics alright.--] (]) 02:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:::So there's absolutely no chance that anyone other than Moulton had the slightest bit of culpability, or could have done anything even the slightest bit differently? That's what I am hearing you saying, over and over. It's fascinating how every time anyone turns any attention to anything surrounding this, it always comes back to how Moulton is completely in the wrong.

:::Fiddlesticks. No one of us is perfect and I suspect the members of the ID project are no exceptions to that principle, despite their PR. Again, I don't expect anything to actually happen if Moulton is unblocked, despite repeated discussion, because he's continued to indicate he won't edit here the way things currently are construed. But if he gets too far out of the lines we color within, I expect him to last about 5 edits before reblocking happens. Maybe 6. Sorry for replying but your statement wasn't a clear "I favour outcome X" sort of thing that we would use during a consensus check. Do you have such a statement? ++]: ]/] 03:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

::::I am astounded at this Lar. Perhaps you missed Dave souza's acknowledgement and Baegis' comment and others that "mistakes were made" on all sides. Why would you expect that this would not be true? We are human, and just ]. But since this seems to be an extremely important issue for you, I have made a short list of what I believe the mistakes on "my side" of this issue are . I do not think you will learn anything new particularly, since most of this is sort of obvious or has been said before in different ways, but since you keep bringing it up over and over (for what purpose, I cannot quite imagine), there it is. Enjoy.--] (]) 13:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

*'''unblock per Sam's guidelines''' - I would rather see sam's analysis PROVEN incorrect. --] (]) 03:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
* I've expressed my opinion above; to sum up, I think that unblocking a user disinterested in Misplaced Pages's core policies who has had absolutely zero evident change of heart and carries a chip on his shoulder over his perceived mistreatment is guaranteed to be unproductive. The block is not a comment on Moulton's personal integrity, value as a human being, or role in the cosmic soap opera. It's just a determination that his participation is unlikely to be a good fit for this particular website, and I think there's plenty of evidence to support ''that'' conjecture. But I'm one person and, quite possibly, a member of the ID clique (no, I'm not part of the WikiProject and I've never edited an ID-related article to the best of my memory, but since when has that stopped someone from being labeled as part of a clique?). I wouldn't stand in the way of an unblock if there was a strong feeling that one was warranted, nor would I wheel-war about it (that hopefully goes without saying). The only thing I ask is that the folks to whom he's an abstract cause at the moment help deal with him when he becomes an active editor. I appreciate Lar's offer in this regard, and I'd encourage as many experienced eyes on the situation as possible if he's unblocked, since much of the concern over the initial handling revolves around the limited response to the RfC, AN/I, etc etc. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 04:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

::I'd have to say I agree wtih Sam K here, and I've found myself disappointed about the actions/behavior of a group of editors I had expected more from here. ] (]) 06:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure what "group of editors" you mean, is it those who've tried working with Moulton? Stereotyping editors as "groups" is not a good idea. .. ], ] 12:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblocking''' On the basis that Sam's proposal is "unblocking with a strict prohibition from editing in areas concerned with the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. We should, as a community, be prepared to say "we would like to see you editing productively"," then <s>I'm willing so see</s> ''it would be possible to consider'' unblocking on these conditions with close and effective monitoring. Moulton is not disinterested about policy, he appears passionately committed to changing BLP so that information from reputable sources is overridden by personal anecdote and speculation about improbable potential harm. Expect extended and tendentious discussions in that area, and care should be taken to ensure that these views do not unduly override community consensus. ... ], ] 12:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC) ''Amended after reading ] which refreshed my memory. Any unblocking is likely to lead to grief as well as being an enormous waste of time'' . . ], ] 09:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Advise against unblocking/unbanning''' until Moulton at least expresses an interest to play by the rules here, no matter how ridiculous he perceives the rules to be or how how ridiculous the rules actually are. As I have stated repeatedly, if you absolutely ''must'' unblock/unban Moulton, then at least be prudent enough to topic ban him from the areas and articles on which he produced nothing but disruption. If he has something to contribute, it is not in these areas in which he has no expertise and potential conflicts of interest. Direct him to contribute in areas in which he has expertise, if his expertise is so important to have on Misplaced Pages. Otherwise, the argument to remove his restrictions makes no sense. A more extensive discussion of my position and experiences is at ].--] (]) 12:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*''']''' This is a more complex question than whether or not Moulton should be unblocked. I think any admin considering this question should instead consider the following sequence of questions:
:#If unblocked, do you feel strongly enough about this that you would wheel war to re-block Moulton?
:#Are you prepared to mentor Moulton and if so (see my comments at his RfC) do you think he would respect your opinion?
:#In the event that Moulton is unblocked and ''in your opinion'' his contributions are disruptive, would you be prepared to block him unilaterally, rather than seek consensus?
:#If (in the above situation) no consensus can be determined, would you consent to Moulton being re-blocked or would you unblock him again?
:In my opinion, we need zero admins to answer yes to Q1, one or more to Q2, zero to Q3, and zero answering "wheel war" to Q4. Unless we can get consensus for all that, we're just stirring up a big ol pot of wikidrama. Just my 2p <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 14:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*A) To answer the questions Lar posed: I don't feel strongly about Sam's proposal, but would like to see it given a try. I strongly believe that the original outcome was incorrect. I predict that unblocking will anger the participants of the Intelligent Design wikiproject - but even talking about it appears to have already angered them - and I make no prediction as to the other practical outcomes of unblocking. B) To answer SheffieldSteel's questions: 1) I might unblock myself, I certainly won't wheel war to reblock. 2) If Moulton actively seeks my advice, I'll be glad to give it, as I would for any other editor. Having never discussed anything with him, I don't know if he respects my opinion. 3) If I had been the one to unblock him, I'd be willing to reblock. If I'm not the one to unblock him, I'm not likely to reblock him. 4) I believe that if there is a discussion, we need consensus to block a user or keep them blocked - however, you'll note that I haven't yet unblocked Moulton from this discussion. ] 14:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::No offense, but I am not angry. And I doubt if anyone else is angry in the ID Wikiproject. It might even work out fine, but it is a bit disconcerting to see someone so sure of their beliefs based on complete avoidance of the available information. But be my guest. This is a fascinating example of human dynamics. --] (]) 18:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

* '''I'll <s>probably</s> help mentor''' ''<s>(probably, 1 open issue)</s>''. I proposed to Moulton that it might be useful to edit in an uncontentious area first 'till he gets his sea legs. He has agreed, and he will be acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia. I think that this would cover most of the concerns above, for now. <s>I'm still waiting for word back from 1 editor who I hope will help out as well, before I commit.</s> --] (]) 19:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*: '''Mentoring:''' I can commit to mentoring. I have asked an editor whom Moulton trusts to help Moulton get started on some non-controversial articles (especially at first). Later we can try to expand the range, but in this way, I don't think much can go wrong. :-) Moulton has also agreed to this arrangement. Remember that Moulton only had 2 weeks on wikipedia before. We can give him a chance to work in a safe area, and he can improve his understanding of how wikipedia works in practice in places where folks aren't writing BLP's about his friends (which tends to be a rather nasty sticking point, you know :-P ). If he doesn't like it, we can all part as good friends. For the paranoid among you, Lar will be watching too, as will several other people. AND I know where to find Moulton IRL, that's always a good motivator <innocent look> --] (]) 22:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC) <small>''(Eh? What were you thinking? I'm totally going to use that address to send him a nice cool beer of his choice, when he hits FA or GA, of course!)''</small>
*'''Support unblocking''' I frequently am limited as to how much time I have to edit, but I'm also willing to help Moulton, as I did before his block. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
* I don't see any point in unblocking Moulton. Is there any indication that he plans to abide by policy or contribute to the project in a constructive way? Kim Bruning has offered to mentor him. I have more than three years of experience observing Kim's "mentoring" and "mediation". Kim's intervention usually precipitates a worsening of the situation (e.g., in the Picard article, where Kim's intervention sparked another day or two of heated debate, after which I posted the solution I was working on when he intervened...and which everyone accepted). And he tends not to follow through with his promises of mentoring. Promises of mentoring or mediation from Kim are, at best, hollow. And since Kim campaigned on IRC to have me blocked because I was "behind Misplaced Pages Review" a year or two ago...I have absolutely no cause to trust Kim. There are actually few people I have less cause to trust. ] (]) 02:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
**So, to clarify - I'd like to see some commitment by Moulton to abide by our rules and policies, and I would like to see a credible mentor. ] (]) 02:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
::: You've been tracking me for 3 years? That's interesting, a lot of things I do are not very visible. The "intervention" you mention was just a single post on the talk page. That wasn't actually the intervention I did on the Rosalind Picard article. What I did was that I invited a skilled FA-level editor to come and help me, and to talk between several people. The result was (with exception of the section on faith) , thereby reducing ] weight in the article, simply by adding a lot more to the *rest* of it. It would have been hilarious if we had gotten the page up to good or featured quality even while people were edit warring on the single section, but unfortunately someone ended up protecting the page.
::: I'm not sure you can lay the heated debate on my shoulders by the way. Heated debating tends to require some level of voluntary participation. ;-) --] (]) 07:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
::::I do not know what trouble Guettarda and Kim Bruning might have had. However, I did observe the recent situation at Picard's talk page. It was clear to me that Bruning's "intervention" with one post, imprudently worded and located, ''did'' destroy a developing consensus and lead to considerably more conflict. It was the exact opposite of what a mediation is supposed to do. I have told Bruning this before. It is also true that Bruning has apparently recruited ] to work with Moulton. Ottava Rima ''has'' introduced some of the material finally produced by Moulton, some 10 months after it was first requested (and repeatedly requested since that time, to no avail), into the main body of the Picard biography, to widespread approval of all sides. I do not know Ottava Rima, and I do not want to rely on assorted rumors that many tell me, but I am a bit skeptical of his ability to "supervise" and educate Moulton, given (1) Moulton's current stance on the rules under which Misplaced Pages operates and writes its articles, and (2) given Ottava rima's own history here (not to say people cannot reform themselves and do not deserve a second chance). My best prediction for this right now, knowing what I know from all sides, is that this action has a high probability of producing considerable unproductive conflict. On the other hand, I could be wrong, and in any case it will be an interesting experiment in human dynamics and the ways in which Misplaced Pages can malfunction.--] (]) 13:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
::::: I sort of Firewalled Ottava Rima and Moulton from each other so far (to prevent either party from being accused of meatpuppetry, etc). But yeah, somehow when they cooperate they do tend to get positive results.

::::: Now as to people who decide to get themselves into a kerfluffel over a single section, especially when they're supposed to be experienced wikipedians. Hmph, the less said the better.

::::: Is Lar a credible mentor to the both of you? --] (]) 13:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

=== "destroying a developing consensus" ===

Filll, you keep saying things in these terms, as if having a consensus - any consensus at all - is more important than having a sourced, verifiable, and ''most importantly of all'' NPOV article. And that's ignoring that if a consensus is so fragile that one person can "destroy" it, it never really was a consensus in the first place. --] (]) 17:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:I take umbrage at this comment for the following reasons: (1) I do not believe you are even aware of the situation we are discussing (2) I disagree in the strongest possible terms that I have repeatedly advocated following ] over ], ] and ]. Please provide diffs if you want to make such accusations. (3) I do not believe you have sufficient experience on Misplaced Pages to weigh in on such matters. (4) Your opinion is at the odds with those of several other experienced Wikipedians. I will thank you to try to ] and stop your semi-veiled attacks on me. Do you think that might be possible for you? Thank you.--] (]) 18:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
::Um, Random's first edit with his current account was on January 13, 2004 and he has edited since in some of the more drama-prone sections of WP. I dare say the rest of what you say is as accurate as that implies. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 19:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

:::I'd also like to point out that Filll should probably ]. Consensus does not lock an article into its current state, and challenging consensus, even a "fragile" one, is not against policy. Stop lawyering by selectively choosing sections of policy to cite at people, Filll. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

::::Of course consensus does not lock an article into its current state. Where did I ever state ''that''? (diffs please) Consensus changes all the time of course. Of course challenging consensus is permitted. Who said it was not? (diffs please) There are consequences of challenging consensus of course; it can trigger a dispute that can rage for hours, or days, or weeks, or months, or years. And it can lead to all kinds of other problems, incuding preventing the editing of the article, which is somewhat counterproductive, as it was in the Picard case. Also, the consensus finally reached in the Picard case was not much different than what was forming a day or two earlier, and then was disrupted, or what had existed on the page for months and months. So what really was the point? Just another chance for unproductive talk page warfare I guess. What fun! And what parts of policy am I misquoting or selectively quoting? Please tell me so I can stop misrepresenting the policy. As before, diffs please.--] (]) 02:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::Without even going to where you have said similarly on other pages:
:::::You have repeatedly described "destroying consensus" as reflecting badly on editors. It does not. As for causing "talk page warfare," it is not a person's fault for that if they brought valid concerns. If you considered the talk page arguments so unproductive, perhaps you should re-examine your part in them, and how you might make future arguments more productive. Speaking of unproductive arguments, this one has been wandering into that territory as well, so, having said my piece, I will now disengage. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Yes you are engaging in a clearly unproductive argument and it is good of you to notice that. Even Bruning himself noted in the Picard talk page thread that he wanted to understand how his actions had caused such an undesired end. It happens and I will not vilify anyone for such a thing, as you seem to want to claim I am doing. I am afraid your diffs do not show what I had asked for, so I am underwhelmed by the seeming credibility gap here. As for the claim that editors who bring "concerns" that cause days and weeks of talk page warfare that ends with the same result that was there at the beginning, I am not sure that in that case I would classify them as "valid concerns". But you can do as you like. By the way, if the concerns were so valid, why was the goal to discard the text you yourself had written and agreed to some months earlier? If they were so valid, why were they dismissed by the overwhelming consensus? Hmmm...--] (]) 18:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Since you asked questions, I'll give you a short answer: ] In addition, characterizing me as completely satisfied with the text at the time . ]<sup>]</sup> 18:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Filll the idea that those who came with BLP concerns to ] "caused" the talk page warefare is a convenient inaccuracy. Quick recap: 1) Several uninvolved editors came to the talk page because of a concern that the existing language was a BLP violation (most of these editors were pretty much "uninvolved" with ID entries generally, with this particular entry, and/or with each other). 2) Various members of the ID WikiProject very quickly upped the ante and an alternative wording that even more strongly supported the claim that was at the heart of the BLP concern and to boot was (and remains) unverifiable through reliable sources. 3) After hours wasted in heated argument, a compromise was suggested and agreed upon that was and is notably similar to the original language, but for a few minor tweaks, and a significant amount of contextual information surrounding it that clarifies the BLP concern. A substantial amount, if not most, of the talk page "warfare" was in direct relation to the more extreme afore mentioned language authored by KillerChihuahua and backed by you (Filll), Odd Nature, Dave Souza and later Merzul. At the time of the compromise I , because of the ease at which you all dropped your, now apparently red herring argument, for the "not too different from the original" compromise version. It is without doubt that this red herring, and the unwavering support it garnered from you, share at least half the blame here (though in my mind they are much more culpable). Anyone interested in seeing this detailed but not wishing to wade through the archives of the entry talk page please refer to ] and particularly to ]. Why on earth does someone who participates so causally in creating an undesirable condition go around accusing others of doing so?] (]) 19:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


::::::::::Of course if you were allowed to do whatever you wanted, there would be no disputes. Well duh. But that is not how Misplaced Pages works, is it? You think I get to do whatever I want? Guess again. Lots of my suggestions have been dismissed. Lots of my writing has disappeared into the bit bucket.--] (]) 20:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Only 400 mainspace edits per year over the duration. And 100 mainspace edits per month since he started being more active in January 2007. Look at the ratio of mainspace edits to AN and AN/I edits and compare it to other editors. About 10,000 total edits in about 4.5 years. Enough said.--] (]) 20:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

:I don't mean to be rude, Filll, but I think arguing that someone's disagreement with you has no validity because their edit count doesn't reach some arbitrary limit is a bit, well, ''low''. ➨ ''']''' looks at danger and laughs his head off 20:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


We do it all the time. How much respect do fresh IPs get or newbies get when they try to lecture others on policy? This is not that different, frankly. But you are free to disagree. Provide me the evidence that those with low edit counts (particularly edit counts devoted to article-building) have a superior knowledge of Misplaced Pages policy. I would be quite interested to see that.

In any case, if I am not interested in NPOV, or RS, or V, please show me the diffs. I am waiting.--] (]) 20:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

:Still waiting.--] (]) 02:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
::Nobody's going to waste their time on it, Filll. Your behavior so far in this thread has provided enough information. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 15:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:::What part of working in a collegiate manner towards consensus don't you folks understand? If you like creating wikidrama by upsetting things, don't complain about the drama afterwards. .. ], ] 18:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Sorry, who is that addressed to? --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 21:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

:::One might make the same evaluation of your behavior on this and other pages. I would gladly compare mine with yours any day. But I think it is best that I not stoop to such levels.--] (]) 18:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Unfortunate, then, that you already have :) --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 21:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Unless, Dave, they have reached a consensus that creating teh dramaz is good. ;) ]<sup>]</sup> 18:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, Filll might not quite get some of the finer points of wikidiplomacy, it looks like, but as far as I can tell at least he's trying to be honest. That's going a long way already. Be nice! :-) --] (]) 23:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC) <small>''That and I recall something about catching more flies with honey than with vinegar :-) ''</small>

=== User talk:Moulton ===
I asked at ] if he was willing to even ''try'' to edit appropriately and he would not even say "yes" (he said "mu" meaning that the question is invalid). He should be allowed to edit his user talk page, but he seems determined to play by his own rules; so I do not recommend an unblock. ] (]) 10:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
: I think he may have misread your question. I've asked him to think about it more carefully. I'll give my final recommendation after 23:59 UTC today. --] (]) 13:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
::I was on a ] episode with him, where he talked at greater length about his position. His belief is that Misplaced Pages is fundamentally broken, with contradictory policies that are impossible to follow and lack of proper due process for those accused of violating them. His response is to make "ultimatums" (ultimata?) that Misplaced Pages needs to change first before he would even think of participating in it. My advice to him on that show was that he at least admit that his own behavior caused some of the problems (even if he's right about there being some other problems outside himself) and that he agree to attempt to follow the spirit of Misplaced Pages policies to the best of his ability (even if they can be bizarre and contradictory at times). He didn't seem to be interested in that, however. Thus, although I have sympathy for his side, I think he's unfortunately undermining his own position by refusing to be constructive and cooperative, something that it's possible to do even with people and policies one disagrees with. ] (]) 13:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Kim, that’s disingenuous to say that he misunderstood the question. Mu is his answer and it obviously struck him as appropriate, even though WAS has spent quite some time trying to help the situation. Can we end this farce and just archive this discussion please? It has taken up far too much time and we are right back to square one. ] (]) 14:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Baegisthesock here. This is a pattern with Moulton, as can be seen from the . Over and over editors have tried to help him achieve his goals and educate him about Misplaced Pages. Me. Hrafn. FeloniousMonk. Ornis. Avb. Kenosis. Dave souza. ZayZayEm. SheffieldSteel. KillerChihuahua. Durova. And now Lar. And WAS 4.250. And Kim Bruning. (I am sure I have left a few out here). And eventually, ''all'' realize something is amiss with Moulton's mindset and goals and agenda and attempts to meet his goals and agenda.

Some have invested dozens of hours dealing with Moulton. Some maybe hundreds of hours in this. And the result is the same. Even at "that other site" some are lecturing Moulton that he is going about it the wrong way and has to change his way of thinking.

I have posted a short bit of . Otherwise, this is a completely wasteful exercise in futility. And we are just spinning our wheels here.--] (] | ]) 15:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

== Time to end the prohibition on biographies of people known for one event? ==

] is one example.

Who are we trying to kid? The article is on James Bulger. Adding "murder of" is wikilawyering to try to get James Bulger covered.

Why not delete the George W. Bush article and change it to "Pre-presidential life and presidential life of George W. Bush"? We are just creating episode titles like TV shows.

The debate should be whether a local murder is worthy of an encyclopedia, not banning people's names and wikilawying a compliant title.

] (]) 19:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:There's actually a proposal for a guideline being considered at the moment that would address titling and content issues like this. Have a look at ] for the proposal on criminal acts ] (]) 19:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
::In any case, this sort of discussion would be better held at the village pump or on the relevant policy talk page. ] (]) 19:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Agree with J Mil. There has been ''so'' much discussion on this topic in other forums. There are certainly valid non-wikilawyering reasons for having "murder of ...." titles. ] | ]•] 19:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
* No thanks. Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:* While I agree with JzG's no thanks. I do think there is plenty of tabloid material in en.wikipedia. --] (]) 05:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Bvande is advocating here, exactly. I reviewed the article. It seems to be about a rather horrific crime. It includes biographical material on the victim, as well as on the two people convicted of the crime. It also includes information about the crime's impact on society (information about the press coverage, petition drives, and the like) and on the law (information about the Home Secretary's participation in the case and revision of the sentencing and the aftermath of that resulting in a prohibition on the Home Secretary changing minimum terms, and lots of other material). I do not see this article, even though it contains a lot of biographical material about the victim as primarily a biography of anyone. It IS covered by BLP policy, and it may be good to review it to see if there is material that could be removed (lessening damage to the victim and the victim's family, as well as to the perpetrators and their families) without impacting the article quality. But I don't see how this article is an example that demonstrates that we should change our approach in covering material such as this. Perhaps Bvande needs a different example. So I agree with JzG's "no thanks" as well as with Rocksanddirt's observation. ++]: ]/] 14:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
:I agree with Lar. I am a little concerned about the length of the last section, which appears to detail absolutely every tabloid speculation ever about where Thomson and Venables now are (they're married, they're gay, they're Aussie, they're Irish, they're on cocaine, they have jobs, they're being supported by the government, etc etc).
:Meanwhile, I had no idea it was so long ago. 1993! I could have sworn it was within the past decade. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 09:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

:Without commenting on the rest, I have to wonder just what a "local murder" is, and what sort of murder would not be "local". --] (]) 17:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


There's no need to write or change a "policy" or "guideline" to permit this--just start doing it and convincing others to do it. The so-called "policies" and "guidelines" we have now aren't prescriptive. If what people are doing changes, they will be changed. You're trying to go about it backwards. ] ('''<span style="background-color: white; color: blue">Go</span> <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Colts!</span>''') 20:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

== Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry ==

{{messagebox|'''Note:''' This section has been transcluded from ]. You may need to update your watchlist if you wish to watch this discussion.}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry}}
{{messagebox|'''Note:''' This section has been transcluded from ]. You may need to update your watchlist if you wish to watch this discussion.}}

== New law in Missouri (USA): administrators and editors should be aware of, penalties include prison ==

From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24673350/
Mo. lawmakers vote to bar Internet harassment

Don't think that this doesn't apply to you.

When you read the law and the state senate's commentary, it is more eyeopening. '''Conceivably incivility and blocking may be outlawed if the administrator or editor is particularly harsh or causes distress.'''

From http://www.senate.mo.gov/08info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=147
''
Under this act, the definition of "harasses" is modified to include conduct directed at a specific person that serves no legitimate purpose, that would cause a reasonable person to be frightened or intimidated, '''as well as emotionally distressed.''' ....''

FYI only. Keep on keeping on.....

In another topic, Warren Buffet expressed fear that an American city will be victim of a nuclear terrorist attack. Maybe not this year, maybe not in the next 5 years, but he thinks it will have within the next few decades. Buffet is NOT making a Misplaced Pages death threat or even a nuclear threat against anyone.

Police sometimes give advice on crime prevention. Prevent rape, robbery, or murder, they may advise. This, too, is NOT a death threat, rape threat, or robbery threat.

With that in mind, the following is NOT a death threat.

It is very possible that eventually there may be a murder related to something that happened in Misplaced Pages. Let's not let this happen!!! Prevent this by acting kindly and not being incivil. Too often, experienced users, inexperienced users, non-administrators, administrators are rude and cause flare ups in temper. Don't let this happen. Listen to what the other person has to say! Make blocks with care!

Just 2 public service announcements. Somehow, I think that there will be opposition even to these 2 basic public service announcements!? ] (]) 06:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

* Would the admin who encouraged the above user to register this self-confessed block-evading account, please clarify the grounds on which the advice was given and/or confirm that the block evasion is within policy in some way? Thanks. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 07:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

::There are 137 active admins who fit the criteria Olop 2 describes. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 07:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Then all 137 admins must go to prison ;). <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">] ] ]</font> 07:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
:::That admin told me that there is too much sock hysteria in WP and that if he unblocked me, he would have to pay for it. He said that it was ok to create a new account as long as I was not the person originally blocked as a sock, if I edited responsibly, and if I waited a few months before editing. Someone also mentioned that I should always use wifi, not my home internet, to prevent stalking. (This is wifi). ] (]) 03:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

**Also, what happens in Missouri really doesn't apply to any of us, if that's what you're implying. Wikimedia's main servers are in Florida. Only Florida and U.S. law applies. Oh, and I wasn't that admin. ]]] 07:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
***Shame (re the jurisdiction issue - not being "that admin"!) , I was hoping that US tax dollars might be deployed in having me attend some Missouri court. ] (]) 08:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC) ps. I would hazard a guess that the original account was blocked for trolling.

***Strictly speaking that's not true. As an individual, you are primarily subject to the laws prevailing in the jurisdiction that you happen to be residing in. As a corporation legally based in Florida, the WMF worries about Florida and US law, but you as an individual may be subject to a different set of laws. In rarer cases, you might also be subject to laws in the jursidiction of someone whom you are accused of harming. ] (]) 09:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Indeed, Dragons flight is most correct. Criminal law is very different than civil law, and even civil law is different from country to country and from person-to-organisation to person-to-person. Given that the law discussed relates to criminal law, ] is most certainly possible, unlike civil law where extradition naturally does not occur due to it being private law. As an aside, on the civil side of things, '']'' HCA 56 is certainly a most interesting case to read, especially given that the main principle is binding on all Australian courts except itself. ] (]) 10:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Remind me to avoid Missouri. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 14:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
:There are many other reasons to avoid the State of Misery, this law is not even in the top ten... --].].] 17:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
::Yup, that was what I meant, but I was trying to be delicate. <span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 19:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Cool; if this passes I'll be sure to check for Missouri IP headers on certain posts and incoming e-mails. :) <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 07:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

:Was anyone else expecting the post to end with "please forward this to everyone in your address book"? <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 14:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:The only COURT OF LAW I'll ever go to is the one in TRENTON, NEW JERSEY. ] (]) 12:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

::I don't think Missouri has much of a chance of ] me, which means I can continue to abuse my blocking ability as well as hurting the feelings of emos whose band articles I delete. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">]</font><sup>] &#124; ]</sup> 13:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

:::]. ] (]) 13:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

::::Here in Iowa some call Missouri the state. ] (]) 15:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::I'll hold off on what folks from my home state, your neighbor to the North, say about Iowa. Sometimes it's funny though! --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 19:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::Hah. Next thing you know we'll be telling Sven and Ole jokes. ] (]) 19:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::I only just noticed this. I've seen some ridiculous threads here, but this one takes the prize.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ]]</font> 19:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::To my surprise, ] redirects to ]. I'd never heard of Lena, only Sven. Anyhow those jokes are funny. I've always liked the "rented boat" joke . Those idiots! --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 19:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
*Question, does this require a trial or can it be added to Arbcom remedies?--] (]) 01:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

== In case you hadn't noticed... ==

{{resolved}} ] (]) 20:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
{{Hat|Archived discussion unrelated to administrative tasks.}}
]. Excellent timing, I'm off on holiday in a few days and have a three month project at work which has suddenly been telescoped to one month due to external events. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
:Meh, I wouldn't worry. They'll add it to that mistake of a Cla68 case which, since its scope requires everyone to substantially refight several previous ArbComs including Mantanmoreland, Durova, Jossi, and throws in the ID crowd as well, is extremey unlikely to ever get round to discussing you. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 14:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
::Don't forget that ]'s clique is also in the mix. --] (]) 12:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::Maybe Guy could help us all by posting a timetable of when it would be convenient to him to have his behaviour scrutinized? ] (]) 16:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
:::But apparently it's only JzG who makes inappropriate comments? I'd suggest that you strike that last comment, Mr. Hill. ''']''' <small>]</small> 16:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
::::I have never suggested that "it's only JzG who makes inappropriate comments". In answer to your suggestion, no. ] (]) 16:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::The point I was making is that JzG is the subject of an Arbitration request due to alleged incivility, yet he is repeatedly subjected to "drive-by shootings" such as your first comment in this thread. If I was subjected to such behavior, I'd be a little testy, too. ''']''' <small>]</small> 17:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::The fact that he ''always'' seems to be "busy", "retired", "in Cannes", "on wikibreak", etc, when something like this comes up, yet his actual editing never slows down, could in fact be an issue the arbcom case should look at. If he really wants to spend some time on an '''actual''' wikibreak I'm sure the arbcom would be willing to suspend the case until he returns. --] (]) 18:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
:(ri) Ever heard of ]? I also wasn't aware that you spoke for Arbcomm. If I have any questions in future about Arbcomm I'll certainly come to you first. Cheers. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
::And to whom is that polite and insightful statement addressed? --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 19:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
::If you're talking to me - having opinions on what sort of behavior arbcom could or should be looking at does not require me to "speak for Arbcomm". --] (]) 20:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== Huggle ==

It has recently come to my attention that many users are dissatisfied with the level of abuse and inappropriate editing resulting from use of the anti-vandalism tool ], and some would like to see its use discontinued. While I am reluctant to push for such a move, as I understand some people find it useful, it would seem that there is a significant problem which needs to be addressed.

I originally developed Huggle some 18 months ago for personal use. I made it more generally available four months ago in response to demand. Anyone who has developed software both for personal and more widespread use will appreciate that there is a significant difference between the two, and I spent a long time trying to make the software more suitable for general use, and even longer fixing bugs and implementing requested features. The nature of Huggle is such that it needs to make edits quickly and make many edits in a short space of time. While it does not require that the user work quickly, it allows them to work much more quickly than would otherwise be possible, and it would seem that some contributors do not take full care in doing so.

I would like all administrators to be aware that use of Huggle by a user can be prevented if necessary, and that they should not hesitate to do so in the event of abuse or inappropriate editing. Huggle requires a subpage in userspace named <tt>/huggle.css</tt> – for example, ]. This subpage does not contain a CSS stylesheet; rather, it is so named in order that only the user and administrators are able to edit it. Blanking and protecting this subpage prevents use of Huggle. Additionally, a list of all Huggle users may be found at ]; administrators may wish to use this list to evaluate the contributions of less experienced users.

If necessary, use of Huggle may be disabled completely, for all users, by blanking and protecting ].

I would appreciate suggestions as to what should be done next – ] (]) 17:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

:As (I assume) the user who prompted this post; while I'm now persuaded Huggle shouldn't be disabled altogether, I do believe we need to be more willing to remove it from users if there's any misuse/abuse, and not to give repeated warnings before doing so; the speed at which it operates means a well-intentioned misuser (or an outright vandal) can do significant damage with it if it's not immediately taken away. To save reposting huge blocks of text, my full thoughts on the matter are ].<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ]]</font> 17:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

::(EC with above) Don't blame the tools for the person... If a user is being a PITA with Huggle, they would be one without it. It doesn't make users "bad users"... it only makes the bad users more efficient. If a user is disruptive via Huggle, they should be dealt with just as if they had been disruptive without it. Many many editors use Huggle appropriately, and we shouldn't punish them just because some trolls have found a way to make themselves more of a problem... --].].] 17:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Agree with the above — in fact, a post like this informing others of how to disable it is probably the most effective thing that could've been done. Don't be afraid to remove it from anyone messing around <b><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;">].]</span></b> 17:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
::I don't think it should be discontinued (but I do think that ] should now be protected since Huggle depends on it!!!); removal is simple and should be used. <small style="white-space:nowrap;size:95%;color:#2F74FF">—<small style="background:#FFFFFF;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small>—<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small>—<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small></small> 17:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
::: The problem with protecting that page is that I then can't edit it. It's been only semi-protected for four months with no adverse effects, and indeed wasn't even linked to until today -- ] (]) 17:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Well, then, you should either remove the links (!) or be given adminship just for that! <small style="white-space:nowrap;size:95%;color:#2F74FF">—<small style="background:#FFFFFF;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small>—<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small>—<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small></small> 18:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
::I think that anyone who abuses/misuses Huggle should have the ability revoked immediately, and possibly be blocked, depending on the severity of the abuse . We do the same for rollback, admin tools and AWB, why not Huggle? <small style="font:bold 12px Trebuchet MS;display:inline;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;">] ] ] 17:52, May 18, 2008 (UTC)</small>

Huggle is an extremely clever piece of work by an extremely clever person who was nice enough to share it with the community. I for one am grateful for that. That said, it's extremely powerful and I think we should not hesitate to take the ability to use it away from those who maybe aren't quite ready for the power... ''with great power comes great responsibility'' and all that. So I support the general sense here that tightening down who can use it and making it easier to take away temporarily or permanently if needed is appropriate. ++]: ]/] 22:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

:If we could establish an administrator's reference page, listing the various automated and semi-automated editing tools such as Huggle, Twinkle, VandalProof, NPW, AWB, Rollback, etc, and how to disable them, I believe it would aid administrators in enforcing prompt sanctions proportionate to the type of abuse occurring. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
::With regard to Huggle's main configuration page being full-protected, could we make an account for Gurch that is an administrator, but with the condition that he ''only'' uses it to edit the config page, if any other edits with the account show up, it would be immediately indef blocked? ]]] 22:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
:::I don't think that is necessary. - ] (]) 23:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
:::If you think it needs to be fully protected, feel free to go ahead and do it. Just expect to be spammed with {{tl|editprotected}} requests when I need to make configuration changes :) -- ] (]) 00:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Why don't you just move the config page to something like ] and make the existing page have Huggle redirect its request? That way, you could still edit it, and no one else could. ]]] 17:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
'''Suggestion''': Huggle is given a process similar to rollback. Users need to be screened beforehand and, possibly, must be recommended by an admin. Personally, I'd institute a stricter process for Huggle than for rollback, as a user without rollback (like myself) can still edit literally a hundred articles a minute with Huggle. --]<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 02:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:Bah, since the general opinion regarding ] was that if someone abuses it he must be blocked, I guess the same remedy can be done about Huggle (or *any* script for that matter). I don't necessarily agree, but there is no reason to hold people to a lesser standard for Huggle. <small>Keep up the good work Gurch ;)</small>-- ] <sup>]</sup> 11:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:Where Huggle has been used appropriately I am certain it has proven very beneficial, but where it has been abused... It is a powerful tool which in the wrong hands can create a great deal of damage, which means I am more concerned on the basis by which it is granted - perhaps there should be more checking, more detailed criteria for use, and even perhaps a more strictly qualified group enabled to grant user rights? I don't think removing Huggle generally is going to do anything that being more careful in its distribution wouldn't achieve. ] (]) 20:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::I know that when I first started using Huggle, I made quite a few errors for about 3 or 4 days, as I was unaccustomed to such immense power. I have seen similar trends in a few other new Huggle users. I think that each new Huggle user should be put on probation for, say, a week. In that time, they would be cautioned to take it slow and learn the ropes. Too many mistakes in that time would mean that the user's Huggle privileges would be revoked and the user would have to wait a period of time before re-applying. I do not, however, think that Huggle should be removed from everyone completely. During peak vandalism times, Huggle can "filter" out most vandalism, and Twinkle users and people doing it "old-school" get the rest. Take Huggle out of the picture, and it is difficult to keep up with the vandals. ]]] 03:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If use of Huggle is going to be restricted to those approved by a certain group of people, realistically that group of people would need to be the administrators (otherwise, anyone would be able to approve themselves). If so I need assurance that the administrators will respond to approval requests in a timely manner as it is me that is going to recieve complaints if they do not -- ] (]) 05:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why we're focusing on the tool and not the problematic user. There's nothing that huggle allows you to do that you can't do with your regular editing abilities the day that you got them. You can't fix stupid. If someone is going to revert changes, they're going to revert changes. How they choose to revert changes is up to them. It is the onus of the editor, not the tool, to decide what is and what isn't a good reversion to make. Taking away tools like Huggle and Twinkle aren't going to improve their ability to do it. The only thing it is going to do is reduce the speed with which they can do it. They can still look at two diffs and revert to the previous one, whether with rollback or with copy-paste. If a user is being stupid, then the answer is to help that user become less stupid, not dumb down or restrict the ability of other people to edit. <font color="629632">]</font> <sup><font color="7733ff">]</font></sup> 18:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Tools are fine. The people using the tools are not always fine, and sometimes they're a bit dumb. A giant red box saying '''YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR EDITS''' and '''DO NOT BITE THE NEWBIES''' and '''DO NOT TEMPLATE PEOPLE MAKING GOOD FAITH EDITS''' might help. taking it away from people (probably a small number) who just don't get it, and who continue to revert good edits, would be a good thing. ] 18:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

== Request To Block IP Adress 70.91.91.133 ==

{{Resolved|1=No action needed <font color="blue">'' ''']'''<sub>(]<nowiki>|</nowiki>])</sub> ''</font> 21:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)}}
On some pages I have seen vandilism from an IP Adress from The Barrie Day Elementry School. I reviewed its logs and it has been typing nonsense and making personal attacks to people at the school. The talk page shows many warnings but only one block for one month or so. I think there needs to be a block for a year or better yet longer. I also think the school needs to have an email from a wikipedia admin. Thank You for your concern ] (]) 20:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Plyhmrp

:A glance at the contribs shows that editing (and therefore vandalism) is sporadic. And some of the edits have been well-meaning, even if not perfect or even very good. On the basis that we attempt to encourage editing of Misplaced Pages (and on the slightly flawed basis that we have far worse IP addresses that we block sparingly), I'd be inclined to not block until there's evidence of prolonged abuse or nasty edits that would null the well-meaning stuff. ➨ ''']''' is now 40 per cent papier mâché 21:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the logs but they reveal that more than half od the edits are random vandislim. That Ip Adress blanked one page and typed In comments like "I GET MONEY MANNY RULES" and they IP also says that people are so cool. There is also times where they typing gibberish and say hi. There have also been attacks to people who may be students. One of these edits to Rube Goldberg sayed "Willam Sucks" I assume Willam is part of that school. I think there needs to be more than one admin reviewing the logs like I did. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::No. It's fine. No block needed. <font color="blue">'' ''']'''<sub>(]<nowiki>|</nowiki>])</sub> ''</font> 02:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No It is not fine. This IP needs a month long block. This IP disrupts wikipedia and has achived lots of warnings and two blocks. We need to issue a short block to show that we will block them if they are disruptive. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:No edits now for 6 days. No edits for 6 days before that. No edits for 14 days before that. No edits for 6 days before that. And some - not all, not many, but some - of those edits were clearly well-meaning. This is the 💕 that ''anyone can edit''. If we start throwing around month-long blocks of IP addresses probably used by dozens of people when there is no pressing reason for doing so then we're hardly fitting with our own motto. And ] doesn't allow for such blocks. Step One is to get a consensus to change a policy you don't agree with, not to demand that admins break the existing policy. ➨ ''']''' is now 40 per cent papier mâché 21:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:The editing is so sporadic that a block wouldn't have the desired effect. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, and there's little to gain from a month-block to a school IP that only rarely edits anyway. And a month isn't a short block -- ] (])

Ok maybe not A large block but can we get a banner that says to edit login. This might help things. I think a one day block may help. More than half of the edits are meaningless. Need more warnings.

:Can you please stop already? No more of this. This is a school with sporadic vandalism. Go find something else to do. There isn't anything to do here. <font color="blue">'' ''']'''<sub>(]<nowiki>|</nowiki>])</sub> ''</font> 21:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

== Proposed community ban of Betacommand ==

Per discussion at ], I am proposing a community ban of {{user|Betacommand}} and all known aliases/sockpuppets, for a period of three months. If enacted, and per our ], if he tries to evade the ban the block timer will be reset and his ban will start anew. Please see my statement there for my reasoning. —] • ] • ] 22:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Based on the positive evidence of abusive sock puppetry, continued abuse of bot privileges, harassment of blocking administrators as detailed in my ], continued incivility and continued failure to recognize and correct his behavior, I support the proposed ban. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''', clearly exhausted community patience. I'd go for indefinite ban, but that may be considered too harsh by others. Seriously one of the rudest editors I've ever encountered on here. I cannot understand why this hasn't happened long ago. ''']''' ('']'') 23:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''slow down''' someone will surely unblock, and that will be the end of the ban. I'd love to see something happen here, but only more moderate action will have general support.''']''' (]) 23:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose this action''' but support escalating sanctions under individual admin discretion. Ryan P already had this ball rolling, then the universe exploded. Beta needs a series of steps applied by the ''entire'' community to realize the consequences of unmodified behaviour. ] (]) 23:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
**I'm sorry, did you miss ]? Specifically, ], where he was already told to remain civil, and violated that, and was told to only operate his bot for approved tasks, and violated that as well? The balls been rolling for a couple of months, but nobody will pull the trigger. —] • ] • ] 01:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
***Actually I haven't missed a heartbeat, Ryan made an unequivocal notice, that looked like a good line in the sand to work from. I'm not unaware of previous history ;) ] (]) 01:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
****You're saying the ArbCom remedy ''wasn't a line in the sand''? If we keep up with giving out warnings without taking any action, we might as well change the ] to the ]. —] • ] • ] 04:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*****Yeah it was, but there was some beach volleyball being played at the same time. ArbCom draws lots of stuff in the sand, some of it sticks, some of it melts. RyanP was poised on action, the Arb decision was there to back him up, the patent evidence was there - now we're getting on to several MB more server space without resolution, and many are focussed on the sock allegation and NFCC, which are far from the point. However, events are lately pointing toward a resolution, which is encouraging. "Mene mene", right? :) ] (]) 04:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
******This definitely isn't about the sock issue (and definitely not NFCC, that's '''sooooo''' two months ago), it's about the overall effect his actions have had, and his totally unapologetic attitude (in fact I can't think of a time during this whole situation where he's apologized for his behavior, only that he's tried to skew discussion towards unblocking his bot, his alt and returning to a mostly business-as-usual status). "Mene mene" indeed. :P —] • ] • ] 06:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
******It looks like the only thing ArbCom has done in the sand was to piss its name in Chinese characters: very impressive at first glance, but in the long run useless. ArbCom instructions are useless when ignoring them goes unpunished. Betacommand has ignored just about everything he could possible ignore. Bullzeye's description of Betacommand is the best I've ever come across: "a nuclear powered icebreaker with the throttle stuck on Flank and the Captain asleep in his cabin with his iPod on and a GO AWAY sign on the door." ]]<sup>]</sup> 12:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*This proposal, along with the rest of this recent Betacommand drama, strikes me as an extreme case of overreaction. I too was taken aback by the sudden revelations everywhere that BC was sockpuppeting, since malicious sockpuppetry by anyone is completely inexcusable - but then I read into it for myself and found that his "puppetry" was limited to a single alternate account that had only crossed paths with his main one once? Please, let's just calm down and let this small incident pass. '''<font color="#ff9900">]</font><font color="#ff6699">]</font>''' 23:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
**Betacommand is blatantly violating the ArbCom remedies from ], and you believe this is an "overreaction"? —] • ] • ] 01:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Would support individual escalating blocks for continued incivility, but this proposal is far too draconian for my taste. Incivility needs to be stopped, but this sort of response is out of proportion to the offense at hand. I would support sanctions, just not ''this'' sanction. --].].] 23:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': Ugh...More overreaction. Looking at it, I guess I am not surprised. - ] (]) 23:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
**Yes, clearly overreaction, the community was expecting far too much by thinking he would abide by the ]. —] • ] • ] 01:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Question''' A few days ago I proposed one week, and some people thought it absurdly short and others thought it absurdly long. I propose it again as a basis for discussion. ''']''' (]) 23:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

*It was noted above (or on what has forked onto a separate page) that BC has communication difficulties. He tends to do the more drama-prone jobs around here, compounding any communication difficulties which may exist. I'd suggest that none of the commentators here would be able to comport themselves any better than BC has done, if they were to be placed under the same workload as him. We shouldn't be aiming to get rid of Beta, but more to provide him with more support. Much as we appear loath to refer to ourselves as such, we are a community and we need to care of one another, indeed more than we do already. We don't kick people out of the fold for being imperfect. ]''']''' 23:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
*:This, by the way, is complete nonsense. If someone were somehow ''forcing'' him to work in this area, it might be valid, but he ''chose'' this work. If he ''knows'' he can't handle drama well, it's his responsibility to find areas that he ''can'' competently work in. His failure to do so only indicates that the problem is indeed him. ] ] 14:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

===The Sam Korn solution===

:I strongly disagree with this action. As in strongly. While I won't call it precipitous (for fear of causing death through hilarity among certain members of the community), I will call it unnecessary. I totally agree without the slightest hesitation that concrete remedies are necessary. I would imagine them to function along the lines of these:
:*'''Betacommand is not permitted to run bots'''
:*:Running bots should be a position of trust. It is plain that Betacommand does not have that trust. Criticism of his bot work has frequently unheeded and met with incivility. This is not good enough. Betacommand has no right to run bots. Any unauthorised bot activity should be met with blocking. I would suggest a minimum of a week.
:*'''Betacommand is placed upon civility parole'''
:*:Betacommand's response to criticism has been totally unacceptable and must change. Any incivility should be met with an appropriate block. I would suggest that a month should be the outside; I do not expect anything less than three days to be the minimum. Unblocking should only be done with great care: I would be horrified if people continued to think that Betacommand can get away with incivility after the events of the last few days.
:I don't see the point of a restriction on the use of alternate accounts. If they are abusive, that is already covered. Abuse would include attempting to evade the restrictions of this kind of decision. If they are not abusive, and Betacommand manages to get to a point where he has an account that is not identified with him and behaves acceptably, all the more power to him.
:I feel this kind of set of provisions would be more useful than the considerably blunt instrument of a ban. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
::Based on his defiance of the ] ruling related to the nature of his bot's messages, his continued abuse of bot privileges on multiple accounts, and continued incivility, this is also an acceptable sanction. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
::Scrap anything else I've said - Sam proposes an unacceptable solution, but it's better than all the alternatives. Churchill would approve. ] (]) 23:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
::Ditto. ''']''' (]) 23:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
* (ec)'''Support''' It seems like there's a new thread about BC's behaviour, civility, unauthorized bots, and now sock puppets? His supporters continually say he's being provoked..but that's the problem. If he could control his temper we wouldn't be here. An angry response to a stupid comment is never acceptable. <font face="monospace" color="#004080">]&middot;(])&middot;(])</font> 23:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
**'''Support Sam Korn's version'''. Escalating and calculated sanctions are what are needed here, not a 3-month ban... Sam's sanctions (no bots, civility parole) is perfectly reasonable. --].].] 23:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

*We'll never agree on a complete ban. Forbidding Betacommand to run bots may be acceptable for a week, but a lot of people think that some tasks of BCB are very useful. I propose this as a longer-term alternative :
**Betacommand is forbidden from bot tasks on any account except Betacommandbot.
**All the tasks of Betacommandbot must be BAG-approved.
**Betacommand is on civility restriction.
:For, say, three months, then see how it works and discuss again. <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">]]</span></strong> 23:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
::I also support Sam Korn's proposal, but we should find an agreement on the duration. <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">]]</span></strong> 01:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

:'''Comment''' I am reminded of a conversation I had with Betacommand, in which he indicated he had a special relationship with the WMF and/or developers. He indicated that this special relationship permitted him to be granted SUL accounts for him and his bot, among other undescribed privileges, despite not having an admin flag on any WMF wikis. I therefore contemplate if there is an existing ] or ] ruling that would prevent the community from stopping Betacommand's operation of his bot. If an authorized individual could respond to this comment, indicating whether or not the community has the authority to impose such sanctions, it would help clear up this situation. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' as being a bit too extreme here. However, '''Support''' Sam Korn's proposal - ] <sup>]</sup> 00:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' with regard to BCB's useful tasks: it is incumbent on the community to identify the BCB tasks with attention to mission-critical and other tasks and effectively "de-task" BCB with preferably open-sourced alternatives. This would at least defuse the argument over how important the bot is. ] (]) 00:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
**Per Carnildo, his tasks , and even if they were, I disagree that his contributions are somehow relevant in the clear violation of policy. Even Betacommand says his bot won't be performing any tasks for the next thirty days, so a bot restriction wouldn't do much. —] • ] • ] 01:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
***I'm fine with the botops being un-needed, if some relevant authority would confirm that, so much the better. If indeed all BCB tasks are redundant, then BCB should under the circumstances be permanently blocked. If BC wishes to resume botops (which is not evil, a lot of people/projects come to him for help), then there should be some clear parameters, such as ''defined tasks'' amd ''separate bot names for clearly separate tasks'', rather than the loosey-goosey "my code is too complex for you to understand" status-(no longer)-quo. But let's quantify where exactly BC/BCB is too valuable to block and eliminate those roadblocks. Then we can address the actions of this editor of themselves. ] (]) 01:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' The "civility parole" part of Sam Korn's proposal is reminding me of Roman legal history where the most unobeyed laws are the most restated. Besides normal wikipedia civility rules, he's already been placed under further civility restrictions by ArbCom. Unless I am misreading the date, this was only last month. Recommend restating to "Betacommand may actually have to adhere to his civility parole and some related wikipedia policies". ] (<small>]</small>) 00:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

*'''Support with fire''' - I support the community ban. Enough is enough. Not only was it proven he violated 3RR with his sockpuppet, but the fact that he has virtually ignored the issue is repulsive. Thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread involving BC also amounts to disruption of the project. I for one am tired of the "Defend Betacommand At All Costs Cabal" and it must end now. '''-''' <font size="+1" color="red">&#10032;</font><strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">]</strong><font size="+1" color="red">&#10032;</font> <sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*Yeah, a 3 month ban is an overreaction. Sam Korn's idea works for me. <small>'''] - ]'''</small> 00:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What makes us think he'll change this time? He's been to arbcom twice and it's had little if any affect. If Sam's proposal is adopted, it has to be his absolute last chance; if that doesn't work, I won't hesitate to support a ban. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 00:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' ] 00:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

*While I believe Beta's work is quite irreplaceable, a line needs drawing. I'm in favour of Sam's proposal; Beta currently doesn't have the community's trust to run a bot. However, I think, he demonstrates that he can be trusted after three months, I don't see why not to give him back his bot privileges. The biggest issue here is the incivility; if you treat others with respect, they'll treat you the same. And if they don't but you do, they'll get blocked for disruption/incivility/harassment. '''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 01:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

*'''Support Sam Korn's version'''. Enough is enough. &#10154;]! 01:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comment.''' Nothing will happen here. BC has deserved a ban for a long time. But even if the community coalesces around a long block, or an outright ban, one of his bodyguards will overturn it unilaterally. It always happens. Why should this time be any different? ] ]] 01:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:*Why do you always have to assume an evil cabalist will always do something you won't like? Evaluate the situation without flamethrowing towards someone who supports Beta. Frankly, your communications aren't exactly better than his. '''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 01:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::*Support your assertion that my communications are no better than BC's or retract it. It's ludicrous on its face. There's no need to "assume" anything. It's evident that BC has bodyguards that ride to his rescue every time he faces any sanction for his actions. ] ]] 01:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:::*You just proved my point. You're making unfounded accusations again... Seriously, why can't you be nice to Beta for a change? Trust me, he'll be nice too. '''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 12:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support Sam Korn's version'''. I would support a bot ban for a year. It's not a basic human right be allowed use of a bot. Allow him to only use his main account. And have him on civility probation, although I don't think that will stick... --] (]) 01:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Absolutely positively hell no''' to the community ban. <font face="Trebuchet MS">]<small> (]) (]) (])</small></font> 01:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

*'''Support Sam Korn's version'''. I'd like to note, however, that the vast majority of the previous complaints about Betacommand have been either people unhapppy with our image deletion policies (which is not Betacommand's fault), people unhappy with the way the bot works, or people unhappy at Betacommand's incivility. Has anyone in the BC lynch mob forming here had '''any''' issues with incivility from the now-blocked alternate account? BC is stuck in an awkward position, only part of which is of his own doing. He cannot turn over a new leaf (because he'll be blocked if he uses a sock) and he can't escape the past because of a group of users who will not let go of the past. ''']''' <small>]</small> 01:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': I just want to note that Betacommand has already stated that he will not use BetacommandBot for a month, except for one specific, uncontroversial task. See that statement . I've spoken to BC about this and he said he does indeed have a list of tasks that he will hold off on, for this thirty day period. - ] (]) 01:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' A ban of a user who has contributed much in the past seems a bit cruel and draconian. --]<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 01:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
**Are you saying that the value of an editors contributions allows him to violate personal attack and sockpuppet policies (amongst others)? That's a slippery slope that nobody should want to go down, but I keep seeing that attitude in discussions about Betacommand and his behavior. —] • ] • ] 01:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
* '''Strong oppose''': Blah. --] (]) 01:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' full ban, '''support''' Sam Korn's version. It's important for us to remember that blocks and bans should be preventative, rather than punitive--a major point brought up during the initial blocking was that Betacommand has a number of high-speed editing tools at his disposal. By banning the use of these tools for a reasonable amount of time, we ensure that the community has sufficient time to discuss their further use. While I personally have no reason to think that Betacommand is anything but sincere in his offer to refrain from bot editing, the fact that a full-on ban is being seriously discussed tells me that we need something a little more formal in nature. --]-]] 01:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Sam Korn's version of it. Something has to be done. ''']''' '']'' 01:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support the burning with fire of any plan which would prohibit a user who participates only in bot work from operating bots, and then masquerade itself as a less harsh alternative than an all out ban.''' --]]]<small>(st47)</small> 01:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::Would you also support encouraging said user to make substantive article-space contributions on his own initiative, in areas of his own interest, by manual means? If so, I'll help as best I can. The sole focus of anyone on Misplaced Pages shouldn't be just to make the computers run faster. ] (]) 02:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' :| CWii is not pleased. <font color="blue">'' ''']'''<sub>(]<nowiki>|</nowiki>])</sub> ''</font> 02:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
'''Oppose'''. I'll support graduated remedys here. ] (]) 02:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*He technically can't be banned now, so let's just concentrate on Sam Korn's remedy. ] 02:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - overreaction ] (]) 02:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::What do you think of Sam Korn's remedy? ] (]) 03:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' This goes on and on and on. Betacommand hasn't shown any self discipline and inspite of his contributions he needs to understand that, like everyone else, he has to respect the rules and other users. Instead he has a long track record of repeatedly breaking the rules and abusing others as he sees fit. That his work has made him a target is no excuse - he should have expected that going in and found more appropriate means to repsond. It seems like nothing applies to this guy and his bot work is a perpetual get of jail free card. Otherwise, someone might just want to get down to it and start work on ] and just lay down some policy that makes it plain that he can do whatever he wants, to whoever he wants, however he wants to do it without fear of sanction or all kinds of wasted discussion. His behaviour is consistently appalling. It is fundamental that the folks who enforce the rules have to follow the rules themselves or face the consequences. ] (]) 03:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::What do you think of Sam Korn's remedy? ] (]) 03:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*I could have sworn we deleted CSN so that we could have discussions here and not do votes for banning. Silly me. I oppose the ban. '''] ( ] )''' 03:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::What do you think of Sam Korn's remedy? ] (]) 03:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support Sam Korn's remedy''' Community banning Betacommand is an overreaction. There are specific problems with Betacommand's behaviour that can be addressed with the proposed remedy and I'm pretty damn sure there is an admin willing to unblock anytime so community banning won't work. If you want him banned you'll need to convince ArbCom to do so. ] (]) 03:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Sam Korn's remedy. A complete ban would just polarize things more, as Betacommand's defenders would go to even greater lengths to find him a way out, but Sam's remedy is reasonable, appropriate to the situation, and has a chance of resolving the issues. ] / ] 04:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Counting here with my trusty hacksaw, support = 3; oppose = 6; comment/indeterminate = 6; Sam Korn = 16. No consensus maybe, but a pretty clear preference. All figures +/- 4, 95% of the time. ] (]) 04:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC) <small>If anyone disputes my count, please comment and do not change my signed statement, thanks, or just do your own count, thanks. ] (]) 06:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)</small>
*'''Oppose''' Absolutely not. We've already been over this, and BC hasn't even remotely violated ]. -- ] 05:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:*Apparently you missed the ? '''-''' <font size="+1" color="red">&#10032;</font><strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">]</strong><font size="+1" color="red">&#10032;</font> <sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::*At best you have proof that BC was edit warring and breaking the 3RR, but the use of the other account is obviously a mistake. -- ] 05:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:::* Betacommand says it was a mistake. are not always true. ] / ] 06:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:*(EC with allstar, response to ned scott)I'm not sure this is about a single incident, but rather a pattern of behavior over a long period of time. For the record, I don't believe that there has been any sockpuppetry here at all, but the pattern of incivility needs to be addressed and remediated... --].].] 05:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::*I'm not opposed to addressing those concerns, but the proposals in this thread are based on the SOCK accusations. That is what I am opposing. -- ] 05:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:::* So, because one thing he did wasn't bad enough for you, he should be forgiven for all the others? His violating 3RR with a hidden sock doesn't bother me as much as his violating his ArbCom restrictions with a run of thousands of unapproved, disruptive bot edits on his own account, or any of the frequent uncivil and disruptive edits he has made in the past year. I'd say it's pretty clear that Sam's remedy is mostly about his misuse of bots, not his sockpuppeteering. ] / ] 05:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::::*I'm not opposing Sam's remedy. I take no comment (for the time being) on how to handle the bot issues and the civility. -- ] 06:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::*I understand your concerns Ned, but please look at MB's RFArb subpage where he clearly documents that BC had his rollback revoked on one account and then proceeded to deceive the RFR admins into granting it for his other sock. If that isn't abusive sockpuppetry, I don't know what is. --] (]) 14:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''', WTF? Locke Cole had conflicts with BC in the past, he shouldn't be the one who propses the ban. Sam Korn's propsal makes some sense, but was made at the wrong time, because many people seem to support is as an alternative of outright banning, not because they really feel like that. ]<sup>(])</sup> 05:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
** When I say I support Sam Korn's remedy, I mean I support Sam Korn's remedy. I imagine this is is the case for the others as well. Anyone who supports Sam's remedy in preference to a ban but would actually prefer no sanction at all is free to say so. ] / ] 05:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
**:Such effect doesn't need to be conscious, in fact, we may see an example of ] effect. (I don't mean that Sam and Locke are acting together, but a softer proposal as alternative of a harsher one will always make such psychological effect, and I feel that even Sam's proposal is too much, although something certainly needs to be done). ]<sup>(])</sup> 07:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
**Well nobody else seems to be willing to step up to the plate and propose ''something'' with teeth. As you can see at the subpage discussion there ''was consensus'' that something should be done, though unfortunately it seems I overestimated the support for ''something'' that might actually get his attention. May I remind '''everyone''' that he's been grossly incivil (long after ArbCom "instructed" him to be civil), that he's abused a sockpuppet to evade 3RR (now you can take that two ways: 1) it was an accident, in which case he shouldn't have gone on to revert a '''fourth time''' and keep his alt a secret, or 2) it was malicious, in which case the reaction we should have should be obvious, but in either case, his use of that alt account was very inappropriate, and his attitude since then (unapologetic, wishing to brush it all under the rug seemingly) should not be tolerated or encouraged. Anyways, yeah, I'm involved, but ''something'' needs to be done with clear instructions on the results if he fails to abide by whatever is chosen (not vague references to "escalations", spell it out). —] • ] • ] 07:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
* '''Strong oppose''': We shall have no ] with the ].--] (]) 05:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - there were sanctions proposed in the original thread that were far more appropriate as are those that Sam proposed above. <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 05:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. He's been given far too many chances already. ] (]) 06:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Sam Korn's version, but '''oppose''' a complete community ban. The second would be an overreaction. ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 06:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' either version. This has dragged on far too long. ] 06:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*Ok, not going to bold my stuff, cuz votin is evil and all that, but.. WTF? There's a lot of folks who believe that a 1 week block was more then necessary, considering it wasn't actually sockpuppeting, but one mistaken edit.... and now we're going for a "community" ban, or other significant restrictions, with no further mistakes by BC? Are we going Argumentum Ad Nauseum here? Seriously? ] (]) 06:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the 3-month proposal due to repeated gross incivility, marginal sockpuppetry, disruption and abuse of bots. <small style="white-space:nowrap;size:95%;color:#2F74FF">—<small style="background:#FFFFFF;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small>—<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small>—<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small></small> 06:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:*He did not violate ] "marginally", or at all. I have no comment on the other rationales you've presented. -- ] 06:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::*Perhaps I didn't explain that well - I mean, given that Beta was already "in a hole", on ANI every other pico-second (a splendid phrase I borrowed from White Cat!) and on an ArbCom civility ruling that was clearly being broken, running a separate account without at least notifying ArbCom, privately, was a dumb idea, really. Beta must have known that if/when he made a mistake such as he did, it would be looked down on pretty badly. <small style="white-space:nowrap;size:95%;color:#2F74FF">—<small style="background:#FFFFFF;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small>—<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small>—<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small></small> 06:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::*He did violate ], he used an undisclosed alternate account to evade violating ]. This is a violation of ]. —] • ] • ] 07:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*Support Sam Korn's version, or at the very least a "bot parole": any rapid editing except that which has been explicitly approved by the Bot Approvals Group is grounds for blocking. He's had far too long a history of unapproved and disruptive bot-like editing. --] (]) 07:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
**'''Support Sam Korn option'''. Betacommand has been given numerous "don't do it again"s for more than a year, and has systematically disregarded any criticism. His bots are now giving no real benefit to the project, only problems (messing up articles, adding large numbers of edits which then need to be reverted), and we have plenty of bot coders who actually can handle people and follow the rules. Betacommand therefore should not run any bots ever again. That said, I am concerned that this community decision will just end up amounting to nothing. His unapproved DEFAULTSORT bot violated an arbcom ruling only two months old, so how is he going to react to any conditions set forth by mere editors, whom he considers to be trolls and drama queens? Also, given past events, I see it as highly likely that any blocks instituted for violating the conditions will be summarily undone within hours. But I am willing to give it a try. ] (]) 07:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' (god I am so tired of these two), I disagree with the findings of facts above. I have no opinion on Sam's proposal (I have mixed feelings about it). -- ] <sup>]</sup> 07:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support Sam Korn's proposal'''. '']'' <small>(])</small> 08:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' blocking Betacommand. '''Support''' banning him from operating bots, either on other accounts (ie, BC2 and BCBot need to be blocked) or on his main account. ] ] 08:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' ban, but only because it's never gonna happen; thus, '''support''' the Korn Plan. However, sad to say, Sam's proposal can be translated at its core into "The community will now tell Betacommand that we really, '''really''', '''''REALLY''''' mean it this time, and we're NOT kidding. Don't MAKE us turn this Misplaced Pages around...." We'll find ourselves heading back here soon, I'm afraid, wagging our multiple megabytes of discussion behind us...] 09:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
**Actually, I don't think that's true. As far as I'm concerned, my suggestions would mean that Betacommand would not be running bots at all in the foreseeable future. Not just "only uncontroversial bots" -- no bots, no bot flags, no running bots on the main account. That is one of the major problems with Betacommand's editing. As to the incivility point -- the existing remedies have no teeth. This proposal has teeth and I for one would be outraged if people continued undoing blocks of Betacommand without very good reason. I don't see why the options have to be ''go ahead and do what you like'' and ''extreme ban with a kick as you go through the door''. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
***To clarify my concern (and please excuse my snark of last night--no more editing after bedtime for me!): Beta has been told--in a freaking ArbCom decision, for Pete's sake, which (even if the findings and remedies haven't any teeth, like in this case) generally amounts to AT LEAST a wake-up call for the individual on the receiving end to alter his/her behavior immediately--to only run bots acceptably; to act civilly, to do A, not to do B. If THAT hasn't stopped him, I question what will--especially since he seems to hold sway over the BAG.. Sam, I think your plan is by far the best-constructed option made available to the community, but I just don't trust that Beta won't find a loophole somehow. ] 15:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC).
****Eternal optimism is good for the soul ;-) ] <sup>]</sup> 15:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the Korn plan - no involvement with bots - either running them or as part of BAG. ]] 09:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Betacommand has himself already 'banned' his bot for any tasks except two uncontroversial, that is enough. I am again stating, I believe he is helpful (at least in the way I have always communicated with him). --] <sup>] ]</sup> 09:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*Do it SKorn's way. An outright ban is just not appropriate here... I think BC's intentions are good, but his communication difficulties often make this hard to see. -- <strong>]</strong>] 11:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''oppose''' even thouigh we love drama, this has gone '''way''' to far. <sub>→]]</sub> 12:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*This needs to be an arbcom action. Lynchmobs of whoever shows up are not how we determine whether or not someone may edit. I think the time has come that despite his outstanding work with non-free images, Betacommand is too much of a liability. But a neutral arbitration committee needs to make that decision. --] (]) 12:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. No bloody way! Betacommand has done far more good than harm. He is no longer on the front line of the fair use management, and is going to stay away from BAG and bot policy. Any ban would be because of past issues. Yes, the community really means it this time; but we do not need to demand a pound of flesh to prove we mean it. If in a month he has kept breaking community expectations, it can be sent to arbcom for review. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 12:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''' Yes, but how many times do we have to keep saying "if in a month"? I've ran out of "if in a month"s long ago and have had to take out a mortgage on new ones - and the economy has gone to hell so all these new "in in a month"s are losing value every day that passes. '''-''' <font size="+1" color="red">&#10032;</font><strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">]</strong><font size="+1" color="red">&#10032;</font> <sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*I'll read through everything tomorrow and get all my facts up to date but for the moment '''Oppose''' --] 13:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' The total bot ban in Sam Korn's version. I don't know that the civility patrol will actually accomplish anything, but it might in theory help. I'd prefer not to go to a total ban, but I would prefer a total ban over allowing Betacommand to continue running bots as he has been doing. ] 13:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' any sort of ban, or bot restriction (which in Betacommand's case amounts to the same thing). I think the community's treatment of him is pretty shabby considering the invaluable work he has done for the project in the past. Protestations aside, I don't think this conversation would be taking place if Betacommand hadn't stepped up to do the Foundation's dirty work in regards to image tagging, and he's become the scapegoat for everyone who disagreed with either the policies or the methods. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''A big troutslap''' to those who continue to defend BC's childish and disruptive nonsense. If you don't want to be involved in solving this problem, so be it, but '''get out of the way''' of those who are willing to try. He's had myriad chances- the only thing we know for sure is that he's unable or unwilling to behave like a reasonable adult. So, our only recourse is to forcably minimize his involvement here. The details of ''how'' we do this aren't very important, as long as that's what we're trying to do. ] ] 14:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC) '''PS'''. Sam's specific plan seems reasonable to me, but good luck keeping BC's little fan club from unblocking him. This will amount to a re-vote any time he's blocked.. a really awful solution, but probably better than any of the others than have been thought of, as pointed out above. ] ] 14:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the Kornplan, though I do have doubts about the willingness of some admins to respect any community-agreed sanction with regard to Betacommand. ] (]) 14:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' a community ban lasting at least three months. Betacommand has a long history of assumptions of bad faith, newbie-biting, incivility, personal attacks, drama and abuse of automated tools. Contrary to what some claim, Quercus basaseachicensis is indeed an abusive sockpuppet. A week after Betacommand had his rollback privileges due to abuse, he and rollback rights on the Quercus basaseachicensis account; he also used both accounts to edit war on a policy page and ] ]. Lesser measures, such as those proposed by Sam Korn, will not work. Betacommand continues to be incivil and abuse tools despite the recent ] and almost all blocks of or are quickly reversed. --] (]) 14:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support KoЯn'''. Would people please stop saying BC is irreplacable! He is just as disposable as the next editor. Also, there are quite a few people who believe his image work is not helpful, but rather lazy disruption because many of the images could be fixed if he <nowiki>{{sofixit}}</nowiki>'d them. His default sorts shit was the final straw for many, and I agree. No more bots, he can edit and do good work like everyone else. Just because a task is tedious doesn't mean that special care shouldn't be used when doing it. It would serve him well to see how much time and effort normal people have to go through. --] (]) 14:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support Sam Korn's plan''', makes sense. However, '''oppose''' a community ban, there is no need for any ] here. BetaCommand has taken a lot of flak for his imagebots and the work they do, and everyone here is human. Although, BC has been given lots of chances: I feel that it should be made very clear that this is the last chance that the community will give him. BC's bots can be run by anyone, and he should not feel that doing valuable work ]. <small style="font:bold 12px Trebuchet MS;display:inline;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;">] ] ] 15:44, May 19, 2008 (UTC)</small>
*'''Support''' Enough is enough. Betacommand has shown repeatedly that he doesn't respect our policies and believes himself above the law. He does nothing that can't be done by someone else-- indeed, a number of such replacements for his bot were produced during the last arbcom case concerning him. No man here is indispensable. The fact that he recieves some flak is no excuse for his ongoing deplorable conduct. I would also support a community ban for some of his vocal supporters-- people who insist there should be exceptions to policy because WP:ILIKEHIM are of questionable value to the project. ] (]) 15:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' - I'm no fan of BetaCommand or his bot but starting some kind of witch hunt against editors who support him and suggesting they should be banned for expressing an opinion that differs from yours is a draconian idea. ] (]) 16:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose ban. Neutral to Sam Korn's.''' ]<small>]</small> 16:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support Sam Korn sanctions'''. Last chance only. ] <small>(]?)</small> 17:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Not convinced yet. ] ] 17:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support Sam Korn Remedy''' generally, but with a view to unblocking the bot as soon as is practicable or necessary. We do need to experience whether we can live without the bot, but should not deny the appropriate use of the tool even if it were found not to be essential. WP's relationship with the bot and its use may also provide Betacommand with a new perspective regarding his standing in the community. ] (]) 20:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Sam Korn, even though I believe it to be a Big Waste of Time. Any resolution that begins with "Community" anything, whether it end with "ban", or "sanctions", or "solution", or whatever, will fail. As long as he is doing "important work", there will never be consensus to enforce any community solution. --] 20:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
* Sam Korn's proposal appears reasonable to me. ] ] 00:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
* '''Support Sam Korn Solution''' - this seems the most surgical option available to us. I don't think anyone who fully understands the history of this situation can argue that Beta can ever really be trusted to run a bot again. His pledge to only do "mundane" tasks is pure ''Crambe bis cocta'', and frankly, I feel a bit insulted by his tone. Since when has "Fine, whatever...I'll stop doing whatever the hell it is you're mad about for awhile, alright? Ya happy now?" been an acceptable rationale for a user staring down a community ban? <span style="font-family:impact, serif;background:black;color:red;border-style:single;letter-spacing:1px">Bullzeye</span><small><sup><i>]</i></sup></small> 06:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:*'''Addendum''' - Just to clarify, the "writing on the wall" reference referred to the silent but inevitable downfall that often awaits a user if they dare to imperiously tip some ancient Wiki-Deity's favorite cow. Based on the number of Reject votes given without any pretense of explanation, I'd say he's about a medium-sized one. Note also that this isn't a statement on his character, merely his status in the community. <span style="font-family:impact, serif;background:black;color:red;border-style:single;letter-spacing:1px">Bullzeye</span><small><sup><i>]</i></sup></small> 06:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
* '''Support Sam Korn Solution''' - This seems reasonable enough to me. A ban may be unnecessary at this stage. The main problem lies with his ''bot'', so we should be looking at remedies to that rather than banning Betacommand himself at this stage. ''']]]''' 16:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
* '''Support Sam Korn solution''' but '''oppose''' a community ban. I have had concerns about BC's behaviour for a while, and expressed those at the RfAr and elsewhere, but am convinced he is a good faith user with serious issues rather than a malintentioned user. The socking issue in and of itself was a red herring in my view. ] 17:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

=== Moving forward ===
There is clearly no consensus for a community ban. Rather than people continuing to "support" or "oppose" the initial proposal for a community ban, we should be moving forward on the issue. - ] (]) 17:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:There is no support for a community ban<s>d</s>. There is substantial support for limiting Betacommand's automated edits. I've already blocked Betacommand's bot account to enact ] that are compatible with the first part of Sam Korn's proposal. A ninety day break from running a bot seems like a reasonable compromise, let us figure a way to fairly review Betacommand's actions during this period and decide how to give him a chance to re-implement bot tasks afterward in an uncontroversial and error-proof way. If successful, we may retain a prolific bot operator and allow ill-will to subside on both sides of the debate. The civility parole may be moot as all editors are expected to maintain a respectful tone in their on-wiki correspondence at the risk of being blocked for profane insults and other childish behavior. ˉˉ<sup>]</sup>] 18:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
-
::the civility part is not moot, as the "general expectation" doe snot seem to have accomplished anything. The point of it is to give a warning to beta that he is not exempt from it, and that a final warning has been given. Yes, it should be unnecessary, but experience seems to show otherwise.''']''' (]) 18:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Point taken, I only meant to say that the danger of being blocked for gross incivility is a no-brainer. The concept of "civility parole" seems redundant given the circumstances. ˉˉ<sup>]</sup>] 19:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::::I think civility parole, at least when used by arbcom, is generally taken to mean "no warning necessary" - that any uninvolved admin can issue a short block if he is uncivil. <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 20:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::Suffice to say I wasn't clear on the process entailed by civility parole and I agree wholeheartedly with its intent. Thanks to you both for the elaboration :) ˉˉ<sup>]</sup>] 21:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::Dude, I'd support a community band. It could be called "Anetode and the Beta Blockers". I'll play drums. :) ] / ] 19:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Lol :) ˉˉ<sup>]</sup>] 19:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::I think Durova's suggestions are sensible, though I do not see the need for the account restriction. That seems nothing short of vindictive. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Sam, if you're going to call my proposal vindictive in public, please give the courtesy of a heads up. It isn't helpful when someone of your standing posts such negative speculation. Fortunately other people haven't picked up on the tone, but in a heated discussion such as this one there's a distinct possibility of it being taken the wrong way. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 22:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::Sorry, I phrased that really badly. I am certainly not saying that your proposal or the desire to restrict Betacommand's accounts is rooted in vindictiveness -- it was a terrible choice of words and I apologise for it. I was ''trying'' to say that it disputed that the accounts have been used abusively (certainly there was no intent to do so) and therefore that the proposal to restrict the accounts seem more rooted in general emotions towards Betacommand than in necessity. I would, however, urge anyone to follow MBisanz's advice below. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Several users objected to account restrictions on similar grounds. Right now the Quercus basaseachicensis and BetacommandBot accounts are blocked, Betacommand and Betacommand2 are not. Since both proposals require an end to bot runs, I don't see any reason to unblock BetacommandBot and the Quercus account is still under some amount of controversy. Surely two accounts (including one for use on public computers and rc patrol applications) are enough. ˉˉ<sup>]</sup>] 20:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::::I think Sam is leaving open the door that Betacommand, could, if he wanted to, exercise his RTV and start a new account, unconnected to his former activities. My opinion would be that if he did so, he would need to stop using the Betacommand account, per ]:
::::<blockquote>If you have a negative track record and you have decided to make a genuine, clean, and honest, new start, and do not wish it to be tarnished by your prior conduct, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create an unconnected new account which becomes the only account you then use, and is used in a good manner. By "discontinue", it is suggested that the old account is noted as being inactive, in order to prevent the switch being interpreted as an attempt to abusively sock puppet.</blockquote>
::::''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:Dubious. The Korn Solution is running at nearly 2:1 support. Let's not squeltch the discussion here prematurely. &#10154;]! 19:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::For what it's worth, I don't think much will come out of this discussion. However, I think it is very fair to say that there is wide support for (a) placing BetaCommand on civility parole and (b) giving him less leeway even if that means being harsher with him than with the average user. There was little made of the block he received on April 22nd, just a few days after the end of the arbitration case. Not only was the block lifted inappropriately soon, it was also lifted despite BetaCommand's absolute refusal to admit he'd done anything wrong. Sure, anytime BetaCommand slips up, all the people he's aggravated over the years want him to go down but, hey, that's the hand he's been dealt and it's not like he's got no responsibility in this. So if you're BetaCommand, ], no quick unblock for any civility-related block, no reverts except in cases of blatant vandalism, no putting yourself in conflict situations. ] (]) 21:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::: Well he's aggravated me, & I don't have a strong desre to see him go down. I just want him to ''act more civil'' & be more careful with his automated edits. (And if he did so, maybe Carcharoth would find the time to do less stressful things than constantly mediate this ongoing forest fire.) -- ] (]) 21:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

=== The real problem - competence ===
As someone wrote above, "There is substantial support for limiting Betacommand's automated edits." Yes. Whether or not there is a community ban, this editor should not be running 'bots. As a programmer, he's just not good enough and nowhere near cautious enough. For his latest botched effort, see ]. He was trying to undo some damage he did with a previous bot, and tried to use a self-modified version of AWB to do it. His modified version was buggy, but by his own count, he did 144 edits with it without noticing that he was creating bogus edit summaries. His edit history does ''not'' show him trying any edits with his new program on a sandbox article or something in his own user space; he just started editing live articles.

It's this lack of caution that's the real problem. This can be trained out of beginning programmers, but this editor has been making mistakes like this for several years now and doesn't seem to be improving. So he should probably be making them somewhere else. The
cleanup costs are too high here. --] (]) 06:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:I was not using bad software, so please stop the attacks and insults saying I was. I was looking that the edit summary function of AWB, because I find it annoying that it always appends that to the edit summary. it was not buggy software but rather a typo in the edit summary. I was examining every edit that I made and there where no problems with the edits, just a minor typo in the edit summary. ] 13:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

::That's the problem, really. It's "annoying", so you disable it. It couldn't possibly be there for a good reason. Rules are for other people. --] (]) 14:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:::no where does it say that edit summaries made by the tool requires that ''using ]'' is in the edit summaries. In fact there is an option avaialble for bots that allows that to be turned off. Also AWB is released under a ] license which allows others to modify the code at their will. so Im not sure what "rules" Im violating. ] 14:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Probably no rules beta, just common sense. Non-sensical edit summaries are not helpfull, especially not 144 of them before you even realise you made a mistake. ] (]) 16:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:I could swear we've had this conversation before... I don't object to Betacommand's work but he has shown no will to let others help him fix his bot or even acknowledge that the bot has problems that one simply wouldn't accept in any mission-critical software. The closest we got to something that looked like co-operation was when he explained how it works but he never accepted our offer to help him fix the bot. That said, those who are making a career out of continuously baiting him and pushing his buttons shouldn't feel too safe either. The way I got him to finally explain what his bot does from a programming point of view was by changing my attitude and be nice to him. Unfortunatey it wasn't enough. ] (]) 17:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
::yes all bots do make mistakes, but I fix all the bugs that are brought to my attention (the few that popped up). I may have not implimented every feature request, but I dont like giving extreamly powerful code to just anyone. ] 18:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:::I know you put a lot of work into this and try to help out where no one else would but when you make a mistake like this which really boils down to you not spending enough time hacking the code to figure out why it still left half of the edit summary you wanted to remove it really doesn't look good in the eyes of others. I've tried this out myself Betacommand, it isn't hard to do if you just spend the extra minutes it takes and look what it is doing ''before'' you make over 100 edits. You can do this on a test wiki without much hassle. Can you see why this was unwise? ] (]) 18:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:::To the refusal to share, I would state that ] is not '''just anyone'''. He's someone with significant programming experience which includes, among other things, major contributions to fundamental TCP/IP functionality which we all take for granted today. I suggest that his criticism of your programming methods is spot on. Furthermore, should he think it helpful, I would suggest that he be given full access to all of your source code in order to evaluate its suitability. If you won't take advice from the community, at least take advice from a genuine expert. --] (]) 15:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

:And here we have the great myth: That your code (rather than, say, your ego) is extremely powerful. I could probably code a bot in a day that could make 100 edits per minute or more. Those edits would likely be page blankings, but still. Being able to edit quickly is not something that code has to be "powerful" to do. --] (]) 14:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

=== Just fyi ===
A community ban exists when no administrator is willing to unblock. I am willing to undo any indefinite block on Betacommand. <b style="color:#c22">^</b>]</sup>]]&nbsp;<em style="font-size:10px;">12:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)</em>
:Me also. ➨ ''']''' looks at danger and laughs his head off 12:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
::Which is fine, because then the editor is simply indef blocked ''until'' there is a <u>consensus</u> to unblock. In this instance, should any admin unblock against consensus I would re-impose the block, block the admin, and open a RfAR to have the admin desysopped. ] (]) 12:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

:::You're missing the point. The point is not that I am threatening to wheel war over a block (and I know you're not either). The point is that a community ''ban'' on BC is not possible because there are admins who ''are'' willing to unblock - thus nullifying a community-imposed ban. If a ''ban'' is wanted, Arbcom will have to impose it. ➨ ''']''' looks at danger and laughs his head off 12:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
::::No, I got the point - BC cannot be community banned because there are those who would be willing to undo the block (but will not because were there is not yet consensus to do so). I was making clear that, following previous ''misunderstandings'', that non-consensus to ban is not consensus to unblock. In what appears to be developing into a potentially divisive matter I was attempting to draw a clear line over what actions admins might be able to take in pursuit of their position in the matter. ] (]) 12:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::Worth noting, for the record, that Betacommand's main account is not currently blocked. ➨ ''']''' looks at danger and laughs his head off 12:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::Again, yes, but we are talking about how the community may act in trying to resolve the problem (after gaining consensus there is in fact a problem) regarding BC. As you say, and last time I checked the wording was such, that a community ban is broken as soon as there is one admin that is willing to unblock. Unlike some other correspondents below, I feel that the above is a timely comment that stops the community enacting such a ban because it is immediately invalidated. The community can therefore decide to enact a block for a length of time or for an indefinite period, which is then open for anyone to try to form a new consensus to get it lifted. This is appropriate. However, if anyone is sufficiently em]ened by the non-consensus to enact a ban to attempt to lift any agreed block before a consensus (created over days rather than hours, and a range of opinions rather than the first few agreeing respondents) then there should - and will, if I consider it appropriate - be consequences. If, per the statements by Demon and Redvers, there cannot be a ban then we are left with discussing if and what type of block is considered appropriate, and the result of that discussion is <u>not</u> invalidated by the actions or opinions of just one (or a few) admin(s). ] (]) 19:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, these disruptive admins are indeed a problem. Thank you for identifying yourselves. Do you care to explain ''why'' you have a particular user you would unblock regardless of the circumstances? This is quite a surprising and bold statement to make. ] ] 14:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:Come to think of it, I don't particularly care ''why''. It's enough for me to know that a couple of admins would promise, before the fact, to actively interfere with admins in the performance of their duties. Would you guys mind resigning your tools in advance rather than wheel warring? Betacommand has been "untouchable" for a good while now, and we've gotten a good look at what this accomplishes. It's not pretty. So, it's time to try something else now. If you don't want to help, don't help, but don't get in the way, either. ] ] 14:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Where did I say I ''"would unblock regardless of the circumstances"''? Please point to where I said that. Go on. No? Also ''"If you don't want to help, don't help, but don't get in the way, either"'': don't threaten me, Friday - you're not entitled to bulldoze those who do not agree with you out of the way like that. ➨ ''']''' looks at danger and laughs his head off 19:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Did I interpret "I am willing to undo any indefinite block" incorrectly? That's what you were "me too"ing, right? I'm not trying to threaten anyone (with what?!?) but you're not entitled to interfere with those trying to solve an ongoing problem, either. Those who keep unblocking BC are a big part of the problem here. You've had plenty of time to try your "let him off no matter what" approach, and we can all see how well it works. Don't continue to be part of the problem. ] ] 19:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

::::Please consider that some people might think your assertions above mean that if you're not part of this lynch mob, you're not welcome to be involved. Telling people who do not agree with you that they are interfering with what you are attempting to do is a travesty of our consensus government and you should be ashamed. ➨ ''']''' looks at danger and laughs his head off 19:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

::I'll just say that Demon did not accurately paraphrase what we have writte on community ban. It sort of suggests that if ''just 1'' admin out of 1,500+ would unblock a candidate, a community ban can never exist. This is not what the policy says. Rather, what I ''think'' Demon and Redvers are suggesting, is that there simply is not a consensus to impose a community ban, therefore if an admin imposed one, they would undo it. Correct me if I am wrong. ] | ]•] 14:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Is there some confusion here with a ''de facto'' community ban, which exists when no admin is willing to unblock, as opposed to a community ban which is effected by consensus of the community? ] (]) 20:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with the application of the "I would unblock" rule in this situation. See my thoughts expressed in a lame graph here: http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/1953/banningza1.jpg Cheers, ] (]) 15:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:A community block is block that imposed per consensus of a majority of the Misplaced Pages community (I say ''majority'' because obviously not every user would participate or possibly be even aware of such a situation). ''That'' consensus imposes the block and cannot be lifted without ''another'' consensus to lift the block. Yes it works '''both''' ways, in case you weren't aware. As said above, just because one or two admins, out of however many hundreds or thousands there are, does not agree to the ban and is willing to unblock a user, that does not mean they can override the block or that it cannot indeed exist. That is not how ''']''' works. ] that you might be interested in. ''']]]''' 16:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

''Let's just all be exactly clear about this''. What you demon and presumably Redvers are saying, that no matter the arguments made in discussions like this, you would ''always'' unblock beta. Why? Just put some thoughts here that illustrate why you would go against the well put and endorsed thoughts of Durova, just so we can adequately assess just how deadlocked the 'community' is with regards Beta and any further violations, because as sure as eggs is eggs, and based on his own actions and statements, change in his attitude or behaviour is not coming, and never will, and good will banked by NFCC tagging is being extended indefinitely. Similarly, any actual actionable incidents are clearly going to continually be treated in isolation despite repeat final warnings, as seen by the above proposal, and even worse, any subsequent blocks thus recieved are actualy watered down, rather than be increased, as happens with other persistent repeat offenders. Even even worse, people have completely ignored beta's apparent solution to all this, to dissapear, and run unapproved bots on user accounts. With comments like this section, I can only see one outcome, an extension of the second arbcom case to force the standards and expectations already stated, to actually be linked to real and descriptive consequences, and to take the issue of how to deal with beta out of the community's hands altogether. ] (]) 17:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
: Although I am an admin and I personally oppose a community ban (and at this stage anyway I seriously doubt one would get off the ground), I would make the general comment that in my view threats or indications of future action are unhelpful. If a process goes to the conclusion and people war it just because it meets their personal definition of "wrong" rather than some objective standard, they're making a rather big statement of how they see their own role with respect to the community, and how they see the community's expressed views. Regrettably I think it's going down the ArbCom road again, although what good it will do I have no idea given that we're still arguing over enforcing the last one. ] 18:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:: The lack of action was apparently down to no the case not having anything to 'enforce'. I requested clarification here , as well as at ANI at the time of a beta civility alert 5 days after the case closed, but there was no response to either. So the next step imo would be to extend case 2 to include enforcement, in light of beta's behaviour since the close of case 2. ] (]) 18:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

:::There being nothing to enforce provides something of a clue as to why the calls for enforcement aren't working. The "]" idea has little merit. ➨ ''']''' looks at danger and laughs his head off 19:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
::::We all already know you think there is nothing to enforce, but this is simply not the case. In fact your repeated one line assertions and silly links in light of pages of contrary views only support the case being made that community action is no longer appropriate for dealing with anything beta does. ] (]) 20:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

:: But the ArbCom set precedent that a sufficiently large number of edits is more important than adhering to ArbCom restrictions. BetaCommand has a very large number of edits, thus restrictions do not apply to him. -- ] (]) 18:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

===Request that betacommand updates his user pages===
Right now, beta is prevented from doing anything but a few tasks with betacommandbot for 30 days, so I would request someone requests beta to change the large WP:BITEY boxes on top of his talk pages here ] and here ], to actually reflect the current status. Their persistence there, despite beta not having done any image tagging for ages, might explain why some people in the above discussions were not even aware he has stopped doing this.

However, I would also point out, bar the current 30 day restriction, this appears to be by his own choice, and not through any official unapproval, . Therefore, with a number of people proposing to monitor the bot's actions for this 30 day restriction, I would request that beta is also asked to update on the bot's user page ] with what it is approved for for the 30 day period, and what it will still be approved for after that, i.e. an accurate summary of these pages in regards to which he considers active and likely to be resumed after the 30 days. ] (]) 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:Seems reasonable; I've always thought that they were a bit rude - but then I entered into dialogue ''with'' Beta :-) No, seriously, if they're BITey ''and'' inaccurate (worse, misleading), then they ought to come down pronto. That said, the bot info isn't essential to update IMO, that just creates un-necessary confusion.
:I'm sure enough people are watching to make sure than no lines are overstepped, but I do ] '''SuPpORt with a capital 's', 'p', 'o' ''and'' 'r'''' the removal of the nasty talkpage templates. <small style="white-space:nowrap;size:95%;color:#2F74FF">—<small style="background:#FFFFFF;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small>—<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small>—<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small></small> 18:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


how about you take a look from my point of view, Im still getting questions that happen from edits BCBot made over a year ago. those notices clearly address 98% of all the common questions. Id rather not have to go back to being a broken record when those messages answer the questions. ] 20:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

:As someone who promised to do image work in his RfA and then was foolish enough to do some, I can plainly and completely vouch for Beta here. The FAQ at the top of his talk page is required, is sensible and is useful. It will cut down '''vastly''' the number of complaints he gets - and he will still get them, even if he never touched an image for the rest of his life. Anyone who works with Misplaced Pages image problems knows that it gets you stupid complaints, ad hominem attacks, death threats, legal threats, email bombs and threats of banning from powerless twerps with nothing better to do. And you get them for the rest of time. And that's '''after''' you put up an FAQ. If you don't have one, you might as well pin a $50 bill on your ass and scream "victim here, victim here!". And there are plenty of people trying to do that to him already. ➨ ''']''' looks at danger and laughs his head off 20:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
::Fair point actually; ongoing issues are... erm, ongoing. However, I do have some specific points to make. '''1:''' "Read this talk page and its archives before registering your complaint" - it is unreasonable to realistically expect newbies who don't understand why they've been templated to read through over 50 pages of (let's face it) uninteresting dullness. '''2:''' "I do not want to see images deleted" - asking for trouble; while I appreciate the point, it's going to cause more trouble than it's worth to ''say'' it! Could perhaps those points be actioned? <small style="white-space:nowrap;size:95%;color:#2F74FF">—<small style="background:#FFFFFF;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small>—<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small>—<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small></small> 20:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:::the reason that #7 exists is because I always got those "you want all NFCC images deleted" messages, I dont want to see images deleted what I want is for all of our images to be compliant with policy, that means some will be fixed and others will need to be deleted, not delete all. As for the read the archives, at one point it pointed to a specific archive, not sure when/how that changed. as for your ''over 50 pages of (let's face it) uninteresting dullness'' the same could be said about our policy pages, people are still required to follow policy, even though its dull and uninteresting. ] 20:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
::::True, but policy can be easily explained to a user if necessary, by templates or the first paragraph of the relevant policy page. If they require more technical details, then they can read deeper. Expecting users to wade through 50 pages of drivel ''before'' posting a simple (and tbh, frequently justified) question to a more experienced user, is totally unreasonable. What's more, '''''no-one ever does'''''. I bet you. Not one single four-day old account will have read each and every one of your talkpage archives - so why continue to have the notice there? <small style="white-space:nowrap;size:95%;color:#2F74FF">—<small style="background:#FFFFFF;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small>—<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small>—<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small></small> 20:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:::It would be too long on my talk page, otherwise I would use the same (or similar) box. Especially since I am working again on ] and ]. When dealing with copyright, you actually need something like that. ] ] 20:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed about two since 1 April, from editors logging after months long absences from wiki, amongst what must be over a 100 non NFCC related queries. I seriously doubt these types of editors are ever assisted by the boxes, but more to the point I think you revel in the continued defence it allows, per Redvers above unsurprisingly, of your right to be incivil because you once chose to image tag, and the confusion in others as to whether you still do it. They always were a violation of BITE and POINT, but now they have no practical use they should be gone. ] (]) 20:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

===Brief comment and question from a non-relevant user===
Hi. I usually find little interest in cases from ANI, however this one got me quite interested, mainly due to the "size" of this debate/boxing match. I also looked up previous cases as well, such as this user's arbitration case for bot abuse. At this point, my question is: if this user was me and did not have all that power (or ''priviledge'' as many here like to call it), how long would it take to ban him? In other terms, would I, for example, be able to get away with this? <small>]</small> <sup>]</sup>|<sub>]</sub><font color="white">'''&nbsp;<b>·</b></span> <span style="white-space:nowrap">'''</font> 01:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

== Exceptional newcomer? ] ==

*{{user16|Names of chief gods}}
] brought this user to my attention, after the user nominated Nneonneo for adminship. The user was unsure of what to do, and asked for assistance. I looked at the RfA, and discovered a user who had a red-linked username was the nominator. This made me think that the user was new, and lo and behold, at that point the account was less than 18 hours old. I looked at the contrib count, and saw a count of 52 - the first of which was a CfD relist , and the user has been using edit summaries right from the beginning - not traits I'd expect to see in a newcomer. I'd like to assume good faith on this, but I'm not entirely sure that this account is a person's first, but that's just instinct. I'd like to have a few more people look at this, and see what they think if that's OK. :) '''<font face="Verdana">] ]&nbsp;]</font>''' 20:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:We did have a user sock-nom their own RfA last month. Might qualify for an RFCU if Nneonneo accepts it. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::I declined it, in case you were wondering. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Dereks1x has been exceptionally active the last few hours... This could be him... Maybe Alison should add it to the list to check? --].].] 21:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::::It seems likely that this user is in fact not a sock of nneonneo, and if this is the case, I would advise the opposers in the RfA to refactor their comments as a courtesy after this is all sorted out. ]<span style="color:red"><small><sup>], not ]</sup></small></span> 22:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::I think a better solution would be to delete the RfA and pretend it never happened - there's no reason to keep it. Keeping may also prejudice distant-future RfAs for this user as they'd have to indicate it was a 2nd. This happened in another similar case a year ago when someone nominated a very new (good faith) user for adminship without their permission. ] 18:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::Seeing as I'm currently sorting all mal-formed RFAs (from the old days before they categorized closed RFAs) and deleting ones like this where it was a mistaken nom, joke nom, etc, I've gone ahead and deleted it. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I recognize it as a sockpuppet for ], a SPA with a religious Truth to share, I think. I've blocked as such. -]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] · ])</span> 11:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

Why can't this be made a redirect to Jerusalem? ] (]) 20:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:Because this is the English wikipedia. If you go to the Greek Misplaced Pages, I am sure they will be happy for your help. --].].] 21:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::The other option is to ''']''' and create the redirect yourself (although it would probably be deleted when spotted as being completely unneeded). ➨ ''']''' is now 40 per cent papier mâché 21:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:::The problem is the article title is blacklisted. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::::That's a horse of a different colour. Still, the subpoint stands: it would be deleted anyway as unneeded. ➨ ''']''' is now 40 per cent papier mâché 21:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

:Probably blacklisted due to the use of non-Latin characters in Grawp's arsenal. <font face="jokerman">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 21:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

:So you're saying that the Hebrew or Arabic name shouldn't redirect to Jerusalem? Nonsense and you know it, it's not like I am adding a Korean name of Jerusalem or something, the Greek names have historical value. ] (]) 21:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Not nonsense, and I don't know it. Deep breath, please. ➨ ''']''' looks at danger and laughs his head off 22:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

::I added it and used {{]}}. It's no big deal; redirects are cheap. ]<sup>'''{'''<span class="plainlinks">].</span>'''}'''</sup> 22:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

:::I doubt we need a grek language redirect to Jerusalem... is greek used as a local language in Jerusalem? If not I see no reason for it. We don't want redirects from every language, do we?. As in ] (from Dutch?), ] (??), ] (??) also from this user - ] (]) 12:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think every soft drug should have a Dutch redirect, it is legal here. Many foreigners come and ask what is this and what is that etc etc.
Chữ Trung Quốc is another name in Vietnamese for the Hanzi symbols.
There is nothing wrong with redirects. You bunch of tyrants. ] (]) 15:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

:That's us told.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ]]</font> 15:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

== Why administrator refusal to look at problems in pseudoscience and alternative medicine articles is hurting wikipedia ==

The DanaUllman homeopathy case is coming to an end. Let's look at the time spent on it, and the evidence available at various times.

On 1 April, this section was posted, stating that a problem was occurring, and asking admins to look at it. Admins were contacted:

]

It was ignored, so I spent three hours or so documenting the problems.

]

I asked several admins to look at this, on IRC and here. Noone was willing to act, they said it was too complex, they couldnt' follow it, and so refused to do anything.

So I documented it further, spelling everything out, and documenting it. This thread represents about thirty to fifty hours of work.

]

Everyone ''still'' refused to act.

So I had to go to Arbcom. This section takes the above, and adds an aditional 20-30 hours of work, minimum:

]

It looks like he will now be blocked.

So, we have about 100 hours spent just to deal with a clearly disruptive editor. What could have been done instead with that time?


Here's a diff showing the time from first save of a new article to when I stopped in the day. It shows I spent maybe 5 hours on this:


After another five hours or so, you have this:

]

It is up for GA.

So, if I had been able to work on articles, not deal with Dana's nonsense, I could, perhaps, have made 6 to 9 GA articles.

Also, Dana was a highly disruptive editor. He brought up the same arguments over and over again, as a look at ] will show (that also contains the section where he tried to tell ] that Scientizzle actually supported him, and that Scientizzle was stonewalling by denying this. The time spent by many editors dealing with DanaUllman's constant disruption while I and others tried to make the community aware of the problem, and the community refused to act is ''also'' time lost for working on articles.

In short, the admin community's refusal to look at anything related to Alt med wasted DAYS of my life that could have been used in more productive things, yet had to be done because Dana Ullman was so disruptive that it STILL worked out to less time than he was wasting by his tendentious, disruptive behaviour.

This is untenable. ] (]) 00:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

:Er - what exactly are you asking us to do? ].<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ]]</font> 01:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

::I think it's a general plea (1) to enforce ], ], ] and the rest of the alphabet soup with more vertebral integrity than we have been doing, and (2) to consider the effect on constructive editors when we decide to give borderline contributors a second, third, fourth, or fifth chance. Yes, this specific case has finally arrived at arbcom after hundreds (thousands?) of volunteer hours were wasted. But the matter could have been resolved with less cost to the community. Let's learn from this mistake. ] (]) 01:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Half the posts to the admin noticeboards are exhortations to be less timid in dealing with these situations, and the other half are exhortations to be more careful. I'm not going to learn anything from this unless you spell it out for me. ] 01:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:In this case, most of the evidence which went before arbcom was available for a couple months on the article probation page, but no admin would look at it, even after I did the second bit of evidence, with executive summaries so that they could understand it without having to read all of it. As Ullman is presumably about to be banned by the arbcom (six votes for, none against, last I checked) we can presume the evidence is compelling, but this case was a very clear-cut one. He necromancied discussions, substantially repeating things that had occupied pages of discussion (initiated by him) just a few days before. He misrepresented his sources, and was caught out doing this again and again. He talked about how civil he was being, or how he was assuming good faith, in the middle of attacks on other editors. He was a NIGHTMARE, and repeated requests to get admins to look at him were completely ignored, with no responses, or ones saying that they weren't willing to bother with complex evidence.
:This was an editor who waltzed through an article probation causing disruption left and right, who tried to force his POV into unrelated articles, like ] and ]. And the system couldn't even deal with him until after it went to arbitration. I don't think there's any need for the admin community to block on scant evidence. But the evidence was THERE, and the admins ACTIVELY REFUSED TO LOOK AT IT, because it was to do with Homeopathy, and all the admins decided to shirk their responsibility because they didn't want to get involved in a contentious area - you know, the type of area that most needs admins to step in and uphold Wikilaw and order. ] (]) 02:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

::Admins should (and do) deal with disruption. But it sounds like you expect them to take sides on content disputes also, which they do not do. It looks like Arbcom is trying something new to deal with this sort of issue- see ]. ] ] 02:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:::However, Friday's comment is particularly clueless as to the actual events being discussed. The issues regarding Ullman included willful (there's no way the example could be accidental) misrepresentation of another wikipedian's words (which was also typical of his behaviour with sources), and Friday's comment is probably a good explanation of why the admin community failed in this case. The evidence that this was not a content dispute was there, but, Friday simply dismisses the complaints because the person happens to be a holder of a fringe view, falsely claiming that it's a content dispute, is a good way to cause frustration, to permit massive disruption to happen unchecked, and is a shirking of responsibility. As well, it also means that the holders of such views throw out all the core policies: ], ], and ], and ], as not the duty of admins to look at.

:::Ullman, by virtue of being a fringe proponent, seems to have been allowed to make , , to for inclusion of material against consensus, and generally be a ].

:::In the example I gave at the start, Ullman (It must be said that incident was so over the top that he got topic banned for it, but very similar behaviour had been ongoing throughout Ullman's editing career.
:::I feel guilty about picking on Friday, and do apologise for using you as an example, but you basically gave a good, and sadly all too believable answer to my question as to why admins refused to look at the evidence. In the end, the purpose of this project is to build an encyclopedia. Saying that admins can never look at anything remotely related to a content dispute issue means that ], ], ], and ] are being judged as completely unimportant, and that the core purpose of Misplaced Pages is not an admin's concern. Which leads one to ask, "What the hell is, then?" ] (]) 03:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

::::You know, I kind of wish you ''had'' spent the time making 6 to 9 more GA articles. At least then I would have been able to read this noticeboard and not feel attacked for being part of "everything wrong with the current batch of admins". Personally, I've spent the past few days working on ] stuff, like the infobox generator and other queries, and I spent a fair amount of time trying to convert data from the ] database so I could check the correct categorization on protected areas. Oh, yeah, and I've also been involved in a Mediation Cabal case between an editor who's an expert in his field -- so much so that he doesn't have to cite sources -- and a random article tagger who barely had time to explain why he wanted citations in the article. But thanks a hell of a lot for lumping me in with every admin you want to characterize as doing a bad job because you're frustrated. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::Your point is valid, but it's worth remembering that you are lumped in with the rest of the admins, because it's one big project. Anyone could say, quite fairly and accurately, that you hold a position of responsibility and prestige at the world's leading encyclopedia of pseudoscience and quackery. It is probably not to anyone's benefit to respond angrily to an editor for getting frustrated at our failures to deal with these problems, of which we have been aware for a long time. ] ] 04:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::I also apologise that you saw my initial rant - I ''was'' frustrated, but had already removed those words by the time you posted. It is true that the admins as a whole failed in this case to deal with a majorly disruptive editor in a timely manner, and that there were systemic problems that caused this, including, possibly, a view that anything that had any whiff of a content dispute about it could be dismissed without looking at the merits of the case. ] (]) 04:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm strongly opposed to sophistry and pseudoscience, as well as all the disruption that comes from cranks at various "Alternative medicine" articles. However, I really don't want to get trolled all day with rhetoric, nonsense and five page rants, so I tend to avoid it. ''']''' 04:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:There's a good discussion going on about the fringe pov pushing problem viz dispute resolution/admin intervention, with some proposed solutions, at Raul's page http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Raul654/Civil_POV_pushing -] (]) 04:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This was never as clearcut as you are making it out to be, Shoemaker's. My interactions with Ullman have been limited, and negative, but I certainly can't say that the problems with Ullman boil down to straightforward pillar violations. For example, the WP:V issues with Ullman aren't about Ullman refusing to cite sources; they are about Ullman providing sources that others feel are disreputable. Furthermore, opinions on the reputability of Ullman's sources are aligned with opinions on the efficacy of homeopathy: if you are certaint homeopathy is bunk, you'll be suspicious of any journal that publishes a study in support of it. In situations like this it is extremely difficult for an admin to ''neutrally'' enforce WP:V. In fact, I suspect that it is not even ''possible'' to neutrally enforce WP:V in a situation like this, because nothing in WP:V leads us inevitably to the conclusion that one party to the dispute is in the right. Rather, you have to decide who has the stronger content argument ''before'' you can interpret the dispute in WP:V terms. ] 04:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

:That was only true until the point that it was discovered that Ullman was actually lying about the ''content'' of the studies. Let's go with a simple example. It's not the BEST example of his misrepresentation, but it's able to be shown in two reasonably short quotes.

Here's an editorial from the ''Lancet'', quoted in full. I've highlighted a few bits, you'll see why in a moment

{{cquote|If Petr Scrabanek were alive, we could expect to be chided for publishing this week's paper by Reilly et al. The basis for scientific thinking, he declared, is rational skepticism: "Irrational skepticism is characterised by an inability to accept the category of the absurd" And what could be more absurd than the notion that a substance is therapeutically active in dilutions so great that the patient is unlikely to receive a single molecule of it? Reilly and his homeopathic co-workers gave such substances to patients with allergic asthma and detected activity - even though hardly the activity that would impress a respitory allopathist. They invite us to choose between two interpretations of this activity: either there is something amiss with the clinical trial as conventionally conducted (theirs was done with exceptional rigour); or the effects of the homoeopathic immunotherapy differ from those of placebo. Yes, the dilution principle of homoeopathy is absurd; so the reason for any therapeudic effect presumably lies elsewhere. But, no, carefully done work of this sort should not be denied the attention of Lancet readers. How will they respond to Reilly's challenge? And will reilly now treat us to a comparison of high dilutions and low?}}

And here's Ullman's description of it.
{{cquote|1=}}

He claims it is a "pro-homeopathy" editorial; the editorial says "Yes, the dilution principle of homoeopathy is absurd; so the reason for any therapeudic effect presumably lies elsewhere." Homework: Continue to compare Ullman's claims about the editorial with what the editorial says. ] says that "Lies; deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page so as to mislead one or more editors." is a category of uncivil behaviour. Is Ullman's information about the content of the Lancet editorial false? Remember he says it is a "pro-homeopathy" editorial. Is Ullman attempting to mislead editors as to what the Lancet editors think about homeopathy? ] (]) 04:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

:Is that as close to "clearcut" as you can get? The ''Lancet'' publishes a study that concludes that "homoeopathy differs from placebo in an inexplicable but reproducible way.", then defends their decision to do so in an editorial that states "Yes, the dilution principle of homoeopathy is absurd... but, no, carefully done work of this sort should not be denied the attention of Lancet readers." Ullman wants to include it, and is guilty of cherry-picking the best quotes out of it, and ignoring the "absurd" one. On the other hand, Ullman's opponents are guilty of ignoring a study that the ''Lancet'' pointedly did ''not'' ignore. And you think a content dispute this complex can and should be resolved by an uninvolved administrator enforcing WP:V? Not a chance. ] 05:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

::The problem is that Dana cherrypicks ''everything'' he quotes, up to ridiculous extremes. He finally got topic banned when he misquoted an editor and then later claimed that the editor was wrong about his own opinions. --] (]) 05:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Yes, I realise that; I've experienced it myself. My point is not that Dana is right; my point is that it is unreasonable to expect admins to see this as a clearcut case where the required administrative intervention is apparent. On the contrary, this is an exceedingly complicated content dispute, and it is not at all clear to me where and when it would have been appropriate for an administrator to intervene. ] 05:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if others are clearer. But it is nonetheless true that given quite a number of examples of that type, combined with Ullman's CONSTANT attacks on other editors for not quoting a sentence he likes, no matter how irrelevant in the context, it becomes very clear that Ullman thinks rules are for other people. Combined with the frequent low-level personal attacks, canvassing, and that his attacks on other editors extended to pages with completely different groups, e.g. ], where, in response to people saying he must back his claims that Ludwig von Beethoven attributed the improvement of his health to homeopathy, or, indeed, ever used homeopathy at all, he instead attacks other editors:
{{cquote|First, I am sorry that several of the people making comments here have little or no knowledge of the life of Beethoven, and instead, they simply seek to UNDO what scholarly writing that I do in various articles. RDOLivaw seems to be one such person. S/he is also 147.171.255.159 and 147.171.255.140, and s/he has a strong POV, rarely provides NPOV references, and primarily seeks to UNDO the NPOV references I provide. My writing at this site is FULL of direct references to NPOV source material, and they link to the specific pages in Beethoven's "Conversations Books" (RDOLivaw seems to be not familiar with these documents). Unless you read the source material that I have cited and found that it is incorrect, please acknowledge that you are working in ignorance. Please note that I do not simply "claim" that Beethoven took homeopathic medicines, I show it to be true. Please also note that I purposefully choose not to reference my new book on famous people who used homeopathy due to COI. Dana Ullman Talk 15:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
----
Hi, yes I have previously been those two IPs - as I told Dana this morning on his talk page. I registered an account today after realising that my IP address was not static. My edits speak for themselves, however that is highly irrelevant here. I agree with the content of the two posts below, and stand by my comment above. --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)}}

As can be seen later down that section, he claims people are following him around - then is provided with hard evidence that all are regulars on the Beethoven page.

Likewise. ] where he refuses to work with the reglar editors of ] either, and ] where his misrepresentation of sources is also discussed, again, with a different set of editors. ] (]) 11:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

*Basically, Shoemaker is right. Ullman should have been stopped long before he needed arbitration. Too many people were guilty of not ] - of not realising that since homeopathy ''is'' bunk, homeopathy advocacy is fringe POV-pushing and should be dealt with accordingly. My original indefinite block of Ullman, back in November, should have stood, and I should not have consented to an unblock. Collectively, the admin corps fucked up pretty badly here. We need to spend less time wittering on IRC and a bit more time getting our hands dirty with actually fixing the various issues the encyclopaedia has. Because that's our job: we're supposed to ''administer'' - or, in other language, run the show. We can do it: we have the tools to do so and the backing of most of the community, plus ArbCom - so why don't we? The admin corps cannot afford to evade its responsibilities for too much longer. Otherwise we will become discredited. ] (]) (]) 12:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker decided to spend this amount of time on this issue, no one forced him. I'd love to know what he found about the behavior of the science side editors. Too many people delve into the pseduo science/science debate looking at only one side. There's plenty of blame to go around on both sides. One thing I will agree with, too many people, both admins and non admins, are sick of this issue because neither side will work with the other. Just like when someone gets blocked, there's usually another admin willing to unblock, so its gotten to the point that a lot of just don't bother anymore.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 12:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:What sides? Science vs. psuedoscience? If so, then "plenty of blame" is pretty unqualified. Seems like another vague "everybody does it" statement which fails to account for the magnitude of difference and then just equivocates everyone. ''']''' 14:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

::Moresci, though homeopathy is indeed bunk in my opinion and yours (I usually say a little more strongly, "dangerous nonsense"), it is very unfortunately somewhat more than Fringe and we need to give it the appropriate attention--this will at least let people not already with a fixed prejudice in favor of the theory see it clearly as nonsense.''']''' (]) 15:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:::I strongly agree that we do need to cover these things. For example, in the case of homeopathy we'd give the background that in Hahnemann's time conventional medicine was likely to do more harm than good (the germ theory of disease was still in the future) so that by comparison an ineffective but harmless treatment was better. Lots of fringe/pseudo stuff is interesting and notable. The problem comes when people press the idea that nonsense is sense. How does one "work with" editors who absolutely insist that they can talk to ghosts using tape recorders and that the article must reflect this "fact"? How long do they get to hold article hostage with NPOV tags? How long do they get to tie talk page discussions in knots? ] (]) 16:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm actually in the process of writing up the 6 painful months which culminated in ] as a case study in how we fail to deal effectively with these sorts of problems. Here's are some thoughts:
::::* ''Admins'' should get involved, but leaning on one or two admins to police a troubled area is a recipe for burnout and disaster. We need more.
::::* ''The community'' can !vote at RfA for admins who have actually done good work in these areas, rather than holding involvement in any sort of controversy against a candidate. Guess who chose the current admin corps? It wasn't teh cabalz, it was ''you'' - either by !voting or by not !voting at RfA. If you support candidates with 3000 automated vandalism reverts and oppose those who engage in more controversial areas, then don't be surprised when admins seem unwilling or incompetent to step up to these sorts of issues.
::::* Yes, it would be great if we could tailor a custom-made remedy to each disruptive editor, using topic bans, mentorship, probations, and so forth. But it's absolutely not feasible on a large scale. Admin time is limited, and good mentors even more so. Yes, an indefinite block is a blunt instrument, but we need to balance the ideal with the realistic here.
::::* Be part of the solution. People willing to complain about admin abuse and unjust indefinite blocks are plentiful. People willing to see these blockees as more than an abstract cause and follow up by mentoring the blockee after the evil clique's abusive block is lifted are a much rarer breed.
::::* ''The "pro-science" editors'' need to do a better job. It's easy to belittle fringe POV-pushers, and they are undoubtedly hurting the encyclopedia. But here's reality: it's not enough to be right about those sorts of things. This is not just an encyclopedia but a collaborative project, and if you're constantly and wantonly uncivil then you're only making it easier for people to view the fringe POV-pusher as a sympathetic underdog and you as a rude bully.
::::Dana Ullman was a bit of a special case. He is an easily identifiable, relatively prominent person, and I think it's appropriate to proceed cautiously in such cases. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 17:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::These are very sensible, thoughtful comments. We need more cops, and we need more people mentoring, or at least following up on, difficult editors in these areas. I can think of several editors who push marginal historical or political POVs whom absolutely nobody keeps tabs on. About RfA, I must say I was shocked by one or two recent RfAs that failed in spite of - in fact '''because''' of a willingness to engage in these areas. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 18:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
<undent>My reading of this thread, is that Shoemaker is basically pointing out a situation where we are inefficient, that we have some problems, and might want to consider different approaches. Several others have responded to him, most agreeing with him that we are indeed inefficient and that we have problems, but essentially maintaining that no other approaches should be considered, or making other unusual responses. I think this all boils down to two questions:

*Folks, do you agree we have a problem?
*If you agree we have a problem, what should we do?--] (]) 18:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:I wrote a blog post overnight that relates to this thread--specifically regarding the systemic problems and how to solve them so our volunteer resources get used more efficiently. The link is available near the top of my user talk page. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 18:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

One can also find the Durova blog post on this subject at .--] (]) 20:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

===Admins, pseudoscience etc - Arbitrary section break (first)===
:This comment (from MastCell above) "The "pro-science" editors need to do a better job. It's easy to belittle fringe POV-pushers, and they are undoubtedly hurting the encyclopedia. But here's reality: it's not enough to be right about those sorts of things. This is not just an encyclopedia but a collaborative project, and if you're constantly and wantonly uncivil then you're only making it easier for people to view the fringe POV-pusher as a sympathetic underdog and you as a rude bully." is I think very perceptive. I would add that for me at least, it can become impossible to contribute when my contributions would be "supporting" editors who are "constantly and wantonly uncivil". That is to say, some pro-science editors can actually be driven away from articles by the poor behaviour of others. ] (]) 09:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
::Can you actually demonstrate that the pro-science side is grossly incivil, as is being claimed here? Because that's a major assertion to make without proof. ] (]) 10:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm not saying that ''all'' pro-science editors are grossly uncivil - far from it. There are, however, a few prominent editors (including at least one admin) in this area who are regularly castigated for their incivility, yet never change and who, in my opinion, contribute to a poisonous atmosphere. ] (]) 10:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
::::To validate the two most prominent examples, read ] (and the evidence that underlies and requires that restriction) and the blindingly obvious consensus that another regular anti-pseudoscience editor has a civility problem at ]. ] 12:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:::I'd say there's more than enough to suggest the truth of the statement further up this very page. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 13:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence of incivility on all sides. And civility is something we should all be striving for, no matter what our personal views on any subject are. I believe that this is clear, but not because it "drives away editors" (can anyone show me evidence of ''that''?) and not because it creates a more productive working environment (can anyone show me evidence of ''that''?). I think that being the 7th most popular website on planet earth and the number one destination for information by many millions of people, our high visibility dictates that we must err on the side of extra civility. Otherwise, a public relations disaster is just a matter of time (and there are plenty of past examples of ''that'' of similarly high visibility figures and media slipping up, of course).

However, it is quite interesting how Shoemaker's very reasonable opening to this dialogue, which was picked up and expanded on a bit by Durova, is being derailed by this standard thoughtless finger-pointing exercise. Look, this thread is ''not'' about who is more uncivil than who. This thread is about disruption caused by those who decline to follow the ], civil or not, and the damage to our productivity as a result. Why must ''everything'' devolve into basically irrelevant arguments about civility? It is irrelevant, and the brainstorming about methods for coping with disruption uncoupled with civility issues is ongoing at . If you have some ideas, please drop by and suggest them.--] (]) 14:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

:Civility is not irrelevant. Incivility makes people less willing to help an incivil editor, and incivility by prominent members of the anti-pseudoscience camp makes admins less willing to do anything in the area. NPOV issues are often subtle, and almost never as clear cut as advocates for a point of view claim. Something can be bunk, yet the article go overboard in describing that it is bunk and need to be rebalanced. To really evaluate whether an article fairly represents NPOV requires doing as much research as writing the article well in the first place does - the reviewer really needs to read all the proposed sources for the article and do some independent research before any opinion would be meaningful. Even if I suspect that the person complaining about a point of view issue is right, why would I want to dig in and put that much effort into a topic I don't really care about (otherwise I'd already be an editor of it) with a fair chance that I'll come up on the other side disagreeing with somebody who is known to attack those they disagree with? If the regular editors who are opposed to pseudoscience would get control over their supporters, they might get more help from uninvolved editors. When they instead enable and encourage attack dog behavior by their supporters, they make themselves pariahs. ] 14:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but I believe with this mindset you will end up advocating decisions that are detrimental to the project. If you want to make assorted assertions like this, you need data. Not personal conviction. Data.--] (]) 15:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

::I agree with GRBerry and DuncanHill here. I would be far readier to wade into some of these areas if there was not the risk of appearing to support those who are repeatedly uncivil. Filll, if you look just a couple of posts up, GRB has provided two data points which seem to support his arguments. --] (]) 15:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
::There's no need to indulge this. If you have a problem with the bases of our civility policy, go and argue on that page. The policy was Jimbo's central contribution, and there are endless arbcom decisions attesting to the points that (a) a lack of civility drives away editors and (b) a lack of civility creates an unproductive environment. In fact, the latter is pretty much definitional. Raul's subpage discussion is a nice place to vent, but we already have ] and that's all we need. ] is not policy. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 15:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

:::I also agree with John and some of the others. Those in the reality-based group have to do a better job on civility. The community expects reality-based editors to remain unfailingly civil in the face of ceaseless provocation, while expectations for the pseudo/fringe camp are far more relaxed. I'm not sure why that's the case. Perhaps the reality-based camp is held to higher standards because it's assumed they should know how to behave, while one can't expect much from the others. Perhaps there's latent sympathy for the fringers as the scrappy underdogs fighting the establishment. In any event there's a double standard that the reality-based types have to accept and deal with. Yes, double standards suck, but it's ridiculous to think we can change other people's mindset. Just accept it and behave accordingly. Letting the fringers use civility as a weapon against us is dumb. ] (]) 15:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
::::I stopped participating in this area generally because of the constant name calling and lableing of other editors by (primarily a few) anti-non mainstream editors/admins. I love the pseudoscience ideas, the history of them, the current beliefs, but it's all crap. Stop calling the editors ], and start using the spade to clean it up. --] (]) 17:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

<undent>This "'''FRINGE problems are all about CIVIL'''" theory is a nice fairy tale. However, I have heard it over and over and it still makes no sense. FRINGE proponents have been blocked for being uncivil. Pro-reality editors have been blocked for being uncivil. Both have been warned. Both are cautioned to clean up their acts. Both are doing better than they were a year or two ago in that department, which is good.

But then, even when that is all said and done, we still have problems that are not addressed even when everyone is being CIVIL. And maybe these problems
''should'' be addressed. It would be great if one ''could'' use ] to deal with these problems, but the way the current zeitgeist of Misplaced Pages is and its current culture, one cannot effectively use ]. It does not work, the way things are set up. Some claim they have special persuasive skills for dealing with these situations, and I have invited them to come in to show me, and they have never taken me up on my offer. Something needs to be done, and I am not sure what the best approach is, but I am willing to consider any idea.

And to have people who have minimal experience in this area claiming no problem exists, or the problem is all on the pro-science side, or that the problem is only that we are not civil ''enough'', shows how hard it will be to make progress here. If people do not understand the problem and its nature, it will never be fixed. --] (]) 21:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:I see a lot of names here that have worked extensively in keeping fringe theories off Misplaced Pages, so I think there's enough experience speaking. Also, there's no reason provided as to why ], our basis for judging content disruption is not working - not to mention no evidence. I'm afraid you're John Terry-ing your penalties. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 21:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
::Wow - talk about a timely analogy... :) ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid I don't see such deep experience on these sorts of articles in this thread, aside from Shoemaker and possibly Raymond arritt and Durova. As for some reasons why ] is not that useful, at least currently:

*DE is a behaviorial guideline, first created by ]
*A guideline or policy is only useful if it is enforced
*It is not that clear how to enforce DE
*Only uninvolved admins are allowed to enforce this kind of thing, and so it does not get enforced
*it is often difficult to convince an uninvolved to spend enough time to get up to speed that they can enforce it
*Administrators have to know they will not be punished for enforcing this, or dragged into extra drama
*There is a fairly clear line for CIVIL and NPA and 3RR, but not for DE.
*Any enforcement of DE is met with howls of protest from many quarters on WP that we have to be more lenient to FRINGE editors. --] (]) 22:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:::My dear chap, John works in categorisatio and race: GRBerry, among other things, worries about politics and identity in the Caucuses. If you think those areas aren't full of exactly the same sort of problems, you should leave your little enclave more. (Long enough to at least not say "possibly" Raymond!)
:::As for your concerns about DE, its a behavioral guideline, yes, like all our others. If you want it enforced more strictly, bring discussions here, with diffs that aren't misrepresented, and uninvolved admins, if persuaded, will take of it for you. OK? (Oh, and a diff of someone saying we need to be more lenient to FRINGE editors would be so much fun to see. Like a unicorn.) --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 08:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

::::I understand that you are skeptical. Fair enough. I understand your request for evidence and data. Also very fair. We need to approach this in a systematic careful quantitative way. And that is how we should proceed. I agree with you completely. But I will just note as an aside that there is a ''reason'' that ] exists. Should we try to measure the problem, as you suggest? Absolutely.--] (] | ]) 15:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


If I might refocus the discussion - Incivility happens on both sides.low-level incivility (see arbcom evidence), Peter morrell, god bless him, has a horrible temper. I don't think, however, that anyone reasonable can argue that incivility is the cause of, say, Ullman's lying about the content of sources, or of POV-pushing.

Incivility is, by and large, a symptom, not a cause. With no administrators to sort out disputes, even when one side is clearly in the wrong, the disputes are going to fester, boil over - and... incivility! Worse, because dealing with a problem editor is made so difficult, dealing with them is a source of major drama. In short, the refusals of admins to step in on the other problems causes incivility. ] (]) 22:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

:Shoemaker is quite correct. CIVILity problems are symptomatic of underlying root issues that are not being addressed. And many featured content editors on Misplaced Pages are currently at their wit's end over this. By us changing the conversation away from the core problems to the symptoms, we are playing into the hands of disruptive editors, who are able to use CIVIL policies to their advantage.--] (]) 22:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
::This is a bit chicken-and-egg. ''Incivility alienates people who would normally be on your side.'' The more civil you can be in the face of disruptive editing, the more effectively you will be able to advance the goal of an accurate, respectable, fringecruft-💕. I enjoy hypothetical discussion as much as the next Wikipedian, but that's ''reality'' on a collaborative project staffed by fallible human volunteers. On a practical level, if you point me toward any area where you believe a disruptive editor is abusing ] to promote fringery, then I will do my best to address it. The regulars at the ] are also very helpful in this regard. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 00:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

:: "This "'''FRINGE problems are all about CIVIL'''" theory is a nice fairy tale" - well, I'm not sure anyone is actually claiming that fringe problems are all about civil. Maybe Fill would be good enough to provide a diff where someone actually does say that. ] (]) 00:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Again, as I stated above, you want evidence of this problem with the culture? Well of course you deserve it. And therefore we will have to compile it, right?--] (] | ]) 15:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

===Admins, pseudoscience etc - attempt to refocus (second break) ===
I came on here to discuss a systemic failure of administrators to deal with a very problematic editor, and this thread got hijacked - and evidently is going to continue to be hijacked - into complaints about civility. I'm afraid that I don't see what ] has to do with admins ignoring repeated, but polite requests that they look into a situation, nor with the problems caused by admin refusal to deal with editors who could be described by, say, ], or ]. I understand civility. But I don't see how it has anything to do with the case at hand, which is why thousands of user hours are being wasted by editors who are offering little or nothing to the project, and which administrators refused to even look at the evidence of their disruption. This has nothing to do with any ] issues; I want to know what went wrong that caused so much time to be wasted, and work out systemic fixes that will assure it doesn't happen again. Unless you're trying to tell me that you refuse to go into incivil environments to deal with problems, in which case I would like to ask you to grow a spine, given that you are ''administrators''. You're meant to deal with ''problems''. (Yes, yes, there's also all the bureaucratic stuff, and admins who just, say, close AfDs or handle page move requests are also useful, but they also aren't the type of admins I intend this to be directed to). ] (]) 02:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
:You know, I watch this noticeboard, and am yet to see a well-presented report demonstrating user disruption across several articles that is 'ignored' unless its from a newbie or in an obscure historical topic. So some examples would be nice. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 08:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

::Please look at the situation described at the top of this thread, that is, the ] situation. You might also want to look into the history of the ] article and talk to some of those who participated and their frustrations. They can give you a blow by blow account, in great detail. There are lots of such examples, frankly, of admins not wanting to help, or admins actually making the situation worse. And given our current culture, I cannot say I blame them for not wanting to help or misunderstanding the situation and inadvertantly making the situation worse.--] (] | ]) 15:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot of administrators don't want to become directly involved in this problem areas. You know what? '''I don't blame them'''. I topic banned DanaUllman under preexisting structures and gained support to implement a topic ban on Mccready. You should see some mails that hit my inbox ''from both sides'', yet I've barely touched the surface of the area and those were both fairly clear cut cases. It's not a matter simply needing a "spine". It's world of potential harassment and drama to delve into an area containing highly-dedicated (to be kind) editors on both sides.

While I agree that both the community and the sysops need to step forward and seriously say "enough is enough", I don't think approaching the matter in this fashion is going to yield any productive results. For example, I believe that relying so heavily on the Talk:Homeopathy subpage alone was a fundamental error, in relation to DanaUllman. It's off the beaten track, so to speak, and that is almost always a Bad Thing for such intractable disputes. If nothing else, a few messages on AN and ANI asking for a few outside admin eyes on the reports could have helped resolve the issues. If worse comes to worse, you can also find admins ] and ] that can be approached by way of user talk or email to deal with problematic editors in controversial areas. I believe that while part of the problem is that the community and admins are not stepping up to the plate, a fair portion of the problem is also that complainants are not fully utilizing the avenues and approaches available to them.
On a related note regarding complainants, most reports (that I've seen) about problem areas in wiki are high in arm-flailing distress and low in useful description and evidence. In addition, many discussions about particular editors in problem areas are often sidetracked by accusations about opponents and other editors. Except for a rare number of occasions I can easily count on one hand, exhortations to present evidence, avoid presenting cases with insulting and unnecessary commentary, etc etc are never followed. One of the best things that can be done when an editor is seriously a problem is to present evidence with minimal commentary or characterization. The more complete the evidence and more neutral/non-confrontational the presentation of that evidence, the more likely it becomes that someone will take action on the matter. All in all, those are just my own thoughts and you're welcome to some grains of salt with them. ] (]) 09:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

== Administrator ] ==

Few weeks ago I nominated my own image of a green turtle to be because a better one was taken. Administrator OhanaUnited voted like this: "''Keep. Misplaced Pages is not a place to advocate your personal views. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)''".I was more then surprised because I could not understand what personal views I was advocating. So I asked him. Here's his . Today I the second image at Commons FP without delisting the first one.The image got opposed because the other image is already featured, so I left a at Administrator OhanaUnited talk page.I hoped that he will admitt that I was right,when I tried to delist an old image in the first place and apologize for blaiming me in POV.His was more than strange, but what has followed was even stranger.Administrator OhanaUnited has deleted my message from his talk page with the edit summary: .He also his talk page from my editing, which IMO is using his administration power for a personal purposes.I understand that Administrator OhanaUnited has the right to blank his talk page.I do not believe Administrator OhanaUnited has the right to call my message a garbage.IMO administrators should be a sample of politeness and fairness.IMO Administrator OhanaUnited has none of these qualities and cannot be an administrator. Thanks.--] (]) 04:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:though there is no reason not to have both images, and Ohana is right about that, the whole sequence of responses seems rather unhelpful to a contributor.''']''' (]) 05:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
: Notified him. Ok, I'll admit that the protection seems a bit strange (full protection on a talk page?) but I want to see if he has an explanation for his comments. -- ] (]) 05:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
** Ok, per , OhanaUnited says "per his gut feeling", he thought Mbz1 was just trying to start an argument so he's going to ignore. Well, I guess that's an explanation, but I still don't like an admin full protecting their own talk page after a single comment from a user they don't want to talk to (I don't particularly like the "I will not respond to anonymous editors' comments. Go create an account!" on his talk page but that's for another time). I really expect better conduct out of fellow admins but I'm not sure it's sanctionable. -- ] (]) 05:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

:: It's my time to present my views. I chose to vote "Keep" that image as Featured picture because there's no guideline against having multiple images of the same subject. The image he attempted to replace with the already-featured is his own creation. Although there's no rule against being the nominator of your own image, but my gut feeling tells me he's trying to discredit someone else's picture so that his can showcase his image here. Also, at that time, his reason for demotion is "'''because I like this image better'''". Doesn't that statement looks like POV-pushing and falls under ]? It's totally his opinion and does not relate his decision to any technical aspect such as contrast, noise, composition, or focus. (Actually, this is a grey area. Neither the policies on commons nor wikipedia explicitly mention about allowing/disallowing multiple pictures of same object. However, the actual practice allow such occurance. For example: ] and ] describe the same subject, '']'', yet both are featured pictures. This proof, along with more, tells me that in Misplaced Pages, it's ok to have more than 1 featured picture on same subject. He even admitted this fact and found supporting evidence himself. )

:: Then a month later, Mbz1 is upset at Commons regarding Featured pictures. He nominated the green turtle image that he took on Commons. Someone opposed his nomination because the same image Mbz1 attempted to replace with on FP on Misplaced Pages is already featured. So Mbz1 came back to my talk page and dig up the argument that I thought it was over. Look at what he said. He blamed me because he took my "advice" and nominated his image on Commons, which faced an opposition. Clearly, he's trying to find a culprit for being upset.

:: The reason why I removed the comment is because:
::# I am not the person who opposed Mbz1's nomination on Commons. It's another user. I am totally uninvolved in the Commons' nomination. I have no rights, nor the power, to change that user's mind.
::# It's on commons, not here, and they may have different criteria than wikipedia. He's trying to bring his displeasure back to wikipedia and unleash it on me.
::# Digging up a month-old argument puzzles me. Honestly, it's a month ago, give it a break!
::# I was exercising ], yet Mbz1 ignores this official policy as if it's not there.
::# I don't want to be blamed for being the person who suggested something and someone else took up the suggestion but failed while trying to do so.
:: yet Mbz1 keeps coming back, adding the stuff I removed. In addition, his edit summary of this entry , which says "removeone it one more last time to show your incivility once again" tells me he's being ] and willing to get into edit war just to illustrate his point. This is my reason to protect my talk page to stop this situation from escalating.

::In my opinion, he is disappointed because he got 2 differently opposite response under the same situation in the featured picture nominations in Commons and Misplaced Pages and decided to rant it out. We are all humans, and sometimes we got angry because of setbacks or didn't get what we anticipate would come out fine. Hence, I ask the closing admin not to issue any warnings or blocks on Mbz1. (It's past 2am here in Toronto and I'm going to bed. Please don't anticipate a response or clarification from me again for at least next 6 hours.) ]] 06:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:::*I am afraid OhanaUnited does not know what he is talking about. I've never blamed him that I nominated the image in Commons. As I said earlier I simply hoped that he will admitt that I was right,when I tried to delist an old image in the first place and apologize for blaiming me in POV. I left him a very polite first message and very polite second message, and after he told me he was going to ignore me from now on, I left him a very polite third message. Then he deleted my mesages with the edit summary: '''"cleaning out some garbage"'''. I would have never restored them, if the edit summary were polite or there were not edit summary at all, but I hope you would agree that removing messages is a bad practice in the first place and removing messages with the summary '''"cleaning out some garbage"''' is first of all rude and second of all ] while protecting his own talk page (it still is protected) is using Administrators' power for a personal and absolutely unjust purpose, and is also ]. IMO what could be forgiven to a Misplaced Pages user cannot be forgiven to a Misplaced Pages Administrator. The bottom line is that OhanaUnited is impolite, incivil, ignorant and very rude. IMO a person with such qualities could be still a good contributer to Misplaced Pages, but cannot be a good administrator.I ask the closing admin to issue at least a strong warnings at the Administrator OhanaUnited. I said everything I wanted to say and I am not going to post anything more here, but may I please mention that, if I am issued a warning or I am blocked, or the Administrator OhanaUnited is not issued at least a warning, I would consider this to be a very, very big unfairness. Thanks.--] (]) 12:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::n.b. I've interacted briefly with the participants here. That said, I do not think anyone needs to be blocked and jumping to that conclusion would be highly drama-inducing. After looking at the situation, I do not think anyone is at fault here. To set the facts straight, there is no actionable issue (in my opinion) regarding the nomination of the images etc. People differ on opinions and that is okay. However, there is a slight issue with the communication between the two. Mbz1 should realize that if asked to cease posting on a user's talk page, it might just be best to not post. Also, that editors ''can'' simply remove messages. Once removed, it can be assumed that they were read. OhanaUnited should realize that fully protecting his or her talk page and calling good-faith efforts to talk "trolling" is not helpful. A simple message stating that you disagree, etc. and explaning that you routinely remove messages would have been more helpful than simple reverting and then protecting. Also, the protection issue happened today, not a month ago.

:::::At this point, I would simply ask Mbz1 to apologize for repeatedly posting the message and escalating this, and not to bring this issue up with OhanaUnited again, and OhanaUnited to unprotect his page and apologize for calling Mbz1's messages "garbage" and "trolling". I think we can all just move along and avoid further escalation if both sides can apologize. I realize this might be a lot to ask. Any takers? Mahalo to the both of you. --] 14:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

:Someone unprotect his talk page already. Seriously, WTF? &#10154;]! 18:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:: I'd rather not wheel-war on that so I will just highly suggest Ohana unprotect it himself and reduce the drama. Mbz1 now knows he isn't interesting in continuing the conversation and so, don't further annoy him in a useless effort. Thus there is no need for the protection in my view (and I really find it highly inappropriate). -- ] (]) 18:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:::He can't hear you as he's got his index fingers in his ears while saying "lalalalalala"... at least that's the equivalent of an administrator fully protecting his own talk page. Not a mature or proper use of the sysop tools, in my opinion. Someone might want to also let him know this notice on his talk page "I will not respond to anonymous editors' comments. Go create an account!" is not very ]. --'''<span style="font-family: Helvetica">]]</span>''' 20:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:::: Now that both me and Mbz1 are cooled off, I will now unprotect the talk page but I sincerely hope Mbz1 stops digging up old arguments when I thought it was resolved. I formally apologizes to anyone who is affected by this incident. Here's my question: Does Misplaced Pages and Commons allow more than 1 featured picture per subject? If anyone knows, please let everyone know so this won't happen again. ]] 23:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::(''copied from my talk page'') Frankly, I haven't the faintest idea. The criteria don't seem to say anything about it: the closest ] comes is to say that featured pictures should be "among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer". ] says that "normally there should never be two featured pictures that are just different versions of the same image, so if a better version exists the original version should be delisted", but I don't think the two turtle images are quite similar enough for that to ''necessarily'' apply.

:::::In this particular case (and this is really more addressed to ] directly), I'd suggest bringing the issue up at ]; I'm sure the folks there will be more familiar with the process. If you ask ''me'', though, one possibility might be to try a special "nomination to replace", with voters asked to express the preference to either '''keep''' the currently feature image, '''replace''' it with the ostensibly better one or, possibly, to '''feature both'''. Or just let the current nomination run its course; things may sort themselves out on their own now that the issue has been brought to wider attention. —] <small>(])</small> 00:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::: (now very confused) Let's look at ]. There are 2 FP of '']'', a whopping of 6 FP on '']''. And that's only the bird category, more of this in other categories such as mammals. ]] 00:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

::::::We do not explictly forbid more than one featured picture per subject. Essentially, it's just another "]" type of argument. ] 08:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
===Section Break (Administrator User:OhanaUnited)===

I'm not going to comment on the dispute itself, but this message on ]'s talk page "I will not respond to anonymous editors' comments. Go create an account!" is simply unacceptable. Misplaced Pages admins are by definition going to have interactions with anon IP editors. Discouraging/disallowing communication from anon IPs is extremely counter-productive not to mention a violation of ] and ]. To be blunt, if you're not willing to engage with anon IP editors, you shouldn't be an admin. ] (]) 20:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:] '''Agree 100%''' <small style="white-space:nowrap;size:95%;color:#2F74FF">—<small style="background:#FFFFFF;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small>—<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small>—<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small></small> 21:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:I suppose there's no harm in saying publicly now that I was dangerously close to starting an RfC on OhanaUnited, based on that comment and other significant judgement issues. I request the statement be removed immediately (and apologise if it has been as I type this). '']'' <small>(])</small> 07:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
::Could another admin not just simply remove it per ]? <small style="white-space:nowrap;size:95%;color:#2F74FF">—<small style="background:#FFFFFF;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small>—<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small>—<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small></small> 07:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:::It's on the talk page and Ohana is an admin. I'd say it'd reflect well (or not) on his judgement to see what his response to these requests are, rather than just taking it. '']'' <small>(])</small> 07:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

:::: Besides, it's not like removing the warning will magically change how he interacts with others. Frankly, if he doesn't want to deal with those editors (and I surely don't like the idea of admin basically violating ]), I think it would be better if he announces it. -- ] (]) 08:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::If he is unwilling to deal with anonymous users, he should not be an administrator. ] ] 08:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

::Neil said it best, "If he is unwilling to deal with anonymous users, he should not be an administrator". Also, a review of the protection policy is in order, his talk page should '''not''' be full protected, short of serious abuse. There is nothing actionable here, but if an admin were to form a pattern of such behavior it would likely end badly. ] 14:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
::: I have changed the wording according to ]'s suggestion. But just to let you know, some foundation staff do semi-protect their talk page, preventing any IPs and new editors from even editing their talk pages, which is way beyond than just a notice saying "I don't respond to anonymous editors". For those who wonder why this notice was there, a detail explanation can be found . ]] 15:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

:::His page is no longer protected, OhanaUnited has apologized, and he has now changed the warning to anonymous users. I think all is done here. --] 15:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:*May I please thank you all for the responses? I'd like to clarify my position please. I '''strongly agree''' that there could be few FP at the same subject. I nominated my image for delisting becase I knew other users might think differently. Now may I please ask you to forget about FP? The matter of my complain is absolutely different. I disagree that Administrator OhanaUnited first blamed me in POV with no reason whatsoever, second told me that he was going to ignore me with no reason whatsoever, third removed my message with the edit summary "''' cleaning out some garbage'''" and at last protected his own talk page using admin power for the personal and absolutely unjust purpose. That's why IMO OhanaUnited cannot be an administrator on WIKIPEDIA. IMO he does not deserve such honor. Thank you.--] (]) 22:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Hate to say this but if that was enough, a lot of admins would be gone here. Unfortunately, I can't really pinpoint what conduct it takes to lose adminship (short of reverting Jimbo or an ] action) but most would say basic uncivil conduct isn't sufficient. -- ] (]) 23:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:* Here's one more thing, which shows that OhanaUnited has no idea what he's talking about. He said: "Although there's no rule against being the nominator of your own image, but my gut feeling tells me he's trying to discredit '''someone else's picture''' so that his can showcase his image here." without ever realizing that both pictures the featured one and the new one were taken by me. He knows now that it is tha case, but he even did not bother to cross out his stupid and false acusation.--] (]) 15:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

== michael ==

{{resolved}} <small>User informed of ].</small>
i am trying to make subsatial improvement to the michael jackson page but am having issues there!

Here is the statement I have attempted I was advised to see "new friends" in order to make these changes
<blockquote> <blockquote>
; Coordinating arbitrators
Block quote
The Arbitration Committee shall, from time to time, designate one or more arbitrators to serve as the Committee's coordinating arbitrators.


Coordinating arbitrators shall be responsible for assisting the Committee in the routine administration and organization of its mailing list and non-public work in a similar manner as the existing ] assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work.
hi i thought i could outline the main changes we have to make to micheals page


The specific responsibilities of coordinating arbitrators shall include:
remove word child sexual abuse and replace wiht sharing a bed with a child to watch a film remove plastic surgery and replace with diagnosed with vitiligo and lupus, the latter of which is potentially lethal but is in remission in Jackson's case add "and he loves children and would never hurt one" "he is loved by millions of people the world over"
* Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters;
* Tracking the status of pending matters and providing regular updates and reminders on the status of the Committee's off-wiki work to arbitrators;
* Reminding members of the Committee to vote or otherwise take action in pending matters;
* Organizing related correspondence into case files; and
* Performing similar routine administrative and clerical functions.


A coordinating arbitrator may, but is not required to, state an intention to abstain on some or all matters before the Committee without being listed as an "inactive" arbitrator.
change "Jordan Chandler, the son of former Beverly Hills dentist Evan Chandler, represented by civil lawyer Larry Feldman, accused Jackson of child sexual abuse." into "made an allegation that michael hurt him but actually michael was lookin after jordy and he was a sick child that michael took pity on and who turned on michael like a snake as soon as michaelhad done him so much good."

change long term financial difficulty and heath concerns to say "he is a kind man"
</blockquote> </blockquote>
}}
this is the best i have to start but we can wrok on this and make better and more soon
</blockquote>
thank you <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Yeah, we're not going to let you make those changes. Sorry. Misplaced Pages works to a set of important rules: edits must be ] and supported by ]. The text above is not neutral and is not supported by any sources. It appears to be ] on the subject, something we also don't allow. ➨ ''']''' looks at danger and laughs his head off 09:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is why i am putting it on here i have been reuqired to find some new friends after a previous discussion with an old friend who has no time for micheal any more
HE IS A KIND MAN this is not just my own views
and why i want you to help me! ] (]) 10:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

:The above doesn't make sense. Please slowly and carefully explain what you want to happen using plain English, bearing in mind that we are ''not'' going to let you make the changes to the Michael Jackson article that you are requesting. ➨ ''']''' looks at danger and laughs his head off 10:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


For the Arbitration Committee, ]&nbsp;] 23:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
what so you are just TOYING with me?? and you were never going to print it anyway and you laugh your head off at me
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators}}'''<!-- ] (]) 23:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->
I know i am not a experinced editor but I am keen and I dedicated to the cause of michael.


== Backlog ==
1.
change long term financial difficulty and heath concerns to say "he is a kind man" <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


] <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 19:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:''']'''. Is there anything else we can help you with today? ➨ ''']''' looks at danger and laughs his head off 10:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
::I believe that this is so far from being proper for this noticeboard that it should be marked as "Resolved - Question about article text insertion asked and answered". ] | ]•] 13:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Also, both Redvers and I informed SDLex of policy and proper article talk procedure on his talk page. ] | ]•] 13:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
::::{{user|SDLexington}} was inadvertently caught up in , but checkuser found them not to be related, despite the similarity. Just adding this info in case it helps everyone resolve their Michael Jackson issues a little faster. ] (]) 13:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Out of the selection of changes you want made,the only one I can see that isn't wildly POV is about him being diagnosed with vitiligo and lupus.If you can provide evidence from sources that this is indeed the case,I'm sure we would happily include this.The rest is far too biased to be able to be included.Sorry. :) ] (]) 14:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


== Legal threat == == Requesting review of SPI ==
{{Atop|No need to have brought this here.--] (]) 23:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}}


I recently filed an ]; any admin/checkuser eyes would be appreciated. Thank you! ] (] • ]) 22:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Just a quick heads-up that I've issued a warning to {{user|79.21.142.51}} regarding legal threats (the page about which the threats are being made is ]). If anyone gets any further threats from him (he's made three so far from this IP), be aware.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ]]</font> 14:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:CUs and SPI clerks are very aware of which SPIs need attention. Please trust that we will get to the one you posted. Asking for input at AN isn't very helpful unless your SPI is much more urgent than usual. ] (]) 23:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Abot}}


== IPBE for AWB account ==
:Now blocked for 24hrs - don't want to block for longer as this will give him time to say his piece on the AFD before it closes, if he wants...<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ]]</font> 15:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|status=Done|1=Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Hi. I'm performing a task using {{user|CanonNiAWB}}, but the edits aren't editing since I'm using a VPN. I already have IP block exemptions on this account, so could it also be granted to that? Thanks. <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 02:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:Done. ] (]) 02:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks. <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 02:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Content removal, POV pushing, edit warring ==
::What a Bizarre AfD. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 15:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = Please use ] rather than creating new ones. ] ] 15:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


@] removing content and POV pushing here and is currently edit warring ] (]) 10:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Indeed, perhaps the first time that interpol has been contacted to prevent an article deletion ;) --] ] 15:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:This looks like the same complaint as ]. Let's centralise discussion there. I note that ] is also empty. ] (]) 11:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Tulsi (unblock request) ==
::::And people ] I stay away from AfD. I did like the Interpol comment, though. - ] ] 15:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
{{atop green|User unblocked. ] 12:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
* {{userlinks|Tulsi}}
* Blocked (indef) on 3 April 2024 (9 months ago) by ] during an AN thread (]) for undisclosed paid editing
* Subsequent unblock request was also considered at AN before being declined (])


Tulsi has now submitted an unblock request which I am copying:
:::::You think the AfD's weird, read ]. Makes me wish we still had ].<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ]]</font> 15:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


{{talk quote block|Dear Sysops,
::::::. Anyway, this IP looks like a sock of {{user|Torratte}}, who has already been blocked for disrupting the AfD. '''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 17:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


I sincerely apologize for my past actions, which were problematic and deceptive. I fully understand the concerns raised, and I deeply regret my involvement. On April 3, 2024, my account was blocked by Rosguill in relation to undisclosed paid editing associated with the {{section link|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive361|DIVINE and Tulsi: COI/UPE/quid-pro-quo editing, association with threats and harassment}}. However, I want to clarify that my involvement in these matters was minimal, with only minor interactions in the past. I have never written articles for payment, and I do not support paid editing.
::::::See also ] and its AfD. <font face="jokerman">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


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


While I respect Rosguill’s decision to impose a block after the two-year gap, I understand that a block serves to prevent disruption rather than punish. I have learned valuable lessons from this experience, and my contributions over the past two years reflect this growth. In this time, I have created , all without any undisclosed paid editing or COI involvement. Additionally, I have contributed to patrolling, as seen in the ] and ]s, and I have reported several violations on WP:UAA.
{{resolved}} <small> User referred to blocking policy and a helpful JS script ] (]) 16:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC) </small>


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


I am requesting an unblock because I am fully committed to abiding by all the established policies moving forward, and I am eager to contribute here in a constructive manner. Please kindly allow me a second chance.
Could someone please block me. I have been suspected of sockpuppetry, and I know where it will go. Please block me indef (and in the block log, put Requested By User). Goodbye. ]<sup>] • ] • ]</sup> 16:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for your consideration. I humbly request your reconsideration and the restoration of the editing privileges on my account on English Misplaced Pages.
:Self-requested blocks are not permitted. ] 16:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


Sincerely,
:Blocking is not needed here as you can simply stop editing. Here is the ] along with a reference to a JS you can use at your pleasure. Best, ] (]) 16:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
]&nbsp;] 14:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}


Having had discussions with the blocking admin, we would like to seek community comments on the unblock request.
:To be fair I have occasionally seen an editor receive a self-requested block for the purpose of impulse control, but certainly not for the reason of making a point like this user seems to want. ] 20:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


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


They have created several dozen articles about Nepalese politicians but these seem to be innocuous. I have identified only a handful of articles where Tulsi could have edited for pay. Given the amount of other contributions Tulsi has made, it would be appropriate to give the benefit of the doubt. ] 15:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
I have to go but there's something weird about this user. His first edit was labelling himself a sock of a banned user, he filled his talk page up with indef blocked templates, then started to tag articles with templates. Most of the templates have been appropriately placed, which is why I haven't just assumed "BLOCK HIM GRAGAGAGARHHH". Someone may want to keep an eye on his edits to see if he means well or not - I am going to the pub so can't do it. Ta. ] ] 17:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:Blocked. ] 17:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


*I cannot find the link for "A related meta-wiki discussion". <span>]]</span>  15:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
== Anon IP Making Edits On My Userpage, Posing As Me, And Posing As Another User on Talk Page ==
**I've deleted those words. I had decided not to include them in my post, but accidentally left them in. For interest, the discussion was this one: ]. ] 15:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per ]. I will AGF that Tulsi will keep his promise not to engage in any COI editing going forward. ] (]/]) 16:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Question''': We are all volunteers here, so the applicant's comment {{tq|if I am ever in a situation where I am '''required''' to contribute to such an article}} (emphasis mine) is worrisome within the context of UPE/COI. Could they, or someone else for that matter, provide some clarification? ] (]) 19:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*: I assume "required" is just poor phrasing and refers to circumstances similar to ] provided in the same sentence you quote. In any event, the second part of the sentence states {{tq|<em>I will ensure full disclosure on the article talk page and submit it for review</em>}} (emphasis added). That promise is enough for me. ] (]/]) 21:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''', we should generally give a second chance to users who have greatly and fundamentally changed in several months. Given that the user acknowledged the block and promised not to engage in undisclosed paid editing, not to mention that the user is trusted elsewhere, I see no reason to oppose. ] (]) 20:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I believe in their ability to address any concern in the future, given that they served as a sysop on Wikimedia Commons, Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki, and the Maithili and Nepali Wikipedias. ] (]) 21:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


:'''Support''' A second chance promises that Tulsi will not do highly undisclosed paid editing. I may partially support a topic ban on Nepalese politics against Tulsi. ] (]) 05:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Edits on My Talk Page
*'''Support''' Make the most of the second chance ] (]) 23:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Signing using Cookie Monster name.
*'''Support''' I had already been kind of watcxhing the discussion on their talk page over the last few days, and agree with an SO unblock. ] ] 23:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Changing Another Name to Cookie Monster
{{abot}}


== ] ==
Erm...<b>] ] ]</b> 17:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Snow in the forecast. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:edits are over a day old, and there is no evidence (yet) that this is a single user-IP, so I don't see where a block will be effective at thiks point. Keep an eye open, and see if he returns... --].].] 21:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe this article's AfD is still up and not closed as a ] keep. The nominator has acknowledged his mistake out of ignorance. He was in middle school when the subject first became notable, and never heard of him. If the media, or God forbid, Social Media, discovers this nomination, it will do great harm to the reputation of the Misplaced Pages community as being collectively ignorant or ''much, much worse''. I used to be an administrator, and would have closed this as keep. Please do something! ] (]) 16:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


:Anybody can close an AfD as SNOW keep. That's the whole point of SNOW. ] (]/]) 16:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
== A message from Willy ==
::Snowed by me. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 16:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thank you!!! ] (]) 16:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Request for Administrator Review of Repeatedly Declined Draft: Ario Nahavandi ==
Supposedly a message from Willy at ]. Not that there is a request for action there. -- ] (]) 18:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|1=]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:Not like anyone actually will listen to him or believe him. But I say give him a chance to prove himself. <font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font color="#775ca8">]</font></font>&nbsp; 18:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear Administrators,
::If we decided to unblock, is there some .js code that could limit his edits/restrict his pagemoves? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:::(ec)More likely to be Dereks1x - it's his current MO. Nevertheless, if the account edits peacefully and non-abusively, it can carry on. But the account has put itself on notice. ''Added'': Not currently blocked, so no unblock to decide. ➨ ''']''' looks at danger and laughs his head off 19:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
::::The only thing so far that has been done wrong was the addition of a historical template on an essay..dumbly I rolled back to his edit....good faith. As for a script...well I think there is a discussion at the Village Pump which refers to something like that. <font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font color="#775ca8">]</font></font>&nbsp; 19:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::There is a discussing at VP:Proposals about page moves, and I find it amusing that Willy actually on it. No objection to letting him edit for a bit, as he actually claims to be repentant (apologizing to editors and the community, swearing off further page move vandalism, etc), which contrasts him with our friend Derek. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 19:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:I don't know whether it's relevant, but I declined an unblock request from ] the other day, who most certainly is Willy. The user appears to be about. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
::Problem is that Willy is right. There are copycats. He has become some sort of E-Legend among the Wikis and forums. <font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font color="#775ca8">]</font></font>&nbsp; 20:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


I am writing to request your assistance regarding my draft, ], which has been repeatedly declined over the past year despite my adherence to Misplaced Pages’s guidelines.
Why would a new user announce that they're Willy on Wheels and ask to be unblocked, unless they're looking for drama? If they were really interested in positive editing, they would just do it. <font face="jokerman">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 20:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:There was no unblock request. The user actually just admitted to being Willy on the userpage. <font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font color="#775ca8">]</font></font>&nbsp; 20:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


Over the course of several months, I have worked diligently to gather reliable, published, and independent sources, including magazine articles and other credible publications, that meet Misplaced Pages’s notability criteria. My most recent submission was declined in less than an hour—a timeframe that strongly suggests it was not even reviewed carefully or thoroughly.
*I'm of two minds on this. On the first hand, he professes to want to be a positive contributor. On the other hand, were that the case, he would have just created a new account and gone about his business. The fact that he professes that he is Willy on Wheels looks like a clear attention grabbing ploy "Hey, Look at ME!!!". Becoming a positive contributor involves simply contributing, not announcing your presence with fanfare... --].].] 21:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
*] <small>'''] - ]'''</small> 22:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
**I agree, no action or response is required. ] (]) 22:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
***] - if he wants to get it off his chest, let him. If he now contributes productively, brilliant. ] ] 08:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


This is particularly frustrating as I see numerous approved articles on Misplaced Pages that cite sources far less reliable or even completely broken. In contrast, my article contains verifiable references that adhere strictly to Misplaced Pages’s policies. This inconsistency feels unfair and raises concerns about bias in the review process.
=== A message from Willy/Actions ===
I have taken the boiler plate off of his userpage (it is a red link, and people don't change with stigma attached) and placed a note on his talk page. I'll watch his contributions for the next few days until I hit the road. I take this as rough intent from the discussion above. I'll take it upon myself, if the community is willing, to offer limited mentorship. No harm in a chance here, maybe we gain some good articles. . ] (]) 11:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:Agreed; I'll keep watch as well, as I'm sure many admins will. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 12:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


I have followed all guidelines in good faith and cannot accept decisions that appear to be based on personal opinion rather than policy. It feels as though my article is being subjected to an unjust standard, especially when compared to articles that seem to bypass scrutiny. I genuinely wonder if this process is influenced by factors beyond content quality, as I have no means to “pay” for an article to be published, unlike some others.
== WikiCrusading ==


I kindly request that an administrator reviews my draft with impartiality and provides clear, actionable feedback. Otherwise, I am truly exhausted by the repeated rejections and dismissals with no valid reasoning.
] is most definately attempting to Soapbox around the wiki. You can check out his contributions and see what I mean. When I saw this diff , I just had to put it on the noticeboard. More people need to be aware of it. ] (]) 21:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


To provide context, here are some of the sources I included:
:User has not edited in 5 days. What admin action are you seeking? You posted to the user's talk page. Did negative behavior continue after your post? Have you tried to communicate further with the user since your last post? It's not exactly clear to me what the purpose of your post here at AN is (instead of ANI, or Wikiquette alerts, or RfC).-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 22:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
::Oddly and perhaps aptly, I find HooperBandP's contributions much more entertaining - he appears to be using wikipedia to promote his business interests. --] ] 22:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


• https://www.nationaldiversityawards.co.uk/awards-2024/nominations/ario-nahavandi/
::Really? I've never once edited the Pepsi page, and thats how I make my contract money. Interesting conclusion. ] (]) 00:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


• Taurus Magazine (2024-11-19). "Ario Nahavandi". Taurus Magazine. 88: 7 – via www.magcloud.com
:::You are Hooper Booking & Promotion; you did write the article on ], one of your own events, as far as I can work out. And you have some promotional or other involvement with ], whose article you wrote. I don't give a stuff how you make your "contract money", whatever that is. I do care that you're prepared to treat us as fools and suppose that we cannot trace a connection between your self-declared interests, and your promotion of those interests on wikipeda against policy such as ]. You may argue that Hooper Booking & Promotion is not a business. Frankly, that would not surprise me. --] ] 14:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


• 6x Magazine (2024-11-22). "Ario Nahavandi; The Persian Icon". 6X Magazine. 432: 6–7 – via www.magcloud.com
::I didn't argue against your deletion on most, even agreed. If out of my contributions that is all you're worried about, then I'm not concerned. But I am concerned about more subtle crusading which is why I brought ] to attention here. Where as I have indeed edited articles which I'm obviously aware and more knowledgable about, I could care less if they exist or not. This user is going article to article in a subtle attempt to shift POV. I'm much more concerned about that. ] (]) 14:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for your time and consideration xx
:::I note that you and ] have banged heads in an AfD, and possibly other places. It is always as well, in all circumstances, to declare your interests lest people take the impression that you are trying to game the system. The example you provided a diff for was innocuous, though - amusing, even, given his user-page confession of faith ... to change "evolution" to "creation" in the context of a discussion of the Commonwealth. Rest assured that as much attention is being paid to RucasHost edits as to yours. --] ] 15:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


] (]) 23:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
== Today's TFA: To Protect or Not Protect ==


:Administrators cannot override draft declines, and in fact the administrator toolset ]. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 23:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
]...check the history. To protect or not protect?] <font color="purple">]</font> 22:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
::So who can I turn to for help? If administrators cannot assist in overriding the draft declines, to whom can I escalate this issue? I am deeply concerned that my article has been repeatedly declined without proper consideration of the sources I’ve provided. These sources are reliable, published, and fully comply with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines, yet they continue to be dismissed without even being properly reviewed.
::It’s becoming clear that the rejection process isn’t being carried out fairly. I can’t help but feel that my article is being judged based on factors other than content quality, especially when I see articles approved with far less solid references.
::I understand that the review process is based on policy, but when it seems clear that my draft isn’t being given the attention it deserves, I need to know where I can seek help to ensure fairness.
::I kindly ask for your guidance—if administrators cannot intervene, who can I turn to for proper support in getting this article reviewed fairly?
::Thank you for your time. ] (]) 00:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::]. This is where you appeal problems with submissions of drafts. You should read the ] and ] carefully. ] (]) 00:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Lanak20}} I actually ]. They're all malformed at best and unusable at worst. ] —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 00:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*I've blocked the OP as a spam-advertising-only account. I should add that it's pretty obvious they've used other accounts to promote this person, I believe most recently as of last October.--] (]) 00:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist Edit Restriction Appeal ==
:That's some vandalism right there, leaning towards protect, but I'm not confident enough to make a final call. Articles should be protected in the cases of vandalism like this...but it is a TFA, and we should always be wary of protecting those. --] (]) 23:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
{{atop green|Unanimous consent after 36 hours to lift the restriction. ] (]) 14:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
A bit over a year ago, with near unanimous support, I appealed a TBAN from GENSEX - receiving in its place the following sanctions {{tq|1RR restriction in both the GENSEX and AMPOL topics; is limited to 0RR on articles for organizations/activists who are affiliated with anti-transgender activism or gender-critical feminism, broadly construed; and has a PBAN from Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull.}} Previous discussions are linked there. I am now requesting that my restrictions be dropped entirely because I have grown considerably as an editor, both since my initial TBAN when I'd just turned 19 and since the appeal.


I translated ] (having originally wrote it on eswiki during my TBAN) and made it my first GA. I uploaded multiple colorized photographs of transgender historical figures to commons I improved ] and wrote articles for famous trans activists ] and ]. I also cleared up serious BLP violations at ] and rewrote the article. I also helped expand ] and wrote ]. I improved ] and ]. I improved ]. I rewrote and considerably expanded ] as well as ]. I expanded the article on the ]. I wrote the article on the 1970 semi-governmental report '']''. I expanded the articles on ] and ]. I rewrote ] to follow ] and use systematic reviews instead of primary studies. '''Most proudly''', I wrote ] and took it to GA - this is particularly relevant as a key part of the original TBAN discussion was whether my commitment to removing misinformation from Misplaced Pages was a case of either ] or following ] and ].
:Judging by the page history, semi-protection seems like a good idea (not full protection).-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 23:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
::Sprotection now instated to expire at the end of the day.] <font color="purple">]</font> 23:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Good call. Easily endorse this protection. ] 23:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


I believe the restrictions impair my ability to edit productively. I generally edit with 1RR regardless of sanctions. With 0RR, as Red-tailed hawk noted at my previous appeal "they can wind up restricting the sorts of partial reverts that are often a healthy part of the ordinary editing process." With 0RR, I am unable to engage in the BRD cycle properly and always second-guessing whether a partial edit to a recent edit counts as a revert or not. It also prevents me reverting drive-by SPA/IP povpushing. I don't plan to ever edit KJK's article again, but I believe that my record of neutral constructive editing shows the PBAN is no longer preventative or necessary. In the highly unlikely event I ever see a reason to edit it in future, I know my edits would be subject to heightened scrutiny which I'd welcome.
] <sub>→]]</sub> 23:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:Sorry for the alphabet soup (i.e. abbreviating "Today's Featured Article"), I was simultaneously writing this and patrolling ] at the same time :P. Had to make it quick.] <font color="purple">]</font> 23:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
::You could have saved yourself a 'T' and been even quicker ;p --]] 01:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


I appreciate your consideration. My best regards, ] (]) 01:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*The vandalism started again within 1 minute of the protection expiring -- I've protected again for 3 days. ] (]) 03:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:'''Support.''' ] (]/]) 01:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support'''. Based on YFNS's activity since the original tban, I don't see any reason to believe that restrictions are necessary going forward. ] (]) 06:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support'''. Welcome back comrade. ] (]) 06:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support''' based on their editing activity between TBAN and last year, as well as between the sanctions and now. Good work, and a great example of how this restorative process is ''supposed'' to work. May you inspire other misguided people to a path of restoration. ]&thinsp;] 08:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Snow Support''' ] (]) 14:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Strong support'''. To me YNFS comes across as a very responsible editor and I believe these restrictions are no longer warranted. ] (]) 16:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support''' I remember the original ban happening due in large part to canvassing on twitter, the fact that any restrictions remained in place thereafter strikes me as a deep miscarriage of justice. ] (]) 23:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Query''' Does your reference to BRD mean that you undertake to follow it in the future? ] (]) 14:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Enthusiastic support''' YFNS is a perfect model of an editor who is an asset to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support''' A well worded appeal, worth giving another chance. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' This is a convincing and sincere appeal. ] (]) 00:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''', Welcome. ~] ] <sup>「] / ]」</sup> 02:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as they have convincingly demonstrated change. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I supported and still support the original restrictions, and the later now appealed restrictions. I think YFNS's case has shown that an editor can come back from the brink successfully and am happy that happened. ] (]) 04:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== AIV backlogged == == Copyvio Problem ==


Hey all, I believe that these three diff should be redacted as copy vio's, thanks. There are several sentences which are directly lifted from the sources. Some one more experienced should likely have a look through the revision I restored as well. I didn't spot anything, but I may have missed something.
{{resolved|Backlog cleared. -- ] (]) 23:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)}}


] is backlogged, and the backlog is growing. Any help appreciated. ] (]) 23:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks to all who helped. ] (]) 23:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


] (]) 22:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


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


== Autoconfirm change (sort of) == == Lardlegwarmers block appeal ==
{{atop
| result = Essentially unanimous consensus to not unblock. ] ] 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


* {{userlinks|Lardlegwarmers}}
The ] has been changed from 4 days to 4 days '''and''' 10 edits. There may be future changes (per ) but I'm not really sure. As a reminder, the consensus was ] and some instruction guides/ help pages might need updated to reflect the change (Would it be wise to let the change settle in first?) ] (''']''') 00:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I blocked Lardlegwarmers yesterday for one week for a violation of ] from COVID-19. This was about ], although I subsequently noticed ] as well. LLW has asked me to copy their appeal here. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:Let us hope that the second change does not take place, as it will cause more cut and paste page moves. ]]] 2008-05-21T00:28Z (])
=== Statement from Lardlegwarmers ===
::I think it's kind of excessive, too, but there is a very clear consensus for the 7d20e requirement. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]</span> 05:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I have only been very active editing Misplaced Pages for about one month, even though my account is older. I was blocked for pushing a minority POV in the talk page for Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory, which I understand. For context, this issue wouldn't have even come up at ANI except that there was this very old account making borderline uncivil comments constantly, and I took them to ANI myself and it boomeranged. One thing that I learned from that experience is that Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement, and that I am probably not going to be the one to fix it.<ref>]</ref> Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed; my edits were in good faith and I was really just attempting to talk it out with the other editors who did not agree with me. But I understand that the norm in this space is to walk away if there isn't any uptake of my ideas or take it to dispute resolution instead of continuing to try to convince people. The current ban is for making a comment on an AE thread, not a Covid-19 article. I was on the page for a totally unrelated reason and noticed that a user I recognized from the Covid thread was being discussed. My comment was mostly about user behavior and reflecting on the underlying dispute itself, not Covid-19. Also, on my user page I quoted ] discussing his view on Misplaced Pages's approach to Covid-19 , which I'd assumed was permitted because it's my own user page and it's really a comment about the state of Misplaced Pages as a whole. The admin who blocked me, @], blanked it from my user page. If the community won't let me keep that quote on my user page, then fine, we'll leave it removed, but I wish they would have just asked me to remove it and described why instead of editing my user page. A block for this stuff seems harsh. Thanks.
:::Agreed - the 7/20 option was by far the top choice, with 92 respondents picking it as compared to only 58 for ''all'' of the other options combined. 4/10 had only 25 people supporting it; the bug request should have implemented th e7/20 option. What happened? --''']'''''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small>'' 05:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
{{talk reflist}}
::::I spoke to ] and he said that he would implement the half-way option until we were actually sure what the consensus was, ] (''']''') 08:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
=== Statement from Tamzin ===
:::It is a bad idea to run a poll on a question that was considered and debated by a large number of editors, and then have a very small number of administrators decide that these editors in fact chose an option preferred by only 14% of the people involved. ] (]) 16:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Excerpting my comment on their talkpage:{{tq2|Usually we only warn someone on their first topic ban violation. However, in your case, the fact that both violations occurred within hours of the ban being imposed, and that they were belligerent rants treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground, made me judge that a short block would more clearly communicate just how far you are from what is considered acceptable conduct. Even if you didn't understand that the ban applied outside articles, you should have understood that the community found your editing about COVID disruptive, which should have been reason enough to not make those edits.}} <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:I wasn't informed at all (I would probably have voted for an even stricter one than 7/20, but my point is it didn't see a wide enough audience) - where was it advertised? --] (]) 19:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
=== Discussion among uninvolved editors ===
::Mailing list, community portal (I think there was also something on Village Pump or similar earlier too) ] (''']''') 19:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
*This is clearly a topic ban violation - and it came less than a day after it was imposed. Even if assuming in good faith that they didn't know it was a topic ban violation, their unblock request shows not only that they don't understand what they did wrong, but they attempt to justify it with statements such as {{tq|Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed}} which is borderline a personal attack (veiled insult that others weren't being grownups); {{tq|which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement}} which is confirming they still don't understand why they were topic banned nor why they were blocked for violating it; and quoting Larry Sanger's ] promoting comments on their userpage after their topic ban. To summarize, I have no confidence that the user understands what they did wrong, and I would go so far as to say the user attempting to skirt the edges of their topic ban and supporting another user trying to promote fringe theories on Misplaced Pages merits an indefinite community ban. TLDR: '''Oppose unblock''' and ultimately would support indefinite ban due to the flagrant violation, lack of understanding, and no belief that after the 7 days is up they will not go straight back to trying to ]. I won't be the one to propose that, however. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 03:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::Oh, and ] too, ] (''']''') 19:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
*I don't see how an unblock is possible when Lardlegwarmers clearly still doesn't understand what a broadly construed topic ban means. To be clear, there's no need to ask the "community" whether you can keep your topic ban violation. The only hope for you to be able to obey it is if you are able to decide yourself, especially after you've been told by an admin. While we do try to educate instead of just blocking, the "community" isn't here to help you understand the limits of your topic ban. ] (]) 04:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:Incidentally - how hard would it be to require mainspace edits? In particular, for edits to the sandbox or one's own userpage to not count. --] (]) 19:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
*:Should clarify that despite what I said above, I'd weakly oppose extending the topic <del>ban</del> <ins>block</ins> to indefinite at this time. While I'm not hopeful Lardlegwarmers is going to be able to obey it given what they've said, I think it's fine to give them rope after the <del>ban</del> <ins>block</ins> expires and apply normal escalating blocks. Since we're already here, perhaps this will somehow help them understand that yes the community requires you to apply it broadly on anything to do with COVID-19 throughout Misplaced Pages. They should consider this very short rope though and notably the next time they feel they need to ask the community whether they're violating their topic ban when they are, it might be the last time. ] (]) 20:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::I don't know but it is not currently possible. I think debating issues which are not presently technically possible was avoided intentionally, ] (''']''') 19:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
*::Sorry mixed up ban and block above twice, now fixed. ] (]) 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock''' as the user looks to have no intention of following Misplaced Pages guidelines with their request. It is only a week and will give a change to think about how to change. ] (]) 04:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock'''. It truly takes some ] to cite a Signpost piece authored by the admin who blocked you to support the proposition that you're being railroaded. '''Weak support for an indef''' because that's what Lardlegwarmers seems to be speedrunning. ] (]/]) 04:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock'''. The topic ban was on ''the topic of COVID-19, broadly construed'', not ''the topic of COVID-19 directly in articlespace''. And the topic ban was violated, not just within less than a day, but ''within three hours'' of it being imposed. On top of that the unblock request could be a case study for ]. I won't call for an indef ], but when the block expires Lardlegwarmers should bear in mind that any further violations of the topic ban will be their last. - ] <sub>]</sub> 10:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No unblock''' - Basically per Lardlegwarmers: they don't appear to understand why they've been blocked. An indefinite block seems very likely in this editor's future and we certainly should consider cutting out the middle-man and just skipping to it, but I'd like to give them at least some chance here to understand why they were blocked. ] (]) 10:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose unblock''' - While I usually support giving editors ] to demonstrate improvement, this case warrants a longer wait. The user acknowledges pushing a minority POV and failing to disengage per ] norms, but their justification suggests a lack of understanding or acceptance of policies like ], ], and ]. Their off-topic comment in an AE thread, despite knowing the sensitivity of such spaces, and the policy-violating content on their user page, further reflect ongoing disruption. I recommend they take time to reflect and gain a better grasp of Misplaced Pages's collaborative culture before requesting an unblock again. ] • ] ⚽ 11:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose unblock'''. I agree that absent change from this user an indefinite block is likely. For their benefit, if you're the subject of a topic ban, broadly construed, about COVID-19, you need to be editing in an entirely different topic area. Think of something that you're interested in--television shows, football, English gardens, science fiction books? Take a week and think on it. ] ] 11:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock.''' What is there left to say? This conduct feels like appellant's purpose is use Misplaced Pages as a battleground and to soapbox their views rather than to build the encyclopedia-- to remake Misplaced Pages as they think it should be. My feeling is that a week won't be nearly enough. The railroad comment is appallingly full of not understanding that their conduct is not acceptable in a collaborative project. ] (]) 12:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:PS: What Tamzin said in her statement above. ] (]) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Whilst I don't believe user will be able to change their approach, I feel an indef would be premature for now. We should give them a chance to mend their ways. ] (]) 12:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*An account that ] is topic banned, violates that topic ban immediately, and posts a ] unblock request that thoroughly ]. Whoever closes this should be considering indef, not an unblock. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Indeed. ] (]) 14:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock''' this specific response {{tq| Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement}} is indicative of their viewpoints and why they're not ready to contribute. They continue, {{tq|my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed}}. These demonstrate that they still do not get it, and rather project their self-perspective is that they are actually a victim of people who are abusing the rules against them. . I proffer that this is going to be a consistent problem until they acknowledge that they were violating policy. Zero indication that they know how to positively contribute, just perhaps a vague inference that they'll avoid getting in trouble -- because -- we'll I'm not entirely sure they've communicated what they will do differently, but rather simply say that {{tq|a block for this stuff seems harsh.}} ]&thinsp;] 15:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Notwithstanding the harsh situation I presented above, to be clear I '''oppose indef''' for now. A new user should have the opportunity to overcome early (while significant) setbacks, which is what TBANs are designed to encourage. I am encouraged by things like YFNS corrective behavior in a prior AN discussion, and can only be hopeful and AGF that might apply to LLW here. We need more passionate, subject matter experts, as contributors to this project, but they ''absolutely must contribute positively'' and following established PGs. ]&thinsp;] 16:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock''' and support an indef. I am pretty confident in saying that this is where we will be heading after this block ends. ] (]) 15:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock''', clear violations of the topic ban. Don't oppose indef, but I'd like to at least give him the chance to figure out exactly what we expect going forward. --] 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support block, oppose unblock, oppose indef''' - this is a topic-banned newbie's first violation, in the heat of the moment after the restriction was imposed. Tamzin's block was the appropriate response. The unblock request is wholly inadequate, but jumping straight to indef for this sort of violation is a pretty extreme overreach. If they go back to violating their sanction after this block expires, ''then'' let's talk community ban, but they should be given the opportunity to edit constructively while respecting the restriction. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 16:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock, oppose indef...however...''' I am sympathetic to their point of view and their general "right" (we don't really have rights here on WP) to post their opinion on a subject, even one as contentious as COVID-19. I think the blanking of the user page is a step too far. We shouldn't be in the business of deleting negative opinions about Misplaced Pages; while the statement was in reference to COVID-19, it doesn't mention it within the claim and is more a critique of Misplaced Pages at large and mass media than its relation to COVID. I would let the statement on their user page stand/restore it. Larry Sanger's statement is not a ], it is a reasonable ''opinion''. There were loads of statements/claims about COVID/its origin/mandates/treatment/vaccines that, despite their widespread implementations and presentation as "the science", later turned out to be misleading or untested conjecture (examples: no studies on masking effectiveness with a large population vs the coronavirus, 6 foot spacing, lying to the American public about wearing masks because health care professionals needed them more, lab leak theory, military connections to the Wuhan Institute, US funding of WI, etc). '''HOWEVER''', civil discourse ''is'' essential. That means that discussions about COVID were fraught with battlegrounds and bludgeoning. As such, we have additional restrictions for COVID discussions and other contentious topics and LLW needs to follow them. LLW did not do so and has shown a consistent flaunting of these restrictions and a weeklong block is a reasonable start. In summary, the quote isn't unreasonable to leave on their user page (give them that latitude), but a weeklong block for the other behavior should stand. ] (]) 16:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:They added two comments to their userpage. Both were critical of Misplaced Pages. One was also critical of ] and other aspects of the US government's COVID response. I removed the latter. It doesn't matter whether Sanger's opinion is fringe or not; what matters is that he was talking about COVID. I would be quite the hypocrite to remove something from someone's userpage just for criticizing Misplaced Pages, as I have a fair bit of that on my own userpage. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::There's some pretty big overlap there in criticism of Fauci and how it is handled on Misplaced Pages. Again, I don't feel THAT is a significant violation of COVID editing restrictions (beyond the fact that they did it despite such an editing restriction). Anyone can completely skip over it if they wish. {{ping|Tamzin}} playing devil's advocate for a moment, what if I published the same thing on my user page? Would it be ok? Would it be ok if I posted it on LLW's user page (as long as LLW was ok with it, of course)? I realize we're getting in the weeds of a "what-if..." but if so, what's the substantive difference between me putting it on a user page and LLW doing the same? ] (]) 17:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::If you posted it to your userpage, it would be fine (although not that constructive), because you are not topic-banned from COVID. If you posted it to their userpage, that would be ] for a banned editor, since I'd struggle to believe you have an independent reason to think that particular quote belongs on that particular page. {{PB}} If you really want to fight the removal from the userpage, feel free to create a subsection here, but I stand by the removal. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I'm not fighting the removal per se. Just wondering where the boundaries are and if it's wise to have such a boundary. ] (]) 17:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::The boundary is ]. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 19:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Buffs: In the ''realm of hypothetical'' I would presume that if that quote had been on LLW user page for a long time, in a sea of content, pre-existing AN, then it ''might even still be up today.'' However, on the other hand, to post that after the TBAN was imposed is nothing other than what can be seen as ''abject defiance'' to the ban. But beyond that, it simply violates plain language of the ban, as it applies to {{tq|all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic}}, so I proffer that Tamzin is clearly in the right here. To your charged statement about ''if you were to post the same thing'' to your user page, prior to your statement here and presuming you were not under a TBAN, it would ''not be questioned'' one iota. However, as a response to this discussion, it could be construed (but not technically violating) the principles of ] and I would caution against it. Moreover, you reinstating it on LLW talk page would be a far closer in the proximity of violating PROXYING. ]&thinsp;] 18:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::The fact that the comment only came after the topic ban is key here. I'm fairly sure I've seen several cases where there's something on an editor's user page which is covered by a topic ban but which no one has said or done anything about because it was there from before the topic ban. In fact I'm fairly sure I even remember a case where someone asked specifically if they could modify or remove something on their user page which related to their talk page which was technically under the topic ban (probably gensex). I think this was allowed especially since it related to their personal life rather than some comment on something, although they were told just this once is best. There might have even been a case where an editor wanted to do some more editing or formatting of something under their topic ban and was either denied or told only this once. IIRC, there was also an editor who was happy to be able to finally change someone on their userpage covered by their topic ban once it was lifted. A topic ban is a topic ban. I'd note that if someone makes an extremely constructive edit to an article that is not covered by ] we still treat this as a topic ban violation, although it's something much more beneficial for the project than an editor being able to repost random ramblings about Misplaced Pages they want to share. ] (]) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock, oppose indef''' - The topic ban violation was clear cut. Let's hope Lardlegwarmers will read a bit about how to avoid topic ban violations, or else indef block is not too far for them. ] (]) 16:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock, extend block indefinitely''' - Lardle should try to demonstrate good behavior on another wiki for six months before asking for a SO. Let's hope that this user should handle contentious topics carefully in the future. ] (]) 18:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock''' but no reason to indef, a block has already been imposed. If the user continues to violate the TBAN, than a longer block might be warranted. ''']]''' 02:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Comments from involved editors ===
== Deny recognition ==
* Going to open a new subsection here since I've made comments to ] two weeks ago. I wish I could say I was surprised that this ended in tears but that would be untrue (though I did have some hopes the comment a month ago indicating they were aware pro-fringe POV-pushing was sactionable was a signal they were intending to modify their behaviour). As bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez points out, making thinly veiled attacks is not exactly the type of thing looked favourably upon in an unblock request. Nor is making polemical statements on one's user page, whether within the scope of the ban or not, likely to convince the community of one's inclination and ability to ]. Lardlegwarmers, if you do really want to return to editing, especially if you want to appeal your topic ban in 6 months or a year, I would strongly advise reading ] and following the advice there, especially ]. Complaining about Hob's conduct won't help you here, because the block (and it's a rather short one) and ban are about you, not Hob. Given your comment that {{tq|apparently two wrongs make a right}}, I had hoped that you were already also considering your own behaviour, but I would like to make it very clear: taking the role of one of the "wrongs" to address someone else's "borderline uncivil" behaviour is ]. Whether Hob crosses the line is on them, but what you do is entirely on you. ] (] • ]) 07:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* As I was involved in the discussion to topic ban LLW I think I count as an involved editor. With that said I would discourage an early lifting of this block, which seems appropriate considering that LLW's response to the topic ban was to immediately violate the topic ban. ] (]) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Also, perhaps LLW wasn't aware of this, but people who aren't uninvolved administrators aren't generally supposed to put comments into the "results" section of an AE filing. ] (]) 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* I was there.. Three thousand ye-- No. More like one, two days ago. I seriously believe Lard Leg Warmers is one of two situations: '''1:''' ] and unable to understand the concepts of medical science as if they were a Facebook mother invested in "essential oils" and "holistic medicine" rather than trusting medical and scientific experts; '''2:''' ] and simply f<s>**</s>king with us for no good reason and leading us around, and around, and around, and around, and around the bend because they get a rise out of it. Either way, my advice: don't get led around the bend, '''advise indef block''' for either ] or ]. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::], those kinds of personal assumptions about their character are unnecessary to this discussion. Instead of speculation on who they are elsewhere, let's just focus on their behavior on Misplaced Pages. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*Lardlegwarmers' statement clearly shows that they have learned little from the sanction. They should demonstrate such before there is any lifting. ] (]) 18:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Usage of 'Notable people' vis-a-vis 'Notable person' in section headers ==
Anyone interested in denying recognition of ]? ] is a user name that seems to provide comparison commentary just like ] user name. ] is a dopplerganger account. ] should have been a dopplerganger account, but other action may be needed to prevent impersonation. ] is a copyright vio user page. (note: that the link is to the entire user name and not a subpage of a user). You might want to check as well. ] (]) 01:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = This is not an administrative issue. ] (]/]) 20:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


In the course of editing numerous articles, I have come across the header featuring 'notable people' when there is only one person and have therefore modified the grammar.
:I've put it up for MFD, and am looking at the rest of that. That isn't a user page, IP addresses aren't permitted to have subpages. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 01:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
::I’m not aware that IP users are "not permitted" to have , I don’t see a problem with it when the IP is ], and I don’t see anything related at ]. <s>Why with that rational, but leave other subpages.</s> <small>(Saw it, request of Hu12 on the ]</small>)--] (]) 12:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:The interview transcript is a () of , now known as ]. The source has indeed a shiny “© 2007 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.” at the bottom of the page. --] (]) 10:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC).


I recently had another editor come behind me and revert one such edit on the grounds that things have always been done this way, regardless of the number of notables for a given locale, which makes little sense to me. Is this really policy? ] (]) 16:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
== Deletion review ==
:This seems like a question for ], not ] as it doesn't involve administrator actions. AN isn't a general Help forum for questions about editing. You could even try asking at ] or the Help Desk. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


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


] is abusing his moderator powers in order to post unconstructive comments on talk pages, specifically when we were talking about if we should delete the US 2028 election or not, he said "that Drumpf supporters want there to be no more elections so they can remain in power forever doesn't mean we adhere to their delusions by deleting articles here". This is clearly unconstructive, and treating the talk page as a forum. I didn't know he was a moderator when I was removing his comment, and now he left all of these messages on my page and is saying I'm the real vandal here. ] (]) 22:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Could an administrator please provide the most recent non-vandalized revision of ] for public observation at ]? Thanks. <span style="background:black;color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''''—&nbsp;''''']&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> 04:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:I'm not an admin, but CMBJ, just look at the article's history and you can find . --] (]) 05:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
::Super. I didn't realize that someone had already restored the article. Request dropped. <span style="background:black;color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''''—&nbsp;''''']&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> 05:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


:So there's two things here.
== ] ==
:* First, TopVat19sEver, you removed other users comments from a talk page (not allowed). A user voicing their opinion is '''not''' vandalism, not in the slightest. If you have a problem with what another user has said on the talkpage, rather than ] (which is only allowed in very specific situations), you should bring it for discussion at an appropriate noticeboard, or preferably ask them to change their own comment.
:* Second, Acalamari, could you please refrain from calling people "Drumpf supporters" and ] on the reasons for nominating an article for deletion? While you're entitled to your opinions, that's borderline (at best) ], especially when you call them "delusional".
:If both users agree to accept what they did wrong here and move forward, I don't think any further action is necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 22:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::Ok, I'm newer to Misplaced Pages, I understand what you are saying, my train of thought was, "this comment looks like vandalism, vandalism on Misplaced Pages is removed, therefore remove". I didn't know that they don't do that for talk pages. Thank you my friend. ] (]) 22:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Vandalism has a '''very''' specific definition on Misplaced Pages - see ] for more information on what is not vandalism. Merely calling people names and/or being uncivil, while against the rules, is '''not''' vandalism. There are proper processes for handling other rule violations (such as asking someone to edit their own comments, or asking a noticeboard for help) such as those, but they are decidedly '''not''' vandalism. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Ok thank you for telling me ] (]) 23:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:Where are the ]? ] (]) 22:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*This is a baseless complaint. Ater not editing for months, the OP refactored an AfD that was closed last November. Acalamari rightly warned them for doing that.--] (]) 22:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I agree, but at the same time, I think TV19E has a right to be unhappy that Acalamari, an administrator and bureaucrat, was able to cast aspersions and call people names without it being called out at the time as far as I can see. They went about it the wrong way (removing the comment), but that doesn't mean there isn't room for discussion of that comment. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 22:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Nope. First, it doesn't rise to the level required of this noticeboard, and, second, it's not at all timely.--] (]) 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::To be blunt, Acalamari didn't even tell the editor when they ''initially'' reverted back in November (while the discussion was open) where they could discuss further/report if they felt the comment was not appropriate. I'm not suggesting sanctions against Acalamari at all. But to tell a new editor "someone broke the rules and since you didn't report it in the proper way at the time because nobody told you how, they're allowed to break the rules" is clear ]. I think all that's necessary is an apology from Acalamari - TV19E has already explained that they were mistaken as to it being vanadalism. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 23:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I didn't edit for a few months because I have to do other things. I was just scrolling around I don't even remember what I was doing and I saw he put it back, I didn't know he was a mod, and it also said you can't edit archived talk pages, which he did, so I reverted his edit. ] (]) 23:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::That's not true. You modified a closed AfD. Acalamari rightly reverted your edit of an archived discussion.--] (]) 23:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I just said, he is the one who modified a closed AfD, which is not allowed, then I reverted it not knowing he is a moderator ] (]) 23:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::He didn't modify a closed AfD. His comment was readded while the discussion was still open, because you removed it in violation of ]. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 23:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Oh okay this is my mistake then I thought it was after the AfD was closed my bad ] (]) 23:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Wait hold on, I just looked at it again. He added back his comment after the result was SNOW. On the page when he re added it, it said do not edit the page. ] (]) 23:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::You removed Acalamari's comment as vandalism with the edit summary "subhanAllah". You had ''no right'' to do that. Acalamari restored it, which even though the AfD was closed, they had the right to do in the circumstances.--] (]) 23:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/2028_United_States_presidential_election_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1257014612 Take a look, this is his edit. When he re added his comment, on the page in red it said '''Do not edit the page''' ] (]) 23:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::The comment never should've been removed in the first place. It's within the spirit of the rules to readd a comment that you improperly removed, even if the discussion had been closed in the meantime. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{ec}} There's no admin abuse here as no admin tools have been used. In case you missed ''"The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below"'' with the bright red ''"Please do not modify it"'' at that AfD, I'll repeat the instructions here - don't modify archived discussions.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I was saying Admin abuse because of the fact that he is able to keep his comment on the page when even if he is violating the rules. I'm not a moderator so I can't do anything about. Now I just learned from that guy that they don't remove comments even if its vandalism, now I know. But thats why I reported it here you know. ] (]) 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:He is the one who edited the closed AfD. This was one of the reason why I reverted his edit. ] (]) 23:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*It's very hard to work out what's happening without the presence of diffs. ] (]) 23:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:*{{tq|without the presence of diffs}}. But Ponyo and I have contributed, so you're in the presence of greatness; isn't that better than diffs? :p --] (]) 23:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:*:* ''Tiggerjay is bowing down in great humility before such greatness never before seen in this universe. '' Now.... where is the trout? ]&thinsp;] 23:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:*:Who am I to disagree with the Jedi? ] (]) 23:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


*Okay, I've looked into this. And...surprise surprise, TopVat19sEver was the one who ''origially removed Aclamari's !vote while the AfD was still open'' . Yes, about a day after the AfD was closed, Aclamari reverted this removal , which ''is'' technically "editing a closed AfD" but I would say they were ] to revert a ]. And now, suddenly, today, two months later, as their first edit ''after'' having done that improper removal, TopVat19sEver goes back to the AfD and removes Aclamari's !vote ''again'' , which Aclamari - entirely rightfully - reverted , and then TopVat19sEver comes here to cry "admin abuse", when no administrative abilities were used ''at all'' in this whole mess. Could Aclamari have used more moderate language in their initial !vote? Yeah maybe, but it was no ''violation'' at all, and the only thing needed here is a ] or at least a {{tl|trout}} for TopVat19sEver. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
{{resolved|02:14, 17 July 2007 Khoikhoi (Talk / contribs) blocked "Talyshli (Talk / contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (sockpuppet of banned user AdilBaguirov)}}
{{Abot}}
This user IS NOT BANNED. Hell, he isn't even a sockpuppet. Please fix his page. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Actually, he is banned and he is a sockuppet; please see his . <small style="white-space:nowrap;size:95%;color:#2F74FF">—<small style="background:#FFFFFF;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small>—<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small>—<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small></small> 09:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


== Ban appeal from Rathfelder ==
== ] ==


* {{userlinks|Rathfelder}}
Hi there. To get more input on whether the assesment scale should be changed, could users, both administrators and non-administrators head over there and comment on the propsals made. Thanks, ] (]) 14:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
* ] for sockpuppetry, vote-stacking and undisclosed COI writing of a BLP attack page
: It's the same thing I asked about ]. So, can I add something to {{tl|watchlist-notice}} about this or not? ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 03:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
* ] declined by the community
* ] not submitted for review by the community for not complying with ]


Rathfelder has submitted the following ban appeal on their talk page and asked me to copy it here:
== Tor proxies ==
{{tqb|I realise that what I did was wrong - more wrong than I thought it was at the time. The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur. I accept that I was wrong to create sockpuppets and I apologise. I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that. I did that really because I was trying to defend the work I had done for the Socialist Health Association for the previous 20 years. I did a lot of edits on that page, but they were, until the last few, about the history of the organisation, mostly adding to its list of distinguished members - largely before I was involved with it, and mostly before I was born. They were not at all controversial. I was unfairly sacked and my opponents started using Misplaced Pages against me. The row got into the media. I accept that I should not have done that. I should have resisted the temptation to use Misplaced Pages in the dispute.<br>
I have spent 2 years working on Simple English and Wikimedia. I have not set up any sockpuppets or edited anything where I had conflicts. I plan to continue with Wikimedia, as there is plenty there to keep me busy, but I would like to be able, in particular, to add pictures to articles - now I have found my way round the enormous Wikimedia resource. I also sometimes come across articles in English wikipedia which need amendment.}} ] (] · ]) 17:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


*'''Conditional support''' - If there's been no socking ''during'' the ban. ] (]) 17:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
{{user|85.178.226.74}} and {{user|91.78.115.171}} have apparently been determined to be Tor proxies. Could someone block them, please? Is there a notice board for Tor proxy requests? <font face="jokerman">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 21:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Question''' during the January 2024 unblock request Rathfelder said they would be willing to accept a restriction on editing articles related to BLPs or healthcare orgs. Are they still willing to accept those edit restrictions if they are un-banned? Furthermore, in January 2024 there was, at the time, no evidence of any further socking. Can we confirm that good behaviour has continued? ] (]) 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:] down the corridor second on the left, though both of these are checking negative, probably because they are both dynamic. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 21:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' They have been a very productive contributor at the Simple English Misplaced Pages, and it has definitely been long enough for the ]. ] (]) 21:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::yeah, they were labeled by a bot, I don't know its reliability. <font face="jokerman">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 21:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


== Appealing April 4 2024, indefinite WP:CUP ban and indefinite 1-nomination GAN limit ==
== Uga Man ==
{{atopr
| result = Consensus to lift this ban will not develop. ] (]/]) 22:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


At ], I was instructed by closer ] that I could appeal these in a year and it has been 9.5 months. I am appealing because the CUP entry deadline is traditionally January 31. See ] through ]. This year the ] verbiage says "The competition will begin on 1 January 2025 and signups will continue throughout the year". I am just noticing the new language as I am putting this appeal in. Nonetheless, I am requesting time off for good behavior on the ban.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 18:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
] was blocked for sockpuppetry a week or so ago. Just yesterday, one of the same-IP-users (blocked Southern Texas) requested an unblock, claiming that his/her account had been hacked by his/her younger sister. If this is true, a good established user has been bOlocked for something that he/she didn't do. ] as well as ] have been semi-protected, and therefore a request to unblock cannot be made by any of the suspected sockpuppets. <span style="cursor:help"><font color="#FF8C00" face="Elephant">Basketball110</font></span> <sup>''']'''</sup>/<sub>''']'''</sub> 22:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:I doubt you'll find administrators willing to unblock here. You're always going to have these sob stories with bad hand, good hand accounts. "Oh the vandals moved out, so they won't be back," "oh, I broke up with that guy so he won't be editing on this IP ever again," "oh I talked to the vandals and they said they'll stop, so I should be unblocked." This is just like that. ] (]) 02:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
::Maybe I'm just new at this game, but perhaps just seeing how things go with Southern Texas. If there are any problems or contrevercies, just block him. Isn't that why admins have their powers? <span style="cursor:help"><font color="#FF8C00" face="Elephant">Basketball110</font></span> <sup>''']'''</sup>/<sub>''']'''</sub> 03:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
:::The problem won't be with the Southern Texas account. It'll be with the bad hand accounts that he creates. I don't think we need to be running check users frequently to find out if anything's going on. ] (]) 03:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Speaking as an administrator, "my little brother/sister did it" is one of the sorriest excuses we run into. I probably reply to a dozen or more unblock requests a day, I would say almost 1/4 of the (3-4 per day that I do) use some form of this excuse... --].].] 03:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
::My standard message in this situation is:
::<blockquote>Given that we can't see into your home as to who is as the computer at a given moment, either this may be compromised or you did vandalize and are lying. Therefore, I cannot unblock this account. </blockquote> ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Not to mention that its somewhat standard procedure to block compromised accounts. <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 06:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


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


==Requesting info==
Okay, I know that the requests for unblock category is filling up with random pages because of a vandal... something on one of the templates? ... but I'm insufficiently 133t to find where the vandalism is. Could someone 133t3r take a look at it? -]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] · ])</span> 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
{{atop
:Gone. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
| result = {{u|Steve Quinn}} is {{itrout|trouted}} for bringing this to AN. ] (]/]) 21:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
}}
Hello. I have come across several image files and the U.S. Gov. PD licensing seems to be incorrect. Four of these images and possibly another one could be copyright violations - if I can figure out how to find this type of information on their websites. However, since I am unable to find that information at this moment, I am wondering which group of Misplaced Pages editors work on this sort of thing so that maybe I can get some help with this. I will post the files here for information purposes. Also, there may be more copyright violations by this particular editor who seems to have a propensity for downloading image files. Below are the files:
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
Further comment: The above TN file - File:AppalachianTN.jpg - is covered by the TN.GOV "linking policy" and can be found . So this Misplaced Pages image file is still not licensed appropriately, although I have no idea what the correct Misplaced Pages licensing would be.


I will notify the editor who downloaded these files that I have opened a discussion here. Well, now that I have taken it this far, the editor in question is: {{userlinks|Brian.S.W}}. However, the above image files might be too stale to be considered for any action. I leave that up to the Admins. If you look on their talk page, they have previously been blocked for copyright violations. ---] (]) 20:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
== Bizarre slow-speed revert war at Constellation Brands ==


:As you can see they've already been tagged for a deletion discussion yesterday, so there is no need to have a difference notice board also working on it. ]&thinsp;] 21:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Not sure how / where to deal with this. Someone seems to be engaged in a long-term revert war to add peculiar derogatory material into the ] article. It's a giant worldwide liquor company that has apparently run into assorted trouble with antitrust and liquor laws, in this case in New Zealand. That fact may or may not be appropriate per relevance and weight concerns, but the editor has been introducing it again and again as a series of ungrammatical scribbles plus a growing list of ]. Oddly, nearly every time the editor does this they have created a new throw-away ]: {{user:crazybeer}}, {{user:Newsupdates}}, {{user:Newsreports}}, {{user:Webbchecker}}, {{user:Omanras}}, {{user:Americanchick}}, {{user:Kingstorm}}, {{user:Wikitester01}} {{user:Wikitester02}} {{user:Wikitester03}} Plus some IP accounts that are obviously the same editor . What to do? ] (]) 11:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
{{abot}}

Latest revision as of 23:12, 17 January 2025

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

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Open tasks

    Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166
    1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links
    XFD backlog
    V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
    CfD 0 0 3 29 32
    TfD 0 0 0 2 2
    MfD 0 0 0 11 11
    FfD 0 0 5 18 23
    RfD 0 0 3 48 51
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0


    Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

    The following is copied from User talk:Sander.v.Ginkel#Unblock_request on behalf of Sander.v.Ginkel:

    I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: User:SportsOlympic and User:MFriedman (note that the two other accounts –- User:Dilliedillie and User:Vaintrain -- at Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Sander.v.Ginkel was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me.

    Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (User:Tamzin, User:Xoak, User:Ingenuity) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see User:SportsOlympic). I have created over 900 pages (see here), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance simple:Annie van de Blankevoort, simple:1928 Belgium–Netherlands women's athletics competition, simple:Julia Beelaerts van Blokland, simple:Esther Bekkers-Lopes Cardozo or the event simple:Water polo at the 1922 Women's Olympiad that is barely mentioned at the English 1922 Women's Olympiad. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see here and here when I forgot to log in.

    However, as I have learned from it, I will never use multiple accounts anymore and adding controversial content without doing a proper fact-check. I will always listen to users, be constructive and be friendly. I will make sure you will not regret giving me my account back. I would like to work under the account user:SportsOlympic.

    Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

    Support unbanning and unblocking per WP:SO. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Quoting my SPI comment in 2022:

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

      That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock, which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ECR violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support per above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
      Endorse one account proviso. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive#18 April 2024. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would Support with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of WP:LOUTSOCK. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they seem to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. The Kip 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. X (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. This has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, this has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. Fram (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support User seems to have recognized what he did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. JayCubby 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Weak Support, the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support. Completely support an unblock; see my comment here when his IP was blocked in April. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see clear evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like this may well be on notable competitions, but with content like On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club., and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the most recent en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Currently oppose; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ Lindsay 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Ahri Boy: Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
      He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "Next as working for magazines he also contributed to book"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      See . Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Come on – it's been nearly seven years since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      I think saying that I will never use multiple accounts anymore and that he wants to make constructive content would indicate that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. Ahri Boy (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      And he admits that he was too focused on quantity, rather than quality, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on mass-creating non-notable stubs. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to start over. Frank Anchor 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. KatoKungLee (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Fram and PMC. —Compassionate727  18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Question: Is SvG the same person as Slowking4? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by Dirk Beetstra. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose basically per JoelleJay, particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get WP:AUTOPATROLLED without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). FOARP (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since WP:NSPORT was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.
      Support. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Conditional support unblock (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use WP:AFC for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support I can't repeat what Beaniefan11 say enough: "Come on – it's been nearly seven years since the ban – why can't we give another chance? And he admits that he was too focused on quantity, rather than quality, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on mass-creating non-notable stubs." This should assuage any doubt in the mind of the reviewing administrator. Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose Claims of "It's been seven years!" fall on deaf ears when you find out he's been socking all along and as recently as a year ago. Fram and PMC have good points as well. Show some restraint and understanding of your block and WP:SO is yours. Buffs (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft

    I have not come across a situation like Draft:Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it.

    It is a draft article about a film that can not have an article, per WP:NFF. I think the idea is that there is some valuable content there and it would be a shame to delete it when it seems likely that the film will enter final animation and voice recording in the next year or so.

    The problem is that it is attracting the sort of speculative edits from IPs that we want to avoid. Both on the draft and the talk page.

    I became aware of this because there is a request at WP:RPPI to EC-protect the talk page. But it makes me think we should have some kind of protection for the draft too. But I can see arguments for weaker than ECP (speculation is just by IPs) and for stronger... like... why are people editing it anyway? Maybe there are reasons I am not aware of.

    Is anyone more familiar with how we got here? Anyone got any arguments for or against applying semi, EC or full protection to the draft and its talk page?

    Edit: Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF?

    Yaris678 (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    As far as I'm aware, articles on films are allowed so long as principal photography has occurred (principal animation in this case, I guess?). That has clearly happened for this film, even if they are having to scrap and re-write things. And notability is certainly not in question, so having an article is fully within the policy rules. If there are harmful edits happening, then semi-protection seems like a normal response. Silverseren 00:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    People say that on the draft's talk page every so often and get rebuffed. Maybe you can be more persuasive, but the general argument is the existing animation was created for "Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse" before it was split into two films and no "final animation" has begun on this film. Yaris678 (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Are they basing that claim on any reliable source as evidence? Since what exists in that draft currently with reliable sources clearly indicates work has started. Silverseren 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Hi. I'm the editor who has requested the protection for this draft. Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace. Final animation is different from standard reels being produced, which as sourced, is currently what this film has produced while no voice recording has occurred. It seems to still be very early in development, and much of the earlier work when this was the second part was reportedly scrapped (as sourced in the draft). I do not believe the mainspace viability ought to be discussed here as that is more for the draft. As for the protection request, it appears to be the same person making these disruptive comments which have become unnecessarily excessive and are detracting from the content of the draft itself. I requested protection (initially as ECP though semi works for the talk) because these comments have not benefitted any actual constructive progress and have largely ranged from the IPs attempting to enforce their own opinions about the delays and trying to remove sources they don't like, which has been ongoing since the end of October. As a draft, not many other editors are editing this, so it becomes quite unrelenting and tiresome to deal with these repeated disruptions. Glad to see this has garnered more attention. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace ...I'm pretty sure that BtSV meets WP:GNG already, regardless of the state of production, and that should be the main factor. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have no problem with the draft being moved, this is just not the normal route to do so and typically NFF is followed for film articles, but I digress. I do caution that this article could be susceptible to further unconstructive comments in the mainspace, but that is a price I'm willing to handle. I can make the move as needed, no worries, I am primarily concerned about these type of comments continuing and if any protection is necessary to prevent or temporarily postpone them from continuing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    There doesn't appear to be enough disruption to the draft page to justify protection at this point. Draft talk definitely should get semi-protection. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Really? That seems excessive for a few FOURMy IP comments (likely from the same person). If they continue with it, block the IP, maybe. Protecting talk pages should really be a last resort. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Some people overly use NFF to block any film article that has not confirmed start to production, which is really a bad black/white approach. Most films prior to production are not notable or may not even happen when they are first hinted at, and thus it is absolutely appropriate to use NFF to hold back on a standalone until production starts. But then you have some exceptional cases like this (the 3rd of the animated Spider-Man movies that have earned a massive amount of money and praise, with a lot of attention already given to the film even before production) as well as my own experience with Akira (planned film) which deals with a film that has numerous delays and other incidents that its still nowhere close to production, but its journey that way is readily sourced. NFF should not be used to block creation of articles on films that have this much detail about the work that is otherwise suitable by notability guidelines. For this specific article on the Spider-man film, I see no reason why it could not be in main space at this point as to avoid the whole draft problem. — Masem (t) 05:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, there is a point to be made that even if this final film somehow never finished production, it would still be notable because of the coverage of its attempted production history. There's several films (and video games, among other cultural apocrypha) that meet that notability requirement, even without ever actually having been completed and released to the public. Silverseren 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Indeed, a number of aborted films projects are notable exactly because they wound up in development hell. Jodorowsky's Dune is a film about my personal favorite never-got-made film. El Beeblerino 02:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Noting here that Trailblazer101 moved the article from draft space to main space at 22:44, based on the discussion here and WP:GNG. I have not seen any objections to that move since it was done. I have not seen any more speculative or forumy edits recently. There is a good chance they will come back, but if they come back in a serious number the article and/or talk page can be given an appropriate level of protection at that point, or, if the responsible IPs/accounts can be blocked. I think it is probably time to close this discussion. Yaris678 (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    The IP has made three unconstructive and uncivil comments on the talk today (see this diff, and they show no signs of stopping. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have blocked that IP. I note that it is possible that some of the other IPs could be the same users and so will block other IPs and/or apply semi-protection if this continues (or encourage others to do the same if I am away from my computer). Yaris678 (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF? Using draftspace to incubate articles on subjects that are not yet notable but almost certainly will be—unreleased films, upcoming elections, sports events, the next in an "X by year" series, and so on—is a common practice and has been as long as I can remember. As such it's listed at WP:DRAFTREASON. – Joe (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    I think it makes sense to archive all threads in Talk:Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse. They are all either forumy or else asking when the page can be moved to article space, which is no longer relevant since it is in article space. Yaris678 (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    I've updated the archive bot on that talk age to act on 1 month old threads. Should get rid of half of the ones on there when it runs next and the rest will follow soon enough. I've always thought 6 months was way too long of a default archive policy. Silverseren 20:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah, I've always felt 90 days is sufficient for default archival purposes. If no one has contributed to a discussion in three months, it's a dead discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    43.249.196.179 (again)

    See their previous thread here, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1174#User:Augmented Seventh. Continuing to disrupt and remove categories without explanation, decided to gravedance on my page after restoring edits without any talk page discussion, and has now moved onto disrupting user sandboxes and user pages by removing categories without said user's permission, calling my reversions 'vindicitive' and now considering me their personal 'nemesis' because they don't understand why they're being reverted. Nate • (chatter) 21:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:MrSchimpf is not familiar with some of the WP policies and guidelines especially WP:UOWN and WP:CAT. Also, his obfuscated username is somewhat fustration and is not conducive to efficient editing. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Special:Diff/1266485663: Editing user pages has no 'hard policy' prohibition, as this is a wiki. 'End of discussion', seriously? Also see WP:NOBAN. Then, Category:Wikipedians is a container category, which clearly says it should only contain subcategories. Even I don't understand why they're being reverted. -- zzuuzz 22:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    User:MrSchimpf seems to be unaware of many of the WP polices and guidelines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've been here nineteen years so obviously I do and I apologize if as mentioned I'm more aggressive about userspace being in control of the user themselves. That said I'm no longer engaging with you or any of your edits as you're now refusing to drop the stick and trying to troll some kind of response out of me (and doing the same for Liz, who has the patience of a saint), which you won't get. Understand our guidelines or get blocked. If anyone uninvolved would like to close this, please do so. Nate • (chatter) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Length of time on WP is not a measure of how familiar an editor is with policy and guidelines. Your previous comments show that you are unfamiliar with some of them, but to be fair, it is impossible to know all of them. There are a lot of editors that do not know a lot of the policies and guidelines. THere are content disputes and corrections and reverts happening all the time because of inexperienced editors.
    I am not trolling. I just want WP to be much better than it currently is. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Adressing that final point, I have made a proposal about Category:Wikipedians to either remove the container banner tag or give special sanction to empty user pages from that main category. Tule-hog (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Category:Wikipedians is at a level of the hierarchy that there should be nothing in it, which is why it is a container category. The contents of it have been added by editors who do not understand how WP works and do not realise that it is a container category. You proposal is not needed. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Comment: WP:USERNOCAT was cited in this edit (a sandbox used for drafting a larger edit needing discussion, where categories were copied along with the rest of the article's content). (Category:Wikipedians is mentioned explicitly in that guideline.) Tule-hog (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Whatever the case, user sandbox space is sacred and unless you have permission to edit there, you don't touch them, that's an unwritten rule. Mathglot certainly didn't appreciate it. That's the main issue here and if I was wrong on the cats so be it, but they should not be playing in sandboxes they shouldn't be in. Nate • (chatter) 02:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Just to clarify: I have no qualms about others making improvements to pages in my users space—which belong to the community and are not "mine"—as long as they are improvements. That said, IP's edits in my userspace look like vandalism to me. Mathglot (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    User namespace is not "sacred". And if there is an unwrittten rule then it is not a rule that needed to be adhered to. Also WP:BOLD. To be a good editor it is important to be familiar with policis and guidelines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    It was not a "gravedance". I was pointing out to you that other editors dont agree with you edits. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 09:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    I only just noticed this AN discussion, after placing this warning at User talk:43.249.196.179 about vandalizing a Draft template in my user space. Their edits seem somehow to be related to categories, but near as I can guess from their edit summary here, they also had some inscrutable complaint about me using my userspace as "social media". Maybe interested parties here will understand what they are talking about, because I certainly don't. As of this point, I cannot tell if they are well-meaning, but highly misinformed and uncomprehending, or if they are simply trolling everyone. I suspect the latter, but am willing to be proved wrong, especially if enceforth they stick to guidelines and talk things out, instead of ignoring advice given previously and edit-warring. Mathglot (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Okay, now I am sure: see this edit at my Talk page, quickly reverted by Remsense while I was in the process of reverting it. This is clearly intentional, malicious, vandalism, as well as retaliation. Therefore, I propose an indefinite block on 43.249.196.179 (talk · contribs) as it is a vandalism-only account. Mathglot (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    I haven't looked into this editor's edits but we don't indefinitely block IP editors as the IP account can easily be assigned to a different user. But they can receive longtime blocks on the order of months or years. Liz 04:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    You are looking at two different IP addresses. Getting things right is important. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Honestly, whether that was a Joe Job or not, your behavior is indistinguishable from trolling & deserves a block. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Incivility at Talk:Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243

    @Dreameditsbrooklyn and to a lesser extent @Aviationwikiflight have been bickering in the talk page for a while now, and the reply chains are so long that they go off my phone's screen. DEB in particular has been noticeably passive aggressive in their comments, such as these diffs at me, this diff at AWF, and this diff at User:Awdqmb. Is this actionable? guninvalid (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    This looks to me like it's covered by WP:ARBEE. Animal lover |666| 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have yet to dig through the very length discussions, but on the surface I can say that I'm glad to see it not turning into much of an edit war in the article itself, and remaining mostly on the talk page. Infact the only person who breached 2R's was someone you didn't mention, and interestingly was never warned, but I placed a soft warning on their talk page. As far as the specific diffs provided, I don't see anything in there which is all that problematic, unless you're deeply intrenched in the issue. I would proffer is that if someone says, in it's entirety I am stating a fact. and you take offence to that, then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days. TiggerJay (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    "...then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days". You're probably right about that. guninvalid (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    This seems entirely unnecessary. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Can you elaborate on which aspect of this you are referring to that you believe is unnecessary? TiggerJay (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @Guninvalid hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter how much someone has been involved in a discussion. If there's misconduct that's not clearly going to get resolved on its own (which I'm not confident saying either way here), then it's a public service, even a responsibility, for an editor to report it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Dreameditsbrooklyn you can see my initial assessment of the situation above. However, I will say uninvolved editors are welcome to bring valid concerns to ANI. It is often far more helpful when someone outside of the situation brings it up here as it ends up being far more neutral. I also would suggest that you might also be too involved right now and need to back away for a few days. The biggest reason is that I believe you read right past Animal lover's and my response which basically didn't find you doing anything wrong. I suggest that a cooling off period might be good for you as well. Not because you're currently doing anything wrong (because that conversation would look quite different), but rather that you're likely too invested in this topic right now to see rationally and objectively. TiggerJay (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    It was not my intent to ignore those assessments, and I understand what you've said as far as uninvolved editors raising such issues (real or perceived). Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also, as a note, this isn't ANI... - The Bushranger One ping only 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Infact I don't know why such a simple infobox change discussion will resulted in endless arguments. And it happened in mutiple pages, like this Voepass crash case, this Swiftair crash case, and now this Azerbaijan Airlines crash case there. And I'm afraid there would be other arguements in previous pages.
    But to be honest, I think I also have some responsibilities on this endless situation: I have known what to do to deal with such major changes, but I didn't really take any action. Awdqmb (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    The whole "Accident vs Crash" thing has been going on for a while now. It pretty much goes nowhere every time. DEB gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" should be avoided, AWF gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" is perfectly fine, and it all repeats with every new WP:AIRCRASH article. I just recommended on DEB's talk page that they try to seek a wider consensus to break this endless cycle, because I for one am tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again with no progress. - ZLEA T\ 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. Awdqmb (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to stop beating a dead horse and drop the terminology issue forever. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's less "unable to resolve" and more "Dreameditsbrooklyn argues that using 'accident' is original research because the sources use 'crash'" and I wish I was joking. Your modest proposal probably would get some kind of result though! - The Bushranger One ping only 08:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Infact I have already suggested to delete this controversial value on the talkpage of the template, since it have not much actural use to show, and mostly have the same contents with the "Summary" value. And ironically, it has showed the available value on the doc page, but the example they showed on simply violate it! But since then nobody really talk about it yet. Awdqmb (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    As someone who has consistently been on the side "accident is fine" of this argument (there really isn't an "accident/crash" binary here, just whether "accident" is original research), I think that's a bit extreme. I laid out a plan to seek wider consensus on DEB's talk page, which should hopefully help resolve the issue once and for all without the need for more drastic measures. - ZLEA T\ 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Respectfully, the descriptions aren't trivial. A "crash" describes what happened. An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability. An "incident" implies some sort of interaction or series of events. I have no specific dog in this fight and I don't believe I've voiced any significant opinion on the matter here or elsewhere, but such a description is not trivial when we are trying to be neutral in our descriptions. In this particular case, it very much appears that the act was deliberate and the airliner was acceptable collateral damage (in their opinion). At a minimum, it's disputed. As such, "accident" isn't appropriate as it is at least alleged to be a deliberate act or negligence. "Incident" or "crash" would be more neutral. If we say "accident" it implies no one should be blamed and fails WP:Neutral. Buffs (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    If only it were that simple (the context of aviation has been explicitly excluded from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and WT:AATF is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ZLEA T\ 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:MOS says: If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence.
    WP:AT, which follows MOS says: Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.
    The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because some editors disagree? I am honestly asking. I don't see a policy which overrules MOS here. Also, I'll hold off on any new discussions on this until things have concluded here and at the article talk page, where the same editor who started this discussion opened an RfC on the topic. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple WT:AATF articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ZLEA T\ 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because simple issues of phraseology don't need to "follow the sources", and insisting that they do is WP:WIKILAWYERING. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Others have rejected this as the venue to hold this debate, and I will too. I suggest you follow your own advice and drop the stick, at least for now. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability No, it does not. The International Civil Aviation Organization, which is somewhat of an authority on the matter, defines an 'aircraft accident' as Accident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft ..., in which: a) a person is fatally or seriously injured b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible. Notice what isn't there - anything about mistakes or culapbility. @Buffs: "Accident" is the official internationally recognized term for this sort of occurance, and is entirely neutral in use. Note that "incident" has a very specific term in aviation which is "an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation." @Dreameditsbrooklyn: I'd suggest you drop the stick and stop pushing this personal intrepretation. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? 50.224.79.68 (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    International Civil Aviation Organization. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research when in fact it is the correct terminology - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly incorrect terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but common useage in the context of aviation is to refer to any crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't WP:JARGON. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. 2600:1700:47F8:800F:0:0:0:1BF7 (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    It’s the very definition of the word jargon! No wonder people are finding you impossible to deal with. 108.169.132.163 (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Watch it. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    What is "an occurrence, other than an accident..." if "accident" includes "incidents"? Definition you're claiming here doesn't make a lot of sense. Buffs (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Incident includes accidents AND intentional acts. Buffs (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Not according to the ICAO definition, but this probably is something best not continued here I reckon. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I did not bring this up to WP:AN to litigate whether to use "crash" or "accident". If you would like to litigate that, I have started a RfC on the Talk page. I brought this here to ask the admins to discuss whether DEB's and AWF's behavior is worth pursuing administrator action. guninvalid (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Since you think this is an "utterly trivial terminology dispute" should I tag you in the RFC at WP:RS when I make it, or not? I don't wish to bother you if it's not important to you. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I know this discussion is about conduct, not about the disagreement which prompted it, but I'll note that the other user named here and who has not responded has since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries and has also since been accused of violating 3RR on the very entry which prompted this discussion. I've agreed to confine any further conversations to the talk page until a consensus is reached, wherever that may be. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    On the very entry for a completely different reason regarding the use of the Aviation Safety Network but I concede that whilst I was within the limits of 3RR, it probably shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place. ... since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries – The only changes made were either related to a change within the infobox to stay consistent with Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence as the occurrence type on the aforementioned article stated Airliner crash, or related to changes regarding short descriptions since they were changed to be phrased in a way that is not usually done. It's not like I removed every single mention of the word crash and replaced it with accident. But back to the main topic, I'm willing to drop the issue as long as it's not an problem to use accident in articles relating to aviation. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    Can we close this? The current discussion has next to nothing to do with the original issue and is best continued somewhere else. - ZLEA T\ 19:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Agreed. An admin got involved and simply continued off-topic discussion. guninvalid (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Topic ban appeal

    There is consensus against lifting the topic ban at this time. DesertInfo is advised to find areas where they are willing to edit to show a better history prior to revisiting the topic ban in the future. Star Mississippi 15:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Hello, I have a topic ban that is approaching one year old on "undiscussed moves, move discussions, deletion discussions, and racial issues broadly construed (including topics associated with the Confederate States of America)". I would like an opportunity to contribute to these topics again. I have been fairly inactive since then but I have edited a few articles without issue. Thank you. DesertInfo (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    I'll kick off by asking the standard two questions: (1) please explain in your own words why you were topic banned; (2) do you have anything to say to convince everyone those same issues won't occur again? WaggersTALK 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. DesertInfo (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. Liz 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Found it. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#Desertambition's hostile edit history. Tarlby 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you. That is helpful to have. Liz 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I support lifting the ban. DI's talk page makes for interesting reading, it shows quite a remarkable change in attitude over a period of a few years, and I believe that's genuine. WaggersTALK 08:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose lifting the topic ban I think being warned for making edits that violating a topic ban, then being almost completely inactive for six months, and then coming back and asking for it to be lifted and that passing sets a horrible example. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      It seemed like a good idea to step away from the site for a time. I was receptive to the warning, even though it was not from an admin, and stopped editing in that area entirely. These are the edits in question: I just forgot that I had to appeal the topic ban here first and haven't gotten around to it until now. It should be noted that the first edit merely restored a previous RFC that had been ignored and the last two were minor changes to articles that have since been restored.
      I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you WP:AGF and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. DesertInfo (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. CMD (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. DesertInfo (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --Yamla (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      I have made plenty of edits to articles like Caribbean Basin, List of current detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Venezuelan Caribbean, and List of archipelagos in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. DesertInfo (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose lifting the topic ban. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see User_talk:DesertInfo#Topic_ban for example). --Yamla (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose at this time I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. Beeblebrox 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects.
      I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did:
      This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. DesertInfo (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? CMD (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      I would like to participate in move and deletion discussions. I contributed a lot to List of renamed places in South Africa and I would like to update some place names through move requests. I haven't had issues in that area since 2022. DesertInfo (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment - I'd say "racial issues broadly construed" is actually pretty broad given how much of history/geography is touched by it. I'd also say they do appear to have made an effort to improve, though I'd still like to see more. FOARP (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose I want to see some real world effort working collaboratively somewhere else on wp, not just a six month gap waiting it, off wikipedia. There is no evidence here that there has been a change. scope_creep 08:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Andra Febrian report

    HiLux duck has been blocked, and no further action is needed here. Star Mississippi 15:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    "Andra Febrian" is disrupting many edits, I have seen many deleted edits by this user, and I would like to report the user for causing many edit wars. The edits unreasonably reverted by this user is very disruptive to me, as I only intend for useful contributions. The user has: - caused many edit wars
    - deleted citations along with deleting correct claims
    - not been cooperative (wikipedia's Editing policy) on many pages that good-intended edits have occurred on
    - not explained deletions of citations in a way that other users have been made upset.
    I request that the user is warned. HiLux duck — Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    First: the notice at the top of the page clearly says to place new sections at the bottom of the page, which I have now done for you. Second: you need to provide diffs for the edits you are complaining about. Third, you were supposed to notify Andra Febrian per the instructions at the top of the page. Another user has done so for you. - Donald Albury 00:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    @HiLux duck: please sign your comments using ~~~~, which will add a timestamp. Additionally, I reverted your edits to Peugeot 3008 and to Exeed because you are changing information in articles without citing reliable sources. You must cite sources when you add or change information in articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    HiLux duck just filed a new complaint at ANEW and made the exact same mistakes as they did here. I advised them to stop posting complaints on noticeboards until they can follow the instructions. Liz 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    FWIW, I have a feeling that HiLux Duck is a sockpuppet of MrDavr, but I am holding back until they give themselves enough rope to hang. Same obsession with defining overall lengths for various car classifications and edit warring at length over them.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm always impressed when editors can recall editing habits of editors that were blocked years ago. I guess I lack the longterm memory to keep track of sockpuppet habits. Liz 04:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Liz: MrDavr actually got under my skin at one point; otherwise I probably wouldn't have noticed. Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Looking into this  Looks like a duck to me (a HiLux WP:Duck?) because yeah, this is exactly the same editing pattern. Same username pattern as a number of MrDavr socks too (car names/variations thereof - Toyota Hilux). - The Bushranger One ping only 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    @The Bushranger - Quack quack? Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Most likely yes, I knew that the his editing patterns matched an old blocked user but didn't remember the name. Alawadhi3000 (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's also interesting to note that HiLux duck's user page claims they've been on Misplaced Pages since 2019, and having compared edits more extensively I've seen enough and gone ahead and blocked per WP:DUCK. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Mr.Choppers warning request

    This was (again) posted at the top instead of the bottom; it seems like it is not really a separate issue. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Mr.Choppers has not followed the WP:Civility rules because:
    - calling me a "nuisance" because of own bias supporting others in edit wars that have nothing to do with the user. (WP:Civility) (WP:Civility (second violation this user has performed))
    - responded fairly aggressively to another user (me) without me being aggressive back or starting this edit war
    - note that he also called me a "sockpuppet of a banned user" without reliable clarification, also biased on that
    - also note the user had not informed me and used aggression to support own claims.

    I would like to inform that this user has unnecessarily used aggression and claimed things not there. Kind regards, HiLux duck (talk) 2:29, 6 January 2025 (GMT+12)

    Missed this because it was at the top. Very unlikely to have merit and is moot now, given the block. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation of WP:NPA violation, unfounded vandalism allegation

    I have indefinitely blocked Uwappa per WP:NLT. Whilst the legal threat pointed out by multiple editors may be very vague, it certainly is designed to have a chilling effect, and Uwappa has confirmed this with this addition to the section. Quite apart from that, we have persistent edit-warring, meritless claims of vandalism against others, and there is a limit to which an editor who thinks all of this is a big joke can be allowed to waste everybody else's time. They can explain themselves in an unblock request if they so desire. Black Kite (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    repost from archive:

    The content disagreement behind this report is trivial in the overall scope of Misplaced Pages (although the articles affected are subject to WP:MEDRS), but the editor behaviour is not. My reason to bring this case to ANI is that user:Uwappa rejects some basic principles of the project: WP:BRD means that a bold edit may be reverted to the status quo ante and goes on to say don't restore your bold edit, don't make a different edit to this part of the page, don't engage in back-and-forth reverting, and don't start any of the larger dispute resolution processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement. Despite having been reminded about BRD after their first immediate counter-revert, they responded to the reversion to the sqa with another counter-revert and, after another editor reinstated the sqa, counter-reverted again. At no stage did they attempt to engage in BRD discussion. Both I and the other editor attempted to engage with them at their talk page: Uwappa characterises my explanation as a personal attack. On another page, Uwappa reverted an edit where I suppressed the questioned material template, declaring it "vandalism" in the edit summary. I recognise the rubric at BRD that says BRD is optional, but complying with Misplaced Pages:Editing policy § Talking and editing and Misplaced Pages:Edit war is mandatory but Uwappa has done neither.

    I consider my escalating this to ANI to be a failure of negotiating skill on my part but, while Uwappa refuses to engage, I am left with no choice. Allowing a few days for logic to intervene has not been fruitful. With great reluctance, because Uwappa has made valuable contributions, I have to ask that they be blocked until they acknowledge and commit to respect the principles that underlie BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN.

    Diffs: (all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 )

    ---

    As of 11:48 (UTC) on 30/12, the live version of the template is the one that has consensus support. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Well, Uwappa hasn't edited on the project in 12 hours so it's pretty sage to assume they haven't seen this complaint yet. I'd like to hear their response and whether or not they are willing to collaborate before passing any judgment. Very through presentation of the dispute, easy to follow, so thank you for that. Liz 20:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, that is why I felt it important to make clear that our time zones are very widely spaced, which makes collaboration difficult in the best of circumstances. When they do see it, I would expect they will take some time offline to polish their response before posting it – and consequently it is likely to be as long again before I respond. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Reposted above from archive, see User_talk:Uwappa#c-JMF-20250105190300-Uwappa-20250105161700

    JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page:

    You escaped sanction because there were too many more egregious cases in the pipeline and it is a first offence. ANI does not adjudicate on content disputes, only on behaviour and compliance with fundamental principles. The evidence against you was really unarguable; I have seen quite a few cases and I know how they play out: if it had reached a conclusion, you would have been blocked until you acknowledged that you had gotten carried away in the heat of the moment, that you understand and accept WP:EPTALK, WP:EW, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN, and that from now on you commit to respecting them. I strongly advise that you take the message anyway. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Mate, sorry I was late for the escalation party. End of the year was a madhouse here, both in business and with social activities.
    I was very happy you did escalate and will be happy to reply now that I have spare time available for WP. My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.
    Would you like me to repost your escalation? Uwappa (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I strongly advise that you read Misplaced Pages:No legal threats before you write another line. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    I am so sorry I was late to join this party. End of the year was a bit too hectic, did not leave much spare time for fun activities like WP.

    user:Liz What would you like me to do now? Uwappa (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    It was not clear on your talk page, and it's even less clear here since you did not repost your response to JMF's last line there. You do explicitly retract the apparent legal threat that was made? - The Bushranger One ping only 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I did not make a legal threat. Uwappa (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Uwappa: your reference to your "business legal team" could certainly be construed as a veiled one, at the very least. You are being asked to clarify by either confirming or retracting this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations. is either a legal threat or indistinguishable from one. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    No it is not a legal threat. It is about "WP rules and regulations", not about law.
    • To who would this be a threat?
    • Which law?
    • In which country?
    Uwappa (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Why would a legal department be involved? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    It certainly looks like a legal threat. M.Bitton (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Uwappa. Why would a legal department be involved? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Wow, I am glad you asked.
    • to have a bit of fun, take a break from the normal, pretty serious work. It will be like kids in a candy store.
    • It will be fun for me too. I can't wait to get going with this once the pandemonium calms down.
    • The accusation "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage" is utterly wrong.
    Uwappa (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not at all experienced in the legal world, but I don't think any professional legal team that you're paying money towards would ever be excited to save you from a website "like kids in a candy store". Tarlby 22:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Why would a legal department be excited about you being reported on Misplaced Pages unless you're planning to use them in some way? Tarlby 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I suspect, from context, that Uwappa was trying to suggest they would have assistance of a professional team in interrogating rules and regulations. But "I have the spend to wikilawyer this more than you can" isn't really all that much better than an outright legal threat. Between that and this edit what surprises me is that they're not blocked yet frankly. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


    and just to throw some more fuel on the bushfire, you have just accused me twice more of vandalism.03:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC), 08:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    • JMF above said you were in Australia and I had no reason to disbelieve him. If you aren't, it's irrelevant really, I was just pointing out that you may not edit for a few hours. No-one here is required to answer your questions, but I will; the point was that you invoked something that could be a legal threat My business legal department is pretty exited about it ... can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations. You say that isn't a legal threat, well fine, but you haven't explained what it was. Meanwhile, you're still edit-warring on the template and claiming that other's edits are vandalism, which they clearly aren't, which is why you can no longer edit it. Have I missed anything? Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Again, that was either a legal threat or actions indistinguishable from a legal threat in an attempt to cause a chilling effect. When called on it you have continually Wikilawyered instead of straight-up saying "no, that was not a legal threat and I am not involving any legal actions in this". So to make it very clear: you need to clearly state that or be blocked per WP:NLT. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    And just to add to the excitement, Uwappa has just repeated their allegation of vandalism against me and reverted to their preferred version of the template for the sixth time.16:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) (Their edit note adds 3rd time in 24 hours: are they boasting of a 3RR vio? Zefr undid their fourth attempt, I undid their fifth attempt, but possibly they misread the sequence.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    • Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous.

      An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.

      — WP:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule
      .
    • Suggestion: Add the following calculator to WP:3RR:

    3 is less than three. is equal to three. is more than three.

    • From WP:EW; Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring. Which this quite obviously does, especially as you've reverted twice whilst this report was ongoing. Frankly, you're quite fortunate it was only a partial block. Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    To admins, please WP:ABAN Uwappa from further work on the calculator template for the body roundness index and waist-to-height ratio, and from further editing and talk page input on those articles. Uwappa has done admirable extensive work, but the simple calculator is finished and sufficient as it is. Uwappa has created voluminous WP:TLDR/WP:WALLOFTEXT talk page discussions for articles with under 50 watchers and few talk page discussants; few editors would read through those long posts, and few are engaged.
    In recent edits on templates, Uwappa reverts changes to the basic template as "vandalism". No, what we're saying is "leave it alone, take a rest, and come back in a few years when more clinical research is completed." Zefr (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Kansascitt1225 ban appeal

    Appeal successful. There were some murmurings requesting a topic ban from Kansas, but nothing approaching consensus. Of course, Kansascitt1225 would be well-advised to be careful not to go back to the behaviors that led to a block in the first place. But in the meantime, welcome back. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    I am posting the following appeal on behalf of Kansascitt1225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki), who is considered banned by the community per WP:3X:

    (keeping it short for WP:TLDR) Hi Misplaced Pages community, it has been over 1 year since I edited on Misplaced Pages without evading my block or breaking community rules. I would like to be given another chance to edit. I realized that my blocking was due to my behavior of creating multiple accounts and using them on the same page and creating issues during a disagreement. I was younger then and am now able to communicate more effectively with others. I intend to respect community rules and not be disruptive to the community. I was upset years ago when I mentioned Kansas City’s urban decay and it was reverted as false and I improperly reacted in a disruptive way that violated the community rules. The mistake I made which caused the disruptive behavior was that I genuinely thought people were reverting my edits due to the racist past of this county and keeping out blacks and having a dislike for the county. I also thought suburbs always had more single family housing and less jobs than cities. In this part of the United States a suburb means something different than what it means in other parts of the world and is more of a political term for other municipalities which caught me off guard and wasn’t what I grew up thinking a suburb was. Some of these suburbs have lower single family housing rates and higher population density and this specific county has more jobs than the “major city” (referenced in previous unblock request if interested). This doesn’t excuse my behavior but shows why I was confused and I should have properly addressed it in the talk pages instead of edit warring or creating accounts. After my initial blocking, I made edits trying to improve the project thinking that would help my case when it actually does the opposite because I was bypassing my block which got me community banned to due the automatic 3 strikes rule. I have not since bypassed my block. I’m interested in car related things as well as cities and populations of the United States and want to improve these articles using good strong references. Thanks for reading. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    References

    1. https://slate.com/business/2015/05/urban-density-nearly-half-of-america-s-biggest-cities-look-like-giant-suburbs.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
    voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • (mildly involved) Support. I gave feedback on an earlier version of their ban appeal. This is five years since the initial block. Five years and many, many socks, and many, many arguments. But with no recent ban evasion and a commitment to communicate better, I think it's time to give a second chance. -- asilvering (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support per asilvering and WP:SO. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support. Five years is a long time. Willing to trust for a second chance.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Ideally I'd want to see some indication that they don't intend to right great wrongs as the issue seems to be rather ideological in nature and I don't see that addressed in the appeal. I also don't love the failure to understand a lot of issues around their block/conduct and their inability to effectively communicate on their talk page and on their unblock request from November. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      Would a topic ban from Kansas-related topics help? This was floated as a bare minimum two or so years ago. -- asilvering (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      I'm not that concerned by the RGW issue. Their communication on this appeal has been clear, they responded to my feedback regarding their unblock request, and they've indicated they'll not edit war and seek consensus for their edits. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five? In any event it's been a long time since they tried to evade. I'm leaning toward giving a second chance but I'd really like them to understand that walls of text are not a good way to communicate, that they need to post in paragraphs, and that Misplaced Pages is not a place for righting great wrongs. FOARP (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five? ssssshhh. -- asilvering (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      Response from KC:

      Yes I can write in paragraphs and list different ideas in separate paragraphs instead of a giant run on sentence.

      I wasn’t trying to right great wrongs but noticed the contrast of the definition of suburban on Misplaced Pages and these communities being described as suburban (meanwhile some of these suburbs verifiably having lower residential to job ratio than the city and also a higher overall population density with some suburbs gaining population during the day due to commuters coming into them). This is essentially why on my case page It says I feel as tho something had to be “fixed”. I thought my edits were being removed simply because people didn’t like this place or some of its past so I felt as tho I was simply being purposefully misled which caused me to not follow proper civility.

      I just wanted to clarify that these places weren’t only residential and were major employment areas that they sometimes have a lower percentage of single family homes. This to me was always the opposite of what suburban meant, atleast what I learned during grade school and what it says on Misplaced Pages. That’s where the confusion came from. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

      voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support Six years is a long time, and they have shown growth. I do not think what is actually happening here is righting great wrongs, instead they assumed bad faith and things went downhill from there. I think their concerns of Jackson county being THE central county of the metropolitan area (which Misplaced Pages deems urban) when you can see in the census reference here there are actually 6 central counties (which Misplaced Pages deems suburban) is reasonable. I researched it, but found the concerns are inconsistent with urban area page which provides the definition that An urban area is a human settlement with a high population density and an infrastructure of built environment. This is the core of a metropolitan statistical area in the United States, if it contains a population of more than 50,000. An urban area is the most urban area compared to its surroundings, even though its surroundings are quite dense. I hope this helps. Kenneth Kho (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
      I add that their concerns that suburban designation misleads people seem to have merit. It is not the suburban designation that misleads people though, but the definition of suburban itself on the suburban article seems to be misleading. I know this is not a place to discuss content, but discuss conduct. But some insight into content can help resolve problems. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    ftools is back!

    I am proud to announce that I have become the new maintainer of Fastily's ftools, which is live here. And yes, this includes the IP range calculator! JJPMaster (she/they) 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    👍 Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Note: DreamRimmer is now also a maintainer. JJPMaster (she/they) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    My congratulations/condolences. Buffs (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    So, will ftools be renamed or not? Congratulations. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


    Block appeal for User:Aman.kumar.goel

    UNBLOCK DENIED AKG has withdrawn the request. In any case, I see too many misgivings even on the "support" side to consider an unblock at this time. asilvering (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    I am bringing a somewhat unusual unblock request here for broader community input. Aman.kumar.goel has been blocked for more than a year for sockpuppetry (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Aman.kumar.goel/Archive). As you can see in the unblock request at User talk:Aman.kumar.goel#Unblock request, they have agreed to a one-account restriction as an unblock condition, and there is no CU-confirmed evidence of recent sockpuppetry. However, Ivanvector, who made that check, is skeptical and has declined to support an unblock. A topic ban from WP:ARBPIA and WP:ARBIPA were floated as additional possible conditions, but no agreement was reached, and Aman.kumar.goel has requested that their unblock request be considered by the wider community. Their statement is as follows:

    I was blocked for sockpuppetry. There was no doubt throughout the discussion over that. I have agreed to a one-account restriction. However, during the unblock request, a topic ban on me was proposed from Israel-Palestine (WP:ARBPIA) and also from Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (WP:ARBIPA). Though no proper evidence was provided to substantiate such proposals.
    While the proposal to topic ban me from WP:ARBPIA does not make any sense because I haven't even edited that area, I would nevertheless reject the proposed topic ban from WP:ARBIPA with explanation because in this area I have been significantly active.
    My edits on WP:ARBIPA were clearly net-positive, and they fixed the long-term problems that were otherwise overlooked for a long time. You can find the deletion of a number of non-notable pro-Hindutva articles, creation of SPIs of future LTAs, and multiple DYKs. That said, the idea to topic ban me achieves nothing good. Black Kite himself said "The edits aren't the issue here, it's socking in the IPA area that is.". However, for the offense of sockpuppetry, I have already agreed to one-account restriction and spent over 1 year blocked.
    Once unblocked, I would like to improve drafts such as Draft:Aeroin Spacetech and Draft:Omspace Rocket and Exploration. Looking forward to positive feedback. Aman Kumar Goel 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    asilvering (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    • Support as requested. The request is sincere. Having edited a fair amount of articles where I discovered this editor's edits, I found his edits thoroughly productive and that is absolutely uncommon in this area. Nxcrypto Message 01:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Aman.kumar.goel's explanation for the relationship with Editorkamran is we knew each other in real life, and we used the same internet and the same system sometime, and also helped each other at times with Misplaced Pages editing, but Ivanvector says the CU data indicates someone who had been carefully using two or probably more accounts for quite some time and going to lengths to obscure the connection, but made a mistake just one time that exposed them. I don't know who's right, but this is a CU block, so if Aman.kumar.goel stands by his answer, I'd be uncomfortable unblocking unless another CU has a different interpretation of what happened. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Extraordinary Writ, response from AKG copied over:

      Hope you will check my statement above where I explained, "However, upon reading further following the block, I realised that what I did was a violation of WP:SOCK because the use of both these accounts was prohibited by the policy, especially WP:SHARE and WP:MEAT." That means the CU finding does not really challenge my admission because I don't deny using multiple accounts. The only thing I happened to clarify was that the two accounts belonged to two different persons before they were used by the same person, which is me. That's why, in my unblock request (for WP:AN), I have also cited the edits of Editorkamran account as part of my edits into this area. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

      voorts (talk/contributions) 02:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      All I know about this case is what I can glean by reading the private case notes, which do indeed support what Ivanvector has said. But given that AKG has admitted (on their talk page) to using the Editorkamran account, that's all kind of moot. I'd still like to hear Ivan's latest opinion on this, and I've also pinged off-wiki another CU who is familiar with this case, but my personal feeling is that we should draw a line in the sand and accept the unblock request with the single account restriction, no ARBPIA/IPA/API/TLA restriction, and an understanding that AKG's account at the bank of AGF is empty. RoySmith (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Oh, the other thing I wanted to mention is that on unblock requests, we're often left wondering what the user plans to work on if unblocked. In this case, they've specified two extant drafts they want to complete, both of which look like they have the potential to be useful articles. So that's a plus. RoySmith (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Am I the only one to feel that their earlier statements, even if they did mention WP:SHARE would not reasonably be understood to an admission that they did eventually user the Editorkamran account? Especially with all that comment about "we used the same internet and the same system sometime" etc? To my read the earlier statement gives the impression that they each account was only ever used by one person even if they did communicate and coordinate their editing at times. It's only most recently that I feel they've finally made it clear they it wasn't simply a matter of communication and coordination but rather that did use the other account directly. This also leads to the obvious question. How could any editor actually think it's okay for them to use some other editor's account just because it primarily belongs to another editor? Whether you consider it WP:SOCKing or whatever, you should not need any real experience to know it's unacceptable and definitely any editor with AKG's experience should know that. Note that I'm not suggesting that an editor who did what AKG did can never be unblocked, definitely they can be. But IMO there are good reasons to call into question whether the editor is ready for an unblock when they seem to have been so dishonest in their unblock request. In other words, if said something like 'yes I did X, I knew it was wrong and should not have done it, I promise not to do it again' rather than what they actually said, I'd be much more inclined to consider an unblock. Nil Einne (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      For what it's worth: I'm the other CU mentioned by Roy. I had run the initial checks and written some contemporaneous notes. I agree with Ivanvector's assessment at the talk page appeal; there was a concerted, long-term effort to obfuscate the connection between these accounts, which doesn't really fit with the assertion that they only realised they were doing something wrong after the fact. Whether a second individual also had access to either account at times can't really be retroactively assessed with any certainty, but it also seems immaterial to the finding of socking. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support with 1 account restriction. A prolific editor with no recurring issues. Understands where he was wrong. Capitals00 (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support: I have edited in South Asian-related topics and have run across some edits made by User:Aman.kumar.goel. Of these, I have seen several constructive edits made by him that have overall improved Misplaced Pages. Additionally, being blocked for one year is enough of a penance, which I'm sure has given him time to reflect. In view of this, I support his request in good faith. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 03:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support with one account restriction and no topic restriction. We need competent editors working in the India topic area, as long as they follow policies and guidelines. The editor should be aware that Misplaced Pages:One last chance applies here. Cullen328 (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose. I warned AKG in October 2021 for tag-team editing with Srijanx22, after many instances of one showing up to a content dispute the other was in to back them up. AKG didn't understand then what the issue was. He didn't understand it when he was blocked for socking with Editorkamran. He doesn't seem to understand it now. The semantics of sockpuppetry vs. "just" meatpuppetry are uncompelling. We indeed need more competent editors in the India topic area. We are not going to get closer to that by letting in someone who has shown willingness to serially manipulate interactions in that topic area, who managed to evade detection for years, who continued doing so after a first warning, and whose explanation is, apparently, unpersuasive to CUs who have reviewed the evidence. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 06:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      It has been sufficiently confirmed throughout these years that the false allegation of tag teaming was indeed false. Do you see me in any of the events that have been mentioned so far in this unblock request? You don't. It is disappointing to see you bringing up your misleading observation you made when you weren't even an admin. You did not even ping me. Oh, and don't ask me how I got here because I watch this noticeboard and have edited it before.Srijanx22 (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I'm glad that you heeded my warning and stopped tag-teaming with AKG. AKG, however, continued to manipulate consensus in the topic area, which is what he got indeffed for. I didn't ping you because I'm not making any comment on your fitness as an editor; I just wanted to be clear that that 2021 report was separate from the Editorkamran case. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 08:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      To quote what I had said then, "I am comfortable with ignoring your 'warning' since it lacks policy backing." I said that because no tag teaming on my part ever happened in the first place and the time has proven me correct. I would reiterate that you are supposed to ping the editor whose behavior is being discussed. In this case, you had to. Srijanx22 (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Actually, the SPI makes it clear that there were multiple examples of you reverting to the same version as AKG in rapid succession, whether you were co-ordinating off-wiki with AKG or not. As well as those, I could add 2020–2021 China–India skirmishes on 1st December 2020 and 21st February 2021 and Violence against Christians in India on 19 April 2020. So please give it a rest with the denials and instead ensure that it doesn't happen in the future if AKG is unblocked. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      That's totally superficial. I have also edited both of these popular articles and so have many others I can count on my fingers. Capitals00 (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yes, but that's not the point; have you reverted to a version also reverted to by AKG within < 24h on multiple occasions? I suspect not. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support per NxCrypto and RoySmith. I don't see any issue with unblocking right away. The presence of this editor is a net-benefit for this area. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment If unblocked, I would like to see AKG stay away from arbitration enforcement. There were a number of times - I count at least nine times between 2020 and 2023 - that they opened cases here trying to get editors on the "opposing" side blocked, and I don't think continuing this is a good idea. I also note that they were very active at SPI cases involving other editors in ARBIPA, which is another sign of BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Black Kite (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      That, and the refusal to accept TBANs, gives me bad vibes.
      I also don't think that agreeing to use only one account is much of a concession, that's kind of a given, but I guess it's at least better than not agreeing to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yes, this is also my concern. I would have thought that we would expect an editor banned for socking in a CTOP to at least demonstrate their ability to collaborate well outside that CTOP before being allowed to edit it. I can understand the Support !votes above from other editors who generally edit from the same POV as AKG, but I'm still not thinking this is a brilliant idea. Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      What is that "same POV as AKG"? It is certainly not their fault that you are assuming bad faith. Capitals00 (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I don't need to AGF when the evidence is quite plain, as with the editor I mentioned above where I pointed out their tag-teaming issues. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose. This user edits via proxy with IPBE, and the breadth and depth of the deception shown at that SPI is considerable. Now they're back with a semi-plausible explanation, and I don't buy it. And the one-account restriction is more challenging to police with a proxy/IPBE setup.—S Marshall T/C 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • If he has agreed to one account restriction and this socking episode makes him ineligible for any future IPBE right, so what's wrong in allowing him back in since he has already served a year of block? Unless you are suggesting we completely ban those who have engaged in sock puppetry altogether, which is unrealistic. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • What's wrong in allowing him back is everything Ivanvector says in that SPI. Please read it carefully and then re-read AKG's unblock request with a critical eye.—S Marshall T/C 12:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose. I would support unblocking with an ARBIPA topic ban (which could be appealed later when AKG has proved they can edit well outside that area). But since AKG will not accept that TBAN I can only Oppose at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support - The request is convincing and to-the-point. Those opposing are seemingly forgetting that it has been more than a year since this editor has been blocked. Azuredivay (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support per above without any topic ban. It is totally unreasonable to seek punishment over the same offense even after WP:SO has been sufficiently met. Lorstaking (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      It is not at all unusual for editors seeking an unblock to be required to accept a topic ban as a precondition to that unblock. Here are two are recent examples from this noticeboard. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Whilst I don't support the topic ban, it would not be done as punishment, but as a measure reducing the likelihood of further disruption. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Caeciliusinhorto-public not good to compare community banned editors with this case. Capitals00 (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support per Ivanvector: i.e. dependent on a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA and WP:ARBPIA and a single-account restriction. This will deal with the meat of the issue, while WP:ROPE should take care of the crust. SerialNumber54129 13:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose I find myself agreeing with Black Kite - if they are willing to come back with a topic ban that'd be one thing. Without it I'm concerned we'll just end up back at AN/I, SPI or AE again. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I will tentatively change my position to support provided it includes the topic ban. Simonm223 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose While I appreciate that brevity is required in unblock requests and people have different ways of writing stuff, as I noted above I feel the original unblock request was at a minimum intentionally evasive if not even misleading on whether Aman.kumar.goel had used the Editorkamran account directly. While they've now made it clear that they did so, the fact this only happened after editor questioned their story compared to the CU view makes me question whether it's because they didn't realise they were unclear or instead because they realised their evasiveness wasn't working. If they were evasive in their recent unblock request, this makes it very hard to trust Aman.kumar.goel. Further, even if Akg wasn't being evasive, it's very unclear why an editor with their experience didn't realise what they were doing was wrong until recently. I was originally willing to accept with a topic ban but frankly I'm now not even sure that's enough, but it's moot anyway. If this fails, I'd suggest on their next appeal Aman.kumar.goel ensures what they're telling us is clear from the get go. Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support without topic ban. Sockpuppetry was the sole concern for the indefinite block. There is no evidence of any disruptive edits, as such the idea of topic ban makes zero sense. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Black Kite. Any unblock that doesn't involve a restriction on AKG's original area of disruption will simply allow for further disruption. The Kip 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Not at all. Very recently, several editors editing this subject and socked were unblocked recently without any topic bans, including one more editor who was banned per 3x. Nxcrypto Message 16:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Nil Einne. Being "intentionally evasive if not even misleading" during this unblock request and previously makes it very hard for me to trust this user. I'm glad they owned up to their outright sockpuppetry with Editorkamran and had they done so from the beginning of the request, I'd have considered supporting the request, provided they accepted the topic ban(s) suggested (so as to increase the odds of their future success). --Yamla (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose unless an ARBIPA TBAN is applied. AKG's edits have not always been a positive: their approach to contentious matters has often been needlessly aggressive, and they haven't always been able to engage constructively with users and sources they disagree with. In that context sockpuppetry is more than "just" sockpuppetry. Some examples: , , , , , , and (These are discussions, not diffs, but I believe the context is needed to demonstrate the pattern I see). Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I would tentatively support with the TBAN they have now agreed to. I have no opinion on whether a PIA ban is needed: if they have edited in that area I haven't seen it. I was considering suggesting a ban from bring others to AE/AN/ANI, but perhaps some rope is appropriate there. In any case they should be aware that they are on thin ice. I would also note that under no circumstances should they be given IPBE in the foreseeable future. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) I'm sorry to vacillate like this, but based on comments by Ivanvector and Girth Summit I simply cannot support (NB: while I am a CU, I am obviously not acting as a CU in this case). Despite our past disagreements I had been willing to give AKG another chance, but that was based on the assumption that they were being fully forthcoming, and based on the comments of CUs familiar with this situation, it doesn't appear that they have come clean. Put me down as a neutral, I suppose, though I remain opposed absent a TBAN. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose: Per Vanamonde, Tamzin, and Black Kite. It's telling that they won't accept a TBAN from my point of view. They were disruptive prior to their block and, as much as I want to assume good faith, I feel strongly that their refusal signals their intent to immediate jump into said area. There's also the concern that they may end up chasing other editors away from the site if they continue their aggressive behaviour and approach, which frankly I expect based on the lengths they went to in the past and the TBAN issue. I think this user was a net negative, chased people away from those areas, and made it more difficult for others to get involved with. Unblocking this user would end up leading to editor time wasted and would be a further net negative. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Noting that I still oppose the unblock, even though they accepted the condition about a TBAN. I agree with Girth Summit that this seems to just be someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them. I also firmly believe that allowing them back onto the project will be a net negative. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment Aman.kumar.goel has requested this comment to be posted here from their talkpage:

    After seeing a number of editors, some of whom I respect, are supporting my unblock but only with a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA, I would like to accept the topic ban from the said area. Ping Yamla, The Kip, Black Kite, Caeciliusinhorto-public, Simonm223 and Vanamonde93. Thanks Aman Kumar Goel 17:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    - Ratnahastin (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Would they also consent to the WP:ARBPIA topic ban? Because my understanding is that the ask was for both. Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't believe the PIA issue is a problem, only the IPA one. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose an unblock based on this request. When I'm looking at an unblock request, I try to get a sense of whether someone is actually coming clean and saying 'I did this thing, I recognise that was out of order and I undertake that I won't do it again', or something along those lines. In this case, I don't see that. In their unblock request of 10 December 2024 (just a month ago), AKG seems still to be saying that they were not using multiple accounts - their argument seems to be that they accept there was a violation of WP:MEAT and WP:SHARE, but the two accounts were used by two different people from the same device. They have since swung round to acknowledging that they were in fact using the Editorkamram account, but are saying that they thought that was OK since the account really belonged to somebody else and they only used it from time to time. I'm afraid I simply don't believe that story, and I don't know what to think about their shifting narratives - I get the sense of someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them, changing their story when it becomes apparent that it's not working, and failing to actually come clean about what they did and why they did it. If I don't trust someone in what they are saying in their unblock appeal, I don't trust them to abide by a one-account restriction - so, yeah, I don't think we can accept this request. Do some self-reflection, come back in six months with a frank and believable unblock request. Girth Summit (blether) 18:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support. Seeing that AKG has agreed to the proposed IPA topic ban, the unblocking would be fine now. See no other issues. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support based on the comments from RoySmith and agree with their point that the AGF tank is gone for A.K.G. Any issues beyond a minor oops with their editing should be an immediate indef. No warnings, no "one last chance". That bridge was crossed, burned, torn down and barriers put up to block it from being rebuilt. Ravensfire (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    I hope A.K.G recognizes that is a last chance for them, and returning quickly to a contentious topic could be challenging for them to stay cool, engage in discussions but not disruption and that there will be enhanced scrutiny on their edits and willingness to take concerns to an admin board. They can't edit as they did before. Ravensfire (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose - I gave my reasons on the talk page; I don't trust this user. Ivanvector (/Edits) 20:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Also I should point out that I was not involved whatsoever in the checks that led to this block; my comments on the talk page refer to emails I remember reading a year earlier on the private checkuser mailing list, which does not archive. I did check in relation to their unblock request recently and in my opinion that check was inconclusive; I elaborated on their user talk at the time. The result gives me pause because they had been using multiple accounts and evading checkuser for quite a long time before being blocked, while editing in one of our longest-designated contentious topics, one that's known to be very badly impacted by sockpuppetry and state-sanctioned disinformation campaigns. I suggested a topic ban from India-Pakistan for reasons that I think are already obvious from previous comments in this thread, and from Israel-Palestine because of something I thought I read on their talk page about a dispute in that topic, but I can't find that now and so I have to say I was probably out of line to have suggested it. But on the whole, I do not support unblocking, even with the proposed restriction. Ivanvector (/Edits) 20:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Very, very weak support on unblocking here with a one-account and indefinite IPA topic ban restriction. I found my engagement with the editor at their talk page today to be somewhere between obstructionist and disingenuous — and from reading the comments above, others have got similar vibes from different comments earlier in this process regarding the sockpuppetry and willingness to accept a topic ban condition. As Ravensfire notes above, the assume good faith tank is just about empty here — which means any non-trivial lapse or return to suboptimal behaviours is going to end up with a pretty swift reblock. I am very sympathetic to the number of very experienced editors above saying that this editor is a time sink and a net negative, and while I don't necessarily disagree based on what I've seen at their talk page and the evidence presented here, I think it's worth trying here one more time — armed with account and topic ban restrictions, and a pretty clear sentiment from a number of admins commenting (both on the support and oppose sides) that any issues upon resuming editing will be handled swiftly. Daniel (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support, but only with IPA topic ban, 1-account restriction, no VPN use, and no IPBE. That should allow us to be able to detect recidivism and limit potential damage. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Black Kite, Tamzin, S Marshall, Girth Summit, and Ivanvector. Andre🚐 23:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose, agreeing with a number of editors above. I don't know if the two drafts, for Indian companies, would fall under WP:ARBIPA. Unfortunately, the editor does not seem trustworthy. Miniapolis 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support - At the end of the day, the standard offer has been followed by this user for a long time. Don't see anything wrong with providing one more chance. Dympies (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose per comments of Blablubbs, Tamzin, etc. If they are unblocked, they should be under an India--Pakistan CTOP topic ban. --JBL (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose. The CheckUser evidence of overt sock puppetry (not meat puppetry) is pretty strong, and the repeated denials, which seem to get walked back over time, make this user seem untrustworthy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support - Noting the opposes above, AKG has nevertheless agreed with a topic ban inline with many of the opposes. It shows he is willing to minimize any possible concerns and that is a good sign. Shankargb (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose calling socking the sole issue is a red herring when there was disruption in addition, but the socking alone merited the block so they didn't need to be blocked for both. I think accepting the t-ban is more telling us what he thinks we want to hear, vs. awareness of why AKG shouldn't edit there. I do not think an unblock would be productive. Star Mississippi 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Import request

    A list without citations or an indication that it meets WP:NLIST is not going to be imported here. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Can you import, List of characters in brawl stars from simple Misplaced Pages. I created the page there. — Cactus🌵 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    I suppose you mean this page, which you didn't create at all though, and which is completely unsuitable for enwiki as it stands, being unsourced and lacking all indication of notability. Fram (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Well, they did create the page. JJPMaster (she/they) 15:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Fram, oh, okay — Cactus🌵 09:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators

    The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

    The Arbitration Committee's procedures are amended by adding the following section:

    Coordinating arbitrators

    The Arbitration Committee shall, from time to time, designate one or more arbitrators to serve as the Committee's coordinating arbitrators.

    Coordinating arbitrators shall be responsible for assisting the Committee in the routine administration and organization of its mailing list and non-public work in a similar manner as the existing arbitration clerks assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work.

    The specific responsibilities of coordinating arbitrators shall include:

    • Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters;
    • Tracking the status of pending matters and providing regular updates and reminders on the status of the Committee's off-wiki work to arbitrators;
    • Reminding members of the Committee to vote or otherwise take action in pending matters;
    • Organizing related correspondence into case files; and
    • Performing similar routine administrative and clerical functions.

    A coordinating arbitrator may, but is not required to, state an intention to abstain on some or all matters before the Committee without being listed as an "inactive" arbitrator.

    For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators

    Backlog

    Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection/Increase Moxy🍁 19:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    Requesting review of SPI

    No need to have brought this here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    I recently filed an SPI for Xselant; any admin/checkuser eyes would be appreciated. Thank you! XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 22:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    CUs and SPI clerks are very aware of which SPIs need attention. Please trust that we will get to the one you posted. Asking for input at AN isn't very helpful unless your SPI is much more urgent than usual. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IPBE for AWB account

    DONE Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Hi. I'm performing a task using CanonNiAWB (talk · contribs), but the edits aren't editing since I'm using a VPN. I already have IP block exemptions on this account, so could it also be granted to that? Thanks. ''']''' (talk • contribs) 02:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks. ''']''' (talk • contribs) 02:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Content removal, POV pushing, edit warring

    Please use the existing thread rather than creating new ones. Star Mississippi 15:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    @Taha Danesh removing content and POV pushing here and is currently edit warring Montblamc1 (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    This looks like the same complaint as Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Report on Disputed Edits and Insults. Let's centralise discussion there. I note that Talk:Mohammed Ridha al-Sistani is also empty. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Tulsi (unblock request)

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

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

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

    Dear Sysops,

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

    Abner Louima

    Snow in the forecast. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    I can't believe this article's AfD is still up and not closed as a WP:SNOW keep. The nominator has acknowledged his mistake out of ignorance. He was in middle school when the subject first became notable, and never heard of him. If the media, or God forbid, Social Media, discovers this nomination, it will do great harm to the reputation of the Misplaced Pages community as being collectively ignorant or much, much worse. I used to be an administrator, and would have closed this as keep. Please do something! Bearian (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Anybody can close an AfD as SNOW keep. That's the whole point of SNOW. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Snowed by me. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you!!! Bearian (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request for Administrator Review of Repeatedly Declined Draft: Ario Nahavandi

    Spam, spam, glorious spam. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Dear Administrators,

    I am writing to request your assistance regarding my draft, Draft:Ario Nahavandi, which has been repeatedly declined over the past year despite my adherence to Misplaced Pages’s guidelines.

    Over the course of several months, I have worked diligently to gather reliable, published, and independent sources, including magazine articles and other credible publications, that meet Misplaced Pages’s notability criteria. My most recent submission was declined in less than an hour—a timeframe that strongly suggests it was not even reviewed carefully or thoroughly.

    This is particularly frustrating as I see numerous approved articles on Misplaced Pages that cite sources far less reliable or even completely broken. In contrast, my article contains verifiable references that adhere strictly to Misplaced Pages’s policies. This inconsistency feels unfair and raises concerns about bias in the review process.

    I have followed all guidelines in good faith and cannot accept decisions that appear to be based on personal opinion rather than policy. It feels as though my article is being subjected to an unjust standard, especially when compared to articles that seem to bypass scrutiny. I genuinely wonder if this process is influenced by factors beyond content quality, as I have no means to “pay” for an article to be published, unlike some others.

    I kindly request that an administrator reviews my draft with impartiality and provides clear, actionable feedback. Otherwise, I am truly exhausted by the repeated rejections and dismissals with no valid reasoning.

    To provide context, here are some of the sources I included:

    • https://www.nationaldiversityawards.co.uk/awards-2024/nominations/ario-nahavandi/

    • Taurus Magazine (2024-11-19). "Ario Nahavandi". Taurus Magazine. 88: 7 – via www.magcloud.com

    • 6x Magazine (2024-11-22). "Ario Nahavandi; The Persian Icon". 6X Magazine. 432: 6–7 – via www.magcloud.com

    Thank you for your time and consideration xx

    Lanak20 (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    Administrators cannot override draft declines, and in fact the administrator toolset cannot be used to force content decisions. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 23:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    So who can I turn to for help? If administrators cannot assist in overriding the draft declines, to whom can I escalate this issue? I am deeply concerned that my article has been repeatedly declined without proper consideration of the sources I’ve provided. These sources are reliable, published, and fully comply with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines, yet they continue to be dismissed without even being properly reviewed.
    It’s becoming clear that the rejection process isn’t being carried out fairly. I can’t help but feel that my article is being judged based on factors other than content quality, especially when I see articles approved with far less solid references.
    I understand that the review process is based on policy, but when it seems clear that my draft isn’t being given the attention it deserves, I need to know where I can seek help to ensure fairness.
    I kindly ask for your guidance—if administrators cannot intervene, who can I turn to for proper support in getting this article reviewed fairly?
    Thank you for your time. Lanak20 (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:TEA. This is where you appeal problems with submissions of drafts. You should read the WP:NPEOPLE and WP:BLP carefully. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Lanak20: I actually just went over your sources. They're all malformed at best and unusable at worst. What is your connexion to Nahavandi? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 00:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I've blocked the OP as a spam-advertising-only account. I should add that it's pretty obvious they've used other accounts to promote this person, I believe most recently as of last October.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist Edit Restriction Appeal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Copyvio Problem

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

    1 2 3

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

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

    Lardlegwarmers block appeal

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

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

    I blocked Lardlegwarmers yesterday for one week for a violation of their community topic ban from COVID-19. This was about this edit, although I subsequently noticed this one as well. LLW has asked me to copy their appeal here. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement from Lardlegwarmers

    I have only been very active editing Misplaced Pages for about one month, even though my account is older. I was blocked for pushing a minority POV in the talk page for Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory, which I understand. For context, this issue wouldn't have even come up at ANI except that there was this very old account making borderline uncivil comments constantly, and I took them to ANI myself and it boomeranged. One thing that I learned from that experience is that Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement, and that I am probably not going to be the one to fix it. Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed; my edits were in good faith and I was really just attempting to talk it out with the other editors who did not agree with me. But I understand that the norm in this space is to walk away if there isn't any uptake of my ideas or take it to dispute resolution instead of continuing to try to convince people. The current ban is for making a comment on an AE thread, not a Covid-19 article. I was on the page for a totally unrelated reason and noticed that a user I recognized from the Covid thread was being discussed. My comment was mostly about user behavior and reflecting on the underlying dispute itself, not Covid-19. Also, on my user page I quoted Larry Sanger discussing his view on Misplaced Pages's approach to Covid-19 , which I'd assumed was permitted because it's my own user page and it's really a comment about the state of Misplaced Pages as a whole. The admin who blocked me, @Tamzin, blanked it from my user page. If the community won't let me keep that quote on my user page, then fine, we'll leave it removed, but I wish they would have just asked me to remove it and described why instead of editing my user page. A block for this stuff seems harsh. Thanks.

    References

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

    Statement from Tamzin

    Excerpting my comment on their talkpage:

    Usually we only warn someone on their first topic ban violation. However, in your case, the fact that both violations occurred within hours of the ban being imposed, and that they were belligerent rants treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground, made me judge that a short block would more clearly communicate just how far you are from what is considered acceptable conduct. Even if you didn't understand that the ban applied outside articles, you should have understood that the community found your editing about COVID disruptive, which should have been reason enough to not make those edits.

    -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors

    • This is clearly a topic ban violation - and it came less than a day after it was imposed. Even if assuming in good faith that they didn't know it was a topic ban violation, their unblock request shows not only that they don't understand what they did wrong, but they attempt to justify it with statements such as Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed which is borderline a personal attack (veiled insult that others weren't being grownups); which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement which is confirming they still don't understand why they were topic banned nor why they were blocked for violating it; and quoting Larry Sanger's fringe theory promoting comments on their userpage after their topic ban. To summarize, I have no confidence that the user understands what they did wrong, and I would go so far as to say the user attempting to skirt the edges of their topic ban and supporting another user trying to promote fringe theories on Misplaced Pages merits an indefinite community ban. TLDR: Oppose unblock and ultimately would support indefinite ban due to the flagrant violation, lack of understanding, and no belief that after the 7 days is up they will not go straight back to trying to right what they percieve as a great wrong. I won't be the one to propose that, however. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I don't see how an unblock is possible when Lardlegwarmers clearly still doesn't understand what a broadly construed topic ban means. To be clear, there's no need to ask the "community" whether you can keep your topic ban violation. The only hope for you to be able to obey it is if you are able to decide yourself, especially after you've been told by an admin. While we do try to educate instead of just blocking, the "community" isn't here to help you understand the limits of your topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Should clarify that despite what I said above, I'd weakly oppose extending the topic ban block to indefinite at this time. While I'm not hopeful Lardlegwarmers is going to be able to obey it given what they've said, I think it's fine to give them rope after the ban block expires and apply normal escalating blocks. Since we're already here, perhaps this will somehow help them understand that yes the community requires you to apply it broadly on anything to do with COVID-19 throughout Misplaced Pages. They should consider this very short rope though and notably the next time they feel they need to ask the community whether they're violating their topic ban when they are, it might be the last time. Nil Einne (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Sorry mixed up ban and block above twice, now fixed. Nil Einne (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose unblock as the user looks to have no intention of following Misplaced Pages guidelines with their request. It is only a week and will give a change to think about how to change. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose unblock. It truly takes some chutzpah to cite a Signpost piece authored by the admin who blocked you to support the proposition that you're being railroaded. Weak support for an indef because that's what Lardlegwarmers seems to be speedrunning. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose unblock. The topic ban was on the topic of COVID-19, broadly construed, not the topic of COVID-19 directly in articlespace. And the topic ban was violated, not just within less than a day, but within three hours of it being imposed. On top of that the unblock request could be a case study for WP:NOTTHEM. I won't call for an indef yet, but when the block expires Lardlegwarmers should bear in mind that any further violations of the topic ban will be their last. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • No unblock - Basically per Lardlegwarmers: they don't appear to understand why they've been blocked. An indefinite block seems very likely in this editor's future and we certainly should consider cutting out the middle-man and just skipping to it, but I'd like to give them at least some chance here to understand why they were blocked. FOARP (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose unblock - While I usually support giving editors WP:ROPE to demonstrate improvement, this case warrants a longer wait. The user acknowledges pushing a minority POV and failing to disengage per WP:DISPUTE norms, but their justification suggests a lack of understanding or acceptance of policies like WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NOTHERE. Their off-topic comment in an AE thread, despite knowing the sensitivity of such spaces, and the policy-violating content on their user page, further reflect ongoing disruption. I recommend they take time to reflect and gain a better grasp of Misplaced Pages's collaborative culture before requesting an unblock again. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 11:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose unblock. I agree that absent change from this user an indefinite block is likely. For their benefit, if you're the subject of a topic ban, broadly construed, about COVID-19, you need to be editing in an entirely different topic area. Think of something that you're interested in--television shows, football, English gardens, science fiction books? Take a week and think on it. Mackensen (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose unblock. What is there left to say? This conduct feels like appellant's purpose is use Misplaced Pages as a battleground and to soapbox their views rather than to build the encyclopedia-- to remake Misplaced Pages as they think it should be. My feeling is that a week won't be nearly enough. The railroad comment is appallingly full of not understanding that their conduct is not acceptable in a collaborative project. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      PS: What Tamzin said in her statement above. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Whilst I don't believe user will be able to change their approach, I feel an indef would be premature for now. We should give them a chance to mend their ways. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • An account that exists only to push a particular POV across several articles is topic banned, violates that topic ban immediately, and posts a battlegroundy unblock request that thoroughly misses the point. Whoever closes this should be considering indef, not an unblock. — Rhododendrites \\ 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Indeed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose unblock this specific response Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement is indicative of their viewpoints and why they're not ready to contribute. They continue, my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed. These demonstrate that they still do not get it, and rather project their self-perspective is that they are actually a victim of people who are abusing the rules against them. . I proffer that this is going to be a consistent problem until they acknowledge that they were violating policy. Zero indication that they know how to positively contribute, just perhaps a vague inference that they'll avoid getting in trouble -- because -- we'll I'm not entirely sure they've communicated what they will do differently, but rather simply say that a block for this stuff seems harsh. TiggerJay (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Notwithstanding the harsh situation I presented above, to be clear I oppose indef for now. A new user should have the opportunity to overcome early (while significant) setbacks, which is what TBANs are designed to encourage. I am encouraged by things like YFNS corrective behavior in a prior AN discussion, and can only be hopeful and AGF that might apply to LLW here. We need more passionate, subject matter experts, as contributors to this project, but they absolutely must contribute positively and following established PGs. TiggerJay (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose unblock and support an indef. I am pretty confident in saying that this is where we will be heading after this block ends. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose unblock, clear violations of the topic ban. Don't oppose indef, but I'd like to at least give him the chance to figure out exactly what we expect going forward. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support block, oppose unblock, oppose indef - this is a topic-banned newbie's first violation, in the heat of the moment after the restriction was imposed. Tamzin's block was the appropriate response. The unblock request is wholly inadequate, but jumping straight to indef for this sort of violation is a pretty extreme overreach. If they go back to violating their sanction after this block expires, then let's talk community ban, but they should be given the opportunity to edit constructively while respecting the restriction. Ivanvector (/Edits) 16:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose unblock, oppose indef...however... I am sympathetic to their point of view and their general "right" (we don't really have rights here on WP) to post their opinion on a subject, even one as contentious as COVID-19. I think the blanking of the user page is a step too far. We shouldn't be in the business of deleting negative opinions about Misplaced Pages; while the statement was in reference to COVID-19, it doesn't mention it within the claim and is more a critique of Misplaced Pages at large and mass media than its relation to COVID. I would let the statement on their user page stand/restore it. Larry Sanger's statement is not a fringe theory, it is a reasonable opinion. There were loads of statements/claims about COVID/its origin/mandates/treatment/vaccines that, despite their widespread implementations and presentation as "the science", later turned out to be misleading or untested conjecture (examples: no studies on masking effectiveness with a large population vs the coronavirus, 6 foot spacing, lying to the American public about wearing masks because health care professionals needed them more, lab leak theory, military connections to the Wuhan Institute, US funding of WI, etc). HOWEVER, civil discourse is essential. That means that discussions about COVID were fraught with battlegrounds and bludgeoning. As such, we have additional restrictions for COVID discussions and other contentious topics and LLW needs to follow them. LLW did not do so and has shown a consistent flaunting of these restrictions and a weeklong block is a reasonable start. In summary, the quote isn't unreasonable to leave on their user page (give them that latitude), but a weeklong block for the other behavior should stand. Buffs (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      They added two comments to their userpage. Both were critical of Misplaced Pages. One was also critical of Anthony Fauci and other aspects of the US government's COVID response. I removed the latter. It doesn't matter whether Sanger's opinion is fringe or not; what matters is that he was talking about COVID. I would be quite the hypocrite to remove something from someone's userpage just for criticizing Misplaced Pages, as I have a fair bit of that on my own userpage. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      There's some pretty big overlap there in criticism of Fauci and how it is handled on Misplaced Pages. Again, I don't feel THAT is a significant violation of COVID editing restrictions (beyond the fact that they did it despite such an editing restriction). Anyone can completely skip over it if they wish. @Tamzin: playing devil's advocate for a moment, what if I published the same thing on my user page? Would it be ok? Would it be ok if I posted it on LLW's user page (as long as LLW was ok with it, of course)? I realize we're getting in the weeds of a "what-if..." but if so, what's the substantive difference between me putting it on a user page and LLW doing the same? Buffs (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      If you posted it to your userpage, it would be fine (although not that constructive), because you are not topic-banned from COVID. If you posted it to their userpage, that would be WP:PROXYING for a banned editor, since I'd struggle to believe you have an independent reason to think that particular quote belongs on that particular page. If you really want to fight the removal from the userpage, feel free to create a subsection here, but I stand by the removal. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      I'm not fighting the removal per se. Just wondering where the boundaries are and if it's wise to have such a boundary. Buffs (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      The boundary is WP:TBAN. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 19:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Buffs: In the realm of hypothetical I would presume that if that quote had been on LLW user page for a long time, in a sea of content, pre-existing AN, then it might even still be up today. However, on the other hand, to post that after the TBAN was imposed is nothing other than what can be seen as abject defiance to the ban. But beyond that, it simply violates plain language of the ban, as it applies to all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, so I proffer that Tamzin is clearly in the right here. To your charged statement about if you were to post the same thing to your user page, prior to your statement here and presuming you were not under a TBAN, it would not be questioned one iota. However, as a response to this discussion, it could be construed (but not technically violating) the principles of WP:PROXYING and I would caution against it. Moreover, you reinstating it on LLW talk page would be a far closer in the proximity of violating PROXYING. TiggerJay (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      The fact that the comment only came after the topic ban is key here. I'm fairly sure I've seen several cases where there's something on an editor's user page which is covered by a topic ban but which no one has said or done anything about because it was there from before the topic ban. In fact I'm fairly sure I even remember a case where someone asked specifically if they could modify or remove something on their user page which related to their talk page which was technically under the topic ban (probably gensex). I think this was allowed especially since it related to their personal life rather than some comment on something, although they were told just this once is best. There might have even been a case where an editor wanted to do some more editing or formatting of something under their topic ban and was either denied or told only this once. IIRC, there was also an editor who was happy to be able to finally change someone on their userpage covered by their topic ban once it was lifted. A topic ban is a topic ban. I'd note that if someone makes an extremely constructive edit to an article that is not covered by WP:BANEX we still treat this as a topic ban violation, although it's something much more beneficial for the project than an editor being able to repost random ramblings about Misplaced Pages they want to share. Nil Einne (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose unblock, oppose indef - The topic ban violation was clear cut. Let's hope Lardlegwarmers will read a bit about how to avoid topic ban violations, or else indef block is not too far for them. Lorstaking (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose unblock, extend block indefinitely - Lardle should try to demonstrate good behavior on another wiki for six months before asking for a SO. Let's hope that this user should handle contentious topics carefully in the future. Ahri Boy (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose unblock but no reason to indef, a block has already been imposed. If the user continues to violate the TBAN, than a longer block might be warranted. JayCubby 02:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Comments from involved editors

    • Going to open a new subsection here since I've made comments to Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory two weeks ago. I wish I could say I was surprised that this ended in tears but that would be untrue (though I did have some hopes the comment a month ago indicating they were aware pro-fringe POV-pushing was sactionable was a signal they were intending to modify their behaviour). As bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez points out, making thinly veiled attacks is not exactly the type of thing looked favourably upon in an unblock request. Nor is making polemical statements on one's user page, whether within the scope of the ban or not, likely to convince the community of one's inclination and ability to be a productive editor. Lardlegwarmers, if you do really want to return to editing, especially if you want to appeal your topic ban in 6 months or a year, I would strongly advise reading Misplaced Pages:Guide to appealing blocks and following the advice there, especially WP:NOTTHEM. Complaining about Hob's conduct won't help you here, because the block (and it's a rather short one) and ban are about you, not Hob. Given your comment that apparently two wrongs make a right, I had hoped that you were already also considering your own behaviour, but I would like to make it very clear: taking the role of one of the "wrongs" to address someone else's "borderline uncivil" behaviour is not itself considered acceptable behaviour. Whether Hob crosses the line is on them, but what you do is entirely on you. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • As I was involved in the discussion to topic ban LLW I think I count as an involved editor. With that said I would discourage an early lifting of this block, which seems appropriate considering that LLW's response to the topic ban was to immediately violate the topic ban. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Also, perhaps LLW wasn't aware of this, but people who aren't uninvolved administrators aren't generally supposed to put comments into the "results" section of an AE filing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I was there.. Three thousand ye-- No. More like one, two days ago. I seriously believe Lard Leg Warmers is one of two situations: 1: WP:CIR and unable to understand the concepts of medical science as if they were a Facebook mother invested in "essential oils" and "holistic medicine" rather than trusting medical and scientific experts; 2: WP:NOTHERE and simply f**king with us for no good reason and leading us around, and around, and around, and around, and around the bend because they get a rise out of it. Either way, my advice: don't get led around the bend, advise indef block for either WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE. BarntToust 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    BarntToust, those kinds of personal assumptions about their character are unnecessary to this discussion. Instead of speculation on who they are elsewhere, let's just focus on their behavior on Misplaced Pages. Liz 06:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

    This seems like a question for WP:MOS, not WP:AN as it doesn't involve administrator actions. AN isn't a general Help forum for questions about editing. You could even try asking at the Teahouse or the Help Desk. Liz 19:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Reporting Administrator Abuse

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

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

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

    So there's two things here.
    • First, TopVat19sEver, you removed other users comments from a talk page (not allowed). A user voicing their opinion is not vandalism, not in the slightest. If you have a problem with what another user has said on the talkpage, rather than removing their comment (which is only allowed in very specific situations), you should bring it for discussion at an appropriate noticeboard, or preferably ask them to change their own comment.
    • Second, Acalamari, could you please refrain from calling people "Drumpf supporters" and casting aspersions on the reasons for nominating an article for deletion? While you're entitled to your opinions, that's borderline (at best) incivility, especially when you call them "delusional".
    If both users agree to accept what they did wrong here and move forward, I don't think any further action is necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ok, I'm newer to Misplaced Pages, I understand what you are saying, my train of thought was, "this comment looks like vandalism, vandalism on Misplaced Pages is removed, therefore remove". I didn't know that they don't do that for talk pages. Thank you my friend. TopVat19sEver (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Vandalism has a very specific definition on Misplaced Pages - see this page for more information on what is not vandalism. Merely calling people names and/or being uncivil, while against the rules, is not vandalism. There are proper processes for handling other rule violations (such as asking someone to edit their own comments, or asking a noticeboard for help) such as those, but they are decidedly not vandalism. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ok thank you for telling me TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Where are the diffs? M.Bitton (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Okay, I've looked into this. And...surprise surprise, TopVat19sEver was the one who origially removed Aclamari's !vote while the AfD was still open . Yes, about a day after the AfD was closed, Aclamari reverted this removal , which is technically "editing a closed AfD" but I would say they were entirely within their rights to revert a bad removal. And now, suddenly, today, two months later, as their first edit after having done that improper removal, TopVat19sEver goes back to the AfD and removes Aclamari's !vote again , which Aclamari - entirely rightfully - reverted , and then TopVat19sEver comes here to cry "admin abuse", when no administrative abilities were used at all in this whole mess. Could Aclamari have used more moderate language in their initial !vote? Yeah maybe, but it was no violation at all, and the only thing needed here is a WP:BOOMERANG or at least a {{trout}} for TopVat19sEver. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ban appeal from Rathfelder

    Rathfelder has submitted the following ban appeal on their talk page and asked me to copy it here:

    I realise that what I did was wrong - more wrong than I thought it was at the time. The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur. I accept that I was wrong to create sockpuppets and I apologise. I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that. I did that really because I was trying to defend the work I had done for the Socialist Health Association for the previous 20 years. I did a lot of edits on that page, but they were, until the last few, about the history of the organisation, mostly adding to its list of distinguished members - largely before I was involved with it, and mostly before I was born. They were not at all controversial. I was unfairly sacked and my opponents started using Misplaced Pages against me. The row got into the media. I accept that I should not have done that. I should have resisted the temptation to use Misplaced Pages in the dispute.
    I have spent 2 years working on Simple English and Wikimedia. I have not set up any sockpuppets or edited anything where I had conflicts. I plan to continue with Wikimedia, as there is plenty there to keep me busy, but I would like to be able, in particular, to add pictures to articles - now I have found my way round the enormous Wikimedia resource. I also sometimes come across articles in English wikipedia which need amendment.

    Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    • Conditional support - If there's been no socking during the ban. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Question during the January 2024 unblock request Rathfelder said they would be willing to accept a restriction on editing articles related to BLPs or healthcare orgs. Are they still willing to accept those edit restrictions if they are un-banned? Furthermore, in January 2024 there was, at the time, no evidence of any further socking. Can we confirm that good behaviour has continued? Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support They have been a very productive contributor at the Simple English Misplaced Pages, and it has definitely been long enough for the standard offer. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

    Requesting info

    Steve Quinn is trout trouted for bringing this to AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Hello. I have come across several image files and the U.S. Gov. PD licensing seems to be incorrect. Four of these images and possibly another one could be copyright violations - if I can figure out how to find this type of information on their websites. However, since I am unable to find that information at this moment, I am wondering which group of Misplaced Pages editors work on this sort of thing so that maybe I can get some help with this. I will post the files here for information purposes. Also, there may be more copyright violations by this particular editor who seems to have a propensity for downloading image files. Below are the files:

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

    Further comment: The above TN file - File:AppalachianTN.jpg - is covered by the TN.GOV "linking policy" and can be found here. So this Misplaced Pages image file is still not licensed appropriately, although I have no idea what the correct Misplaced Pages licensing would be.

    I will notify the editor who downloaded these files that I have opened a discussion here. Well, now that I have taken it this far, the editor in question is: Brian.S.W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). However, the above image files might be too stale to be considered for any action. I leave that up to the Admins. If you look on their talk page, they have previously been blocked for copyright violations. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    As you can see they've already been tagged for a deletion discussion yesterday, so there is no need to have a difference notice board also working on it. TiggerJay (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Category:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions Add topic