Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 11:12, 12 February 2006 view sourceCBDunkerson (talk | contribs)Administrators15,424 edits →[]: userifying templates is generally allowed, but there are different issues in this case← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 06:45, 17 January 2025 view source Liz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators768,797 edits →Comments from involved editors: Fixing signature
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}
			<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
	__TOC__
			|algo = old(7d)
	== Tasks ==
			|counter = 368
	<!-- Please add new sections to the bottom, not here. -->
			|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
			|maxarchivesize = 700K
			|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
			|minthreadstoarchive = 1
			|minthreadsleft = 0
			}}{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude><!--S
			{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
			|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
			|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive
			|format=%%i
			|age=48
			|index=no
			|numberstart=255
			|minkeepthreads= 4
			|maxarchsize= 700000
			}}
			--><!--
			----------------------------------------------------------
	<div style="padding: 0 0.5em; margin: 1em 0 0.25em 0.25em; border: 1px solid black; color: inherit; background-color: #ffe3e3; text-align: center;">
			New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
	The following ''']''' require the attention of one or more editors.
			----------------------------------------------------------
	<br>
	''], ], ] and ].''
	</div>
			--><noinclude>
	= General =
	<!-- Please add new sections to the bottom, not here. -->
			==Open tasks==
	== Blocking self-identified pedophiles ==
			<noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}}
			{{Administrators' noticeboard archives}}
	The userbox {{lt|User pedophile}} is a great way of identifying those users who consider themselves to be pedophiles. I plan on indefinitely blocking any user who includes this template. I've already blocked the only user to include this template, {{Vandal|Joeyramoney}}. Misplaced Pages has no obligation to permit deviants to edit. If a someone has sexual thoughts about children, keep it to yourself and stay off Misplaced Pages. I can't even imagine the PR nightmare that the Wikimedia Foundation would face if articles were being written by self-identified pedophiles. ] | ] 14:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
			{{Clear}}
			{{Admin tasks}}
	:I agree - '''children''' edit Misplaced Pages! We don't want Misplaced Pages to be the kind of place where things like happen. --] (]) 14:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
			__TOC__
			</noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove-->
	:Don't we already have at least one article that was written by self-identified pedophiles? --] 14:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Block on sight. No quarter. ] 14:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Is this some strange attempt to test the limits of the 'all are welcome regardless of their views' policy which is one of the fundamental aspects of Misplaced Pages? Or can you actually point to the section in the ] which justifies this? ] | ] 14:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::This is an application of common sense. There is universal condemnation of pedophiles (and rightly so). Allowing known pedophiles to edit could also endanger younger users. I'd support adding language to the blocking policy to formally justify the blocking of self-identified pedophiles. ] | ] 14:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Only three small problems with that.
	:::::#Allowing unknown pedophiles to edit (which we already do) is at least as dangerous as allowing known pedophiles to edit, and probably more so.
	:::::#Allowing pedophiles to edit at all is not dangerous. Or perhaps the missing apostrophe added by a pedophile will cause harm to your children?
	:::::#Having condemned pedophiles, will we next move onto terrorists? How about drug dealers? Islamic fundamentalists? Doctors who support euthanasia? ] a morality brigade. ] 20:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Surely the safety of young Wikipedians (from harm of the variety reported to have occured due to chatroom encounters) and Misplaced Pages's reputation as a safe for all website counts? --] (]) 14:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	::There aren't any private chat areas on Misplaced Pages, and we keep all edits. Have you considered the possibility that (a) people who include the template may not actually be paedophiles but just including it to inflame other people, (b) Misplaced Pages may have users who are paedophiles but don't want to include the template and identify themselves as such for fairly obvious reasons? If the problem is the template, then delete it. But Misplaced Pages does not ban people merely because they have committed crimes, not even if the crime was murder or treason. So I don't see that this blanket ban is justified. ] | ] 14:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::I'm thinking of the safety of the younger Wikipedians (as in the chatroom incidents), not the fact that a user is a criminal or not. I'm also thinking of Misplaced Pages's reputation - we don't want parents to forbid their children from editing when they see confessed paedophiles roaming about. --] (]) 15:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Note that Joeyramoney also indicates that he is a mutant, that his user page is BS, and that he is 16. Under the standard definition of the term he '''can't''' be a pedophile because he isn't an adult yet. Sex between minors is not typically considered 'pedophilia'. --] <big><sub>]</sub></big> <sup>]</sup> 14:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Even at 16, I think he'd put a little thought into putting a "pedophilia" template on his user page. If he placed it there in error or as a joke, he can explain this on his talk page. If it is a joke, it's about as funny as identifying oneself as a member of the KKK or a Nazi. ] | ] 15:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Do we automatically block self-identified KKK or Nazis? Anyway, blocking for use of a template seems pointless — in this case, it's almost certainly a joke, and the kind of pedophiles that are actually going to be stalking children aren't going to advertise their problem on the userpage. —] 15:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::If it is a joke, then the user should be unblocked, with a warning to use better judgement in the future. I'm sure it ''will'' be a rare occasion when someone identifies themself as a pedophile, but should that happen, that person will be blocked. If another admin believes that pedophiles should be editing, they may unblock and I won't reblock. I'm not going to wheel war over this, but I do think it's just common sense. ] | ] 15:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Funny, that analogy. Last I checked, people aren't blocked for being members of the KKK or being Nazis. Nor are they blocked for believing the Holocaust didn't happen, or being murderers, being rapists, being convicted fraudsters. They ''are'' blocked when they actually go and do something grossly inappropriate - like writing about how lynchings are a good way to keep the race pure, or how the Jewish conspiracy controls wikipedia, or threatening to hunt someone down and stab them - but, traditionally, we wait until they '''actually do that'''.
	:::And, on a more pragmatic note, as many people have noted - I really doubt hunkering by {{tl|User pedophile}} is going to be a productive way to actually find the people we might have to worry about... ] | ] | 15:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Yes, all those hideously deviant views he has expressed about, er, obscure songs by the Who. To the best of my knowledge, we already ''do'' have self-identified (by actual words, and everything) paedophiles on wikipedia; I'm sure I remember someone screaming about it before. If you feel so strongly about this issue, dealing with them would surely be more productive than blocking someone who seems to be playing with userboxes. ] | ] | 15:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Joeyramoney is a very silly boy <s>troll</s>, not a paedophile; <s>I've no objection to blocking him for the former. But </s>We don't block people for their sexual orientations. Condemnation of paedophile orientation (as opposed to activity) is certainly not something Misplaced Pages or its administrators should be engaging in. ]] 15:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::He's neither. He is a typical teenage boy... and while I found that a loathesome breed even when I was one I doubt it ought to be a blockable offense. --] <big><sub>]</sub></big> <sup>]</sup> 15:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::I'm glad consensus seems to indicate that blocking people for their beliefs is unacceptable. -- ] 15:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Pedophilia is a belief in the same way that hating all blacks is a belief. We don't want either here on Misplaced Pages. ] | ] 15:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Racist users are welcome on Misplaced Pages but they must leave their prejudices out of their article editing. Likewise any editor who edits an article to express the opinion that sex with children is good is liable to be blocked. But those who include the template are not doing that. Carbonite, I think you should lift your block as it seems to be against consensus. ] | ] 15:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::I will not lift it. As I stated above, I also won't reblock should another admin see fit to unblock. I will play no part in allowing pedophiles (or those identifying themselves as such) to edit Misplaced Pages. ] | ] 15:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:There was an article about pedophiles on Misplaced Pages a couple of months ago: "". Apparently, one of the leaders of the movement for "pedophile rights" has an account and edits pedophilia-related articles (], ]) to ensure that they are NPOV (as in, take into account the pedophiles' rights POV). It's a typical piece of sensational journalism, but it's interesting that no news agency picked up the story and ran with it. It was right around the whole Seigenthaler thing, so it's possible that story acted a smokescreen. Who knows what would happen if it were a slow news day and someone at CNN or ABC discovered this now. — ] 15:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	::BAOU/"OfficialWire" is run by the same guy behind ] - and ] - who would publish "WIKIPEDIANS EAT BABIES" if someone suggested it to him. Reading that article may give you some idea as to the veracity of his journalism... ] | ] | 15:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::We can't cower in the face of possible ignorant press reporting. The response to the Siegenthaler incident was not a complete ban on articles about living people, but a measured change about anons starting new articles. ] | ] 15:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:For those of the opinion that blocking pedophiles is wrong because it's blocking someone based on their belief, can anyone name another belief that is so universally condemned? ] | ] 15:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Holocaust denial. Don't think there's a snazzy userbox for it, but there's sure a lot of them on Misplaced Pages. ] | ] | 15:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Or canibalism perhaps? Homosexuality, not too long ago? We mention sex, while not too long ago, that was strictly taboo.
	:::Still, no matter what your personal feelings, or indeed, the personal feelings of everyone on the planet and in history, as long as an editor's feelings don't stand in the way of editing Misplaced Pages fairly, there is no problem. -- ] 15:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::I have to disagree with that. There's a fair percentage of people that could be classified as "holocaust deniers" to some extent. There are even occasional insinuations of denail by rather prominent people. Can you imagine a person in a powerful position even hinting or joking that they liked 8 year-old girls? ] | ] 15:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::], ], ], et cetera... and you miss the point. Once you get into saying 'unacceptable - ban on sight' you've got to deal with the people who say the same about homosexuality, inter-racial marriage, et cetera. These things were 'universally condemned' once too... and still reviled by many to this day. There was a time (centuries ago) when pedophilia was generally accepted. Views change. I'm not saying that pedophilia will (or should) become accepted again, but that it is inherently wrong to persecute people for their beliefs - no matter ''what'' those beliefs may be. And in ''this case'' the 'vile horrible monster' may simply have been implying that he likes to have sex with people his own age. --] <big><sub>]</sub></big> <sup>]</sup> 15:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::People who beleive in/practice ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], any religion you care to name, invading other nations, ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], drinking ], the ], ], ], ], etc, etc, etc, are or have all been villified and hounded to the same or greater extent by the majority of their society as peadophiles currently are. I am not aware of anyone who has been blocked for proclaiming support for any of these - as long as they do not violate NPOV or other Misplaced Pages policies. The same should be true about peadophilia - if we block paedophiles then we are violating the NPOV ourselves by proclaiming that one side is wrong. I will unblock anyone blocked soley for their beliefs. ] 15:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	Because real paedophiles that are intent on grooming on Misplaced Pages will really place a siren on their user page to indicate that they are indeed paedophiles. The template should be deleted, and while it ''might'' be worthwhile blocking people because they are paedophiles doing so on the basis of this template is crazy. ] ] 15:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	*I'm inclined to unblock. The kid's page is perhaps a good argument for banning non-encyclopedic userboxes, and maybe a good argument for banning 16-year-olds, and possibly a good argument for banning twits, but we really need to differentiate between banning people for who they are and banning people for what they do. Much as I loathe (for example) Holocaust deniers, until they start putting their crap on article pages, they're just people with stupid ideas. Since most teenagers are pedophiles by definition (since the law considers adolescents to be children), as already pointed out, he can't be one. So, if I were the sort of admin willing to unilaterally start block/unblock wars rather than discussing the issue, the kid would already have been (a) unblocked and (b) told in no uncertain terms his user page makes him have zero credibility and destroys any possible assumption of good faith. --]] 15:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	**Per the objections above, I have unblocked. For all we know, we could have a convicted murderer editing Misplaced Pages from jail, and I see no reason to object to that. If people are using WP to "pick up" children they deserve a ban; but if they're nonactive pedos, presently in jail, or people with a sick sense of humor that's not for us to deal with. ] 15:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I am worried by the wording "no obligation to permit deviants to edit". Am I going to be next to be blocked? ] - ] 15:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:: Probably it's like "no obligation" in the same way nobody has a "right" to edit Misplaced Pages/how all editors are welcome to edit at Jimbo's whim. --]]]] 16:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Don't worry Morwen. There will always be enough of us 'deviants' (so classified by some group or another for whatever reason) around that this kind of thing will never happen. Completely 'normal' people are so rare as to be the most deviant of all. :] --] <big><sub>]</sub></big> <sup>]</sup> 16:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	''Misplaced Pages has no obligation to permit deviants to edit. '' Agreed, and for this reason I am blocking you because your philosophy deviates from the norm on Misplaced Pages. --] ] 16:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:IMO, if these editors have not violated any of our policies, especially the cornerstones like ], ], etc. (and haven't preyed on minors like *gasp* me), they shouldn't be blocked. If they start pushing the child-sexing POV or coming on to minors, then give no quarter. But otherwise...well, it's not our problem if they get caught, right? (If Jimbo/the Foundation has decreed that these perverts go, then I'm all for it. But until then, there is no reason to block some people just for admitting they want to have sex with minors.) ] | ] 16:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I will lift, on request or when I notice, blocks on people that are unrelated to their edits or other valid rasons for keeping people off of Misplaced Pages. If someone is on death row for murder, and is somehow on the internet and is making good edits, then they may edit here. --] 17:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	Helloooooo, ]. We've had pedophiles on Misplaced Pages for over two years and nobody's gotten hurt. ], ] among others. We've also had a mailing list thread about this here: . I will work with Improv to unblock anyone who is being blocked for reasons unrelated to their contributions. ] <small>]</small> 17:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	I concur with Improv above. I have to add that whilst I find the block to have been made in good faith, I would ask that no-one issue a block on the basis of a user box displayed on a user page, but rather discuss the issue here first, for starters. Also, anyone with any concerns regarding someones paedophilic tendencies should ask themselves:
	*''Am I concerned enough to notify the police? If '''yes''', then don't issue a ban, contact the police, a ban may disturb a police investigation. If no, don't issue a block, your concerns are probably groundless; otherwise you would have notified the police.'' ] ] 17:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	**Well said. And in any case, bans are supposed to be reactive, based on blockable offenses? Beliefs aren't blockable offenses, so why assume guilty until proven innocent? Thoughts aren't inherently wrong, but actions can be. &#126;]]] 17:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:You know, I'm thinking now that it probably was wrong to block Joeyramoney merely for using that template - considering that it makes no difference, and Ashibaka's just proved that. Also, that block was not permitted by the ]. --] (]) 17:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	::* We have people of all ages editing, we do not want or need those who have an inclination or even pretension towards paedophilia. Those that state even in jest that this is their orientation should be banned permanently. Our talk pages may be public, but contact can lead to email contact and then God knows what. It's just not worth the risk. Ban them. ] | ] 17:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::*This is like discussing abortion, there are legitimate concerns both for and against. First thing, that template must go, the TfD seems to be going in that direction so far. Also, to address your concern Giano, if a user has such motives, using that template will be the last thing he'll do. The users you are worried about are impossible to identify; banning the users who do use the template are probaly the harmless users without intention to harm anyone. Many'll probably use it as a joke! --] (]) 17:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::OK. Calm down everyone. The user in question was just trolling. Even if he did put that box up there to be serious, we would not know if he just was attracted to children (of some young or very young age, who knows...) or if he also tries to trick them into getting into his grasp. Also note that attraction to younger aged people was tolerated long ago, so an ''attraction'' alone is not ''strictly'' immoral, like Nazism. Although a serious age difference and the possible connotations of such a template do disturb me greatly. I don't mind if a racist or a zoophile or a person who is attracted to girls edits articles constructively. As long as they do not actually try to do anything. And as someone pointed out, active Pedos will likely act like normal people until it is too late. I do consider the context of such templates to be questionable, and like most userbox templates that get people angry, it was just an inflamatory, uncontructive peice of garbage. Nevertheless, it does not warrant an indef. block. Let us at least hear the voice of all before stripping it away on sight just because we reject someone's ideas or invuluntary attractions (such as perhaps ]).''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 17:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	::*What I'm worried about is the . --] (]) 17:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Indeed. DO NOT DELETE. Obviously, if other admins challenge it, then it ''is not'' as Speedy. It looks like a well colored pretty little template; not bold red or inflammatory threats. It is TfDed yes? Then go there and vote delete, that is what I am going to do (as opposed to unilateral deletion ''after'' it was challenged).''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 18:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::Less than a generation ago homosexuals were persecuted in small towns because it was assumed they were after little boys - which was rubbish. So you cannot equate homosexuality and paedophilia - the paedophile is after children no question. If someone claims to be that way, even in jest, get rid of them. Fast. ] | ] 18:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::''No one'' is "equating" them...whatever that means. I am saying that "everyone HATES it" is a weak ''ad populum'' argument that sets a bad precedent here, if allowed as justification to indef. block.''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 18:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	Man, I sure am glad I live in such a wonderfully rational world where people who want to kill jews and blacks ''en masse'' are held in obviously higher regard than people who have sexual thoughts about children (i.e. doubleplusungood ]). <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 18:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Indeed...While agree with TfD'ing the template, I do not agree with over the top comparisons like "If it is a joke, it's about as funny as identifying oneself as a member of the KKK or a Nazi". Having an attraction is not the same as actually doing anything. I can not stress these points enough. It seems as if there is little sense of moral priority here: some of the comments here seem to suggest that people think that either you are a Pedo and the Nazis or good person. I see quite a gap between mass-murder and thoughts.''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 19:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:: Is there anything in the Misplaced Pages namespace regarding things like ]s? --]]]] 21:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	I now understand how deeply stupid (in the best of faith) ideas grow in the depths of Misplaced Pages: anyone with half a clue runs screaming in case their brain melts and falls out their head, and the stupid discussion grows feeding on itself. Anyone who thinks this template was put there as anything other than a vehicle for trolling and personal attacks has judgement too grossly defective (in the best of faith) to take seriously - ] 21:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Let's try ], please. Your comments on this issue have been condescending, inflammatory, and not at all helpful. <TT>] <SMALL>(] • ])</SMALL></TT> 23:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Could not have said it better. Thanks for deleting and creating blank. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 21:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	Doesn't this fall under WP:NOT, specifically the censorship for minors section? If anything identifiying themselves would allow us to atleast monitor their actions? If we ban them they will just come back, under anon IP, or another username. ] <sub>(] ])</sub> ] 22:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I created it because I thought it might be useful, not as a "vehicle for trolling and personal attacks." <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 21:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:: ... - ] 21:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Seconding DG's comments. But the idea of blocking people for using controversial templates is stupid. ] 21:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	And not allowed, please read ], this would not be a valid reason for blocking. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	: I don't know whether Carbonite was genuinely trolling for pedophiles, as he claims or simply trolling for gullible admininstrators. By the very nature of the troll, he was bound to find one or the other. --] 22:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	So, someone creates a stupid template. Then stupid people use the template. Then we get into this stupid discusion. So, I say we all go and do something less stupid. ].--] <sup><font color="#FC0FC0">]</font></sup> 22:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:That sounds like a good idea to me. <TT>] <SMALL>(] • ])</SMALL></TT> 23:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I am seriously going to lobby ] to allow us to block 0.0.0.0/0. Sometimes it would be a great deed to the encyclopedia. Think of all the sockpuppets, pagemove vandals, and other terrible people that have been located on that range. &mdash; ]]]] 22:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Concur. '''All''' of our bad and stupid edits come from within 0.0.0.0/0. This cannot be allowed to continue. Indeed, I think we would see a significant drop in server load if we were sensible enough to block this range - ] 22:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	::: But it would cause so many autoblocks! ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 22:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	::And we should stop ] from editing, as well. ] 22:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::That's already policy - ] 22:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::I would hate to see this turn into a witch hunt. I think the template was a bad joke, nothing more. I don't think it should be that big a deal. Unless a user actually shows signs, meaning actually being a pedophile, then he/she shouldn't be blocked. I think I misread something too. Above my comment here it says:
	::::''we should stop friends of gays from editing''
	::::and the response:
	::::''That's already policy''
	::::You are all making it sound like you want to block anyone who has an original thought in their head. I think unless someone's actually vandalizing, I don't think they should be blocked for thier beliefs. ] ] <sup>]</sup><sup>]</sup> 23:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::The imidately proceeding part of the conversation was a joke.] 23:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	As far as I am concerned, convicted paedophiles should be blocked on sight from editing Misplaced Pages. I believe in the rights of people irrespective of class, creed, orientation, gender, etc but morally I draw the line at criminal acts, and potentially criminal acts, involving the sexual exploitation of young people. Many Misplaced Pages users are themselves children. Many registered users are children. The claim that everything is above board and open is patent nonsense. Paedophiles groom children for exploitation. A paedophile here would have no difficulty in doing that. All they need to do is to target people they know are underage children here through dishonest friendships on talk pages, then use the private emails to make direct contact and use their status as a registered user, or even an admin, to gain the trust of the young user. We already have claims of users tracing private telephone numbers of other users. One user was subject to verbal abuse from someone who stalked them through tracing their whereabouts. In those cases both the victim and the stalker were adults. The idea of what could have happened if one of them was a child and one a paedohile who used Misplaced Pages to get in contact with them is too horrifying to contemplate. One such scandal if it happened and became public in the media or a court case would destroy's WP's reputation and lead to boycotts by schools, bans by parents, media condemnation, and a host of other problems.
	I'll be quite blunt: if I find a paedophile on Misplaced Pages who '''in any way''' abuses their position for sexual reasons with another user, I will block them indefinitely immediately and report them ''immediately'' to the police. IMHO paedophiles have no place on this encyclopaedia and should leave or be banned. Criminals who are child rapists don't belong on an encyclopaedia frequented by children. ]]\<sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 00:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I sincerely doubt you'll find ''any'' opposition to this. —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 01:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::I will happily oppose Jtdirl's comment. You can't be "convicted" of ]; that's nonsensical. You're making gross generalizations and generally equating all pedophiles with child molesters, which is a claim you'll have to back up with facts. ] <small>]</small> 01:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::I was referring specifically to the following statement, which I should have made clear: "I'll be quite blunt: if I find a paedophile on Misplaced Pages who in any way abuses their position for sexual reasons with another user, I will block them indefinitely immediately and report them immediately to the police." I absolutely agree with your statements. —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 01:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::Well, yeah, I agree with that too. If I saw anyone using the encyclopedia to make sexual advances I would probably give them {{tl|bv}}. ] <small>]</small> 01:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:We should not be blocking any user based solely on self-incriminating statements about themselves, particular statements that are tangential at best to their purpose here. If someone is luring children for illicit purposes on Misplaced Pages, that's quite a good reason to block them. If someone is adding highly POV information to articles about pedophilia, and refuse to stop, the dispute should be sent to the usual channels. However, if a pedophile, or even a convicted sex offender, decides to add content about ] or the ], why should we care about what they've done in the past? No preemptive blocking. ] 11:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	I suggest we also create {{tl|user murderer}} to identify individuals who are murderers. Then we can simply block on sight. &mdash; <small><sub>]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">]</span></sup> &bull; 2006-02-6 05:59</small>
	Or {{tl|user troll}}. ]
	===Ease of editing section break===
	Before I start I want to say that I've not bothered to read the entire discussion. I don't understand why a self-identified paedophile would be unable to edit an encyclopaedia or engage in a community. Since someone has already used the dubious term "deviant", I think it is important to distinguish firstly between child molesters/rapists and paedophiles. It is not against the law to be a paedophile (that is, having a sexual preference for minors), it is against the law to rape and sexually harass (the physical expression of paedophilia).
	Secondly, why is it sensible to block according to peoples' non-voluntary sexual preferences. As was said early on, we wouldn't block someone because they held racist views - we would block a user if they inserted racist POV into an article. Also, we have, and do have, plenty of users who are paedophiles and who edit Misplaced Pages but do not put a box on their user page. In the 1960s homosexuality, like paedophilia and bestiality, was considered a mental illness. Would it therefore have been justified to succumb to a sensational hysteria and block all homosexuals (being that deviants are unable to edit rationally)?
	Finally, I don't use userboxes myself. I don't personally elect to express myself through a combination of templates. Whether it is a good idea to have an infobox stating a sexual preference for minors is another issue. It is something that should be discussed by the community, not acted upon by those users who are undefiable and unquestionable. --] ] 19:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC) PS. I almost forgot to reiterate that there are no provisos in our blocking policy to allow such blockings.
	:Your statement is somewhat inflammatory, since many people believe pedophilia is not "involuntary" (in fact, many people even believe homosexuality is voluntary), but this doesn't change the thrust of the idea, that the ability of a user to contribute usefully to Misplaced Pages does not depend on their sexual preference, morality, or even past criminal history (not to equate this things with pedophilia). Hell, a while ago we heard of a project where inmates were contributing ''from prison'' as part of a rehabilitation program, and it was received quite positively! As long as their contributions are positive and they do not threaten other users, I think we should accept anyone. Also, we wouldn't necessarily block if a user inserted racist POV - eventually, maybe, but assuming the edits were in good faith we'd first go through the less drastic channels of revert, discussion, RFC, etc. ] 19:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	I see nothing against WP policy in blocking someone who posts a userbox like that because it's intrinsically disruptive. Same for a Holocaust denier, not because they have any particular belief, but because throwing up a user box with an assertion like that is disruptive. However, I'd suggest that any block be preceded by a warning to remove the userbox. ] 21:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	I think it is perfectly legitimate to block SIPs without adopting a specific policy. They are not good for Misplaced Pages. Block them. ] 02:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	I'm curious to the rationale of those who wish to ban an entire class of people (who haven't necessarily done anything wrong in wikipedia) to protect kids, but then claim we don't censor wikipedia for the protection of minors. (That isn't to say I'm fond of pedos, just playing devil's advocate... well I guess pedo's advocate, but I digress). -- ] 17:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	==Indefinite blocks==
	I have blocked ], ], and ] indefinitely for hate speech and inciting attacks on other users in regards to their statements on ] --] 22:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:What the hell? I looked at Giano's contribs already: and . Both advocate banning self-professed pedophiles from Misplaced Pages. That's the hate speech you're talking about? &mdash;] (]) 22:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	::]--] <sup><font color="#FC0FC0">]</font></sup> 22:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::This is a special, advanced form of satire, involving . 9.2 degree of difficulty, if that's satire. &mdash;] (]) 22:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::Er, yes, that's too much. I had assumed that he wouldn'thave done something quite so ridiculous.--] <sup><font color="#FC0FC0">]</font></sup> 23:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Replace "pedophile" with "homosexual", and would you still say it's not hate speech? Banning someone on the grounds of their beliefs or inclinations is not acceptable. Banning someone for their actions is. --] 22:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::I can't find hate speach on the list of things admins can block for. The block button is not a toy. Useing is without good reason is not acceptable.] 23:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	Unblocked. No call whatsoever for a community-imposed ban, particularly not without prior discussion. ] 22:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Yes, obviously. Carnildo gets a slap on the wrist for violating ].--] <sup><font color="#FC0FC0">]</font></sup> 22:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Aww that's it? &mdash; ]]]] 22:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	No. ] blocked Carnildo. I undid that one as well. Really, wheel warring is bad form. ]
	:User:The Land, please sign your comment using four tildes. In response to your comment, I have never wheel warred. My block of Carnildo (who I never met prior to a few minutes ago) was designed to give him a timeout and to prevent other users from being blocked indefinitely. ] 23:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Actually, blocking someone does ''not'' switch off their admin powers, including rollback and unblocking. That's why admins aren't supposed to unblock themselves - because they ''can'' unblock themselves - ] 23:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::IIRC a recent change in the code makes it so people who are blocked can't rollback, etc. The only thing I believe they still have access to is blocking/unblocking. You might want to ask Rob Church about it. (This was one of the changes that was necessary before we could go to polling on ] (requests for rollback privileges). —] • ] • ] 23:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	So, remember when I said we should be doing things that are less stupid, like, say, ]? Yeah.--] <sup><font color="#FC0FC0">]</font></sup> 23:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Noo...that's ''definately not'' what members of '''Misplaced Pages'''(R) would be doing! &mdash; ]]]] 23:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Carnildo also blocked several other editors along with El C, for publishing so called "hate speech". ] 23:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Carnildo: minus several thousand for kneejerk reaction and, sorry to say it, stupid call. El_C: minus several thousand for wheel warring. Community: minus several million for letting it become this way. ] (drop me a ]) 23:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Linuxbeak: minus <insert favored figure or ''a crapload of'' here> points for useless finger-waggling and undiscriminating hosing-down of the entire community. We need to get more specific here. For El C to block Carnildo to stop other good contributors from getting ''blocked'' indefinitely (sheesh!) for ''hate speech'' seems reasonable enough damage control to me. An RfC on Carnildo for misuse of admin tools would be ''better'', but the amount of time people have to spend on that kind of thing when they could have been editing the encyclopedia is a bit ridiculous. ] | ] 23:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC).
	::::Slap on the wrist for both users. RfA should ask questions like this-- "9. Would you violate WP:POINT if it were a really, really good point?" "10. Would you ignore all rules if you felt really strongly about something, even if other people disagreed?" ] <small>]</small> 23:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::(In fact, my own opinions aside, the latter is a really good question to ask RfA candidates and I will go add it to some of the open requests. ] <small>]</small> 23:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC))
	::::::*Carnildo is not fit to be an administrator he is clearly misguided or plain stupid. Its about time people woke up here and either trained these incompetents or got rid of them. ] | ] 23:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::*Hey hey woah woah calm down. &mdash; ]]]] 23:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	*What... the... hell...! ] 23:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:* I think I am going to go and unplug the servers now. &mdash; ]]]] 23:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	* Conclusion: Don't block users for identifying as pedophiles. Don't block users for saying that they support the blocking of users identifying as pedophiles. If this was trolling, it was artful trolling, but let's get back to editing that encyclopedia thing, eh? ] 23:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	*This is absurd. The handing out of indefinite blocks has gone ''way'' too far. The only way someone should ever be blocked indefinitely without going through Arbcom is if their only "contributions" consist of blatant vandalism. We're in danger of changing the ''de facto'' standard to anything that pisses off an administrator, unless you can get other administrators to defend you. Shame on Carnildo for pulling this nonsense, and shame on the others who have set the precedent for it. <TT>] <SMALL>(] • ])</SMALL></TT> 23:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	It would help if people took a pretty damn blatantly overboard admin a fraction more seriously. Go snigger up your sleeves somewhere else, Linuxbeak, in particular. It is plainly entirely unreasonable for Carnildo to have effected a single one of those blocks, and for someone, nay some people, to talk about it here is entirely reasonable. It's what the page is for. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	::I think everyone here needs to take two big, deep breaths and ]. Everyone, please mind ]. ] ] <sup>]</sup><sup>]</sup> 23:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Oh don't start with the patronising bluelinks ''already''. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::Knock it off, Splash. SWD316 has said the only thing here worth mentioning, so come off it. ] (drop me a ]) 00:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::I'm not at all endorsing this action, but how were these blocks more unreasonable than the block that spawned this whole incident? —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 00:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	So... we have blocks of two people (El C and Carbonite) who are admins and one person (Giano) who (IMHO) should be an admin, all for something that should have - at the very most - resulted in a minor ticking off and reversion. Carnildo's action - at best - can be seen as WP:POINT of a fairly extreme form requiring equal (if not greater) ticking off. Personally, it sounds like RFAr material. I don't agree with the initial blocking that led to this situation - people are entitled to their beliefs and inclinations, no matter how objectionable they may seem to us (actually carrying them out is, of course, another matter) - but the response from Carnildo was equally, if not more, inappropriate. ]...''<small><font color="#008822">]</font></small>'' 00:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:In ] defense, I agree that attacking pedophiles is as objectionable as attacking homosexuals, women, etc. Don't suggest they weren't using hate speech, because from several points of view, that is exactly what they were doing. -- ] 00:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::There is a difference though. Engaging in pedophilia is almost universally criminal in the modern world, whereas most sensible nations are tolerant of homosexuals and women. A better analogy would be attacking murders or rapists. Now, maybe pedophilia desires are not something they can control, and maybe we should be tolerant towards them, but someone that acts on those desires is often destructive and criminal in a way that your examples are not. ] 00:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Criminal, yes, objectionable, certainly. But under no circumstances is attacking an editor for his or her personal beliefs appropriate. I'm not saying ] was right in blocking these people without propor discussion, but I cannot believe that it is in the best interests of Misplaced Pages to discriminate against anyone. -- ] 00:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::] <-- Read this. It is impossible to "engage in pedophilia" because that doesn't mean anything. Equating pedophilia to child molestation is scaring people away from discussing a legitimate mental illness. ] <small>]</small> 00:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::I agree with Ec5618 on this one. Blocking those 3 users without proper discussion is objectionable. But attacks are not permitable by any means. At the most those 3 should have got was a warning to not make personal attacks, not indefinitly blocked. Discrimination against anyone is not acceptable. ] ] <sup>]</sup><sup>]</sup> 01:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	Indefinite blocks for 3 admins for some sort of hazy "hate speech"? This is completely unreasonable! ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Well, Giano isn't an admin, at least in the technical sense. But otherwise, yeah.--] <sup><font color="#FC0FC0">]</font></sup> 02:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	To me it seems clear that Carnildo is concerned about a very real risk which we have seen played out in many human societies: ] driven hysteria. It is unacceptable to block users who make quality edits and whos behavior is without question simply because of their beliefs or conditions. We already can, and must cope with POV content, so there is no risk in allowing well behaved deviants to edit, and no resulting need for us to pass a moral judgment on their condition be it homosexuality or whatnot, even if such a judgment would be easy to make and easy to justify. It is utterly unacceptable for anyone to abuse our fear of amoral and harmful people and our desire to protect our children to silence people they disagree with. At first I thought Carnildo's response was less than optimum, and that reasoned discussion would be better... But after seeing responses like , I have to agree with Carnildo's act. ] style attacks are a poison we can not tolerate, and must be stopped in any way necessary. So go ahead, El_C, call me a pedophile just because I don't support a paranoid witch hunt against pedophiles, it will only serve to justify Carnildo's action more. --] 02:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:RE: <code>So go ahead, El_C, call me a pedophile</code> &mdash; A less personalized tone would greatly benefit, GMaxwell's approach to civil discourse, I think. At any rate, my response has already been submitted '''', and that is all I will say on the subject at this time. ] 04:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Is there some special rule that says you must have the ? If so, I missed it. :) --] 04:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::That rhetorical device is not "special" (& otherwise extraordinary ''to me'') and remains at one's discretion as per ]. ] 04:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	Carnildo showed very poor judgement and lack of self-disipline, without so much as a Mea Culpa. Such actions cannot, nor should not, be tolerated in an admin. However disagreeable someone may be, they should never be indefinately blocked or banned for merely expressing their opinions.--] 04:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:But do you think it is correct for admins to block nondisruptive users purely due to their moral outrage? What about stiring up fear in Misplaced Pages users in attempt to accomplish the same? In my view that too is not to be tolerated. So what we're left with is mistakes made all around. But the worst of which, wheel warring and false accusations were made not by Carnildo but by those who oppose him. --] 04:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Here's a hypothetical to consider-What If, instead of pedophiles, the users in question advocated banning, Software pirates or Copyright violators, would you still consider Carnildo's actions justified? Fear of one witch hunt does not justify carrying out another.--] 05:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::I'd support banning people who user their userpages to advocate software piracy or anything else that would hurt the project, if they refuse to quit. But we must be sure that our actions are based on objectivity and not moral outrage. If someone values their ability to use wikipedia as a platform to advocate something over the goals of our project, then they are not our friends. --] 06:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::"I'd support banning people who user their userpages to advocate software piracy or anything else that would hurt the project" So would I. And that's what these pedophile userboxes are basically doing. The only difference-it is a moral hotbutton to most, not all. But irregadless, it is an ILLEGAL activity and could hurt the project. Moral issues aside, this should be the primary consideration.--] 11:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::If someone is using Misplaced Pages to violate copyright, or to pirate software, then I'm all in favor of blocking. Likewise, I'm all in favor of banning a pedophile for using Misplaced Pages to troll for children. These are all ''actions''. But banning someone for ''being'' something, whether it is a being a pedophile, or being a Muslim, or being a software pirate is not acceptable: these are things that someone ''is'', and have no direct effect on their contributions to Misplaced Pages. --] 07:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Yes, the only reason to perminately ban ANYONE is for their ACTIONS, not their opinions or their advocacy (which is what the pedophile user boxes amount to). I personally think pedophila is more of a choice than a sexual orientation. And advocating it, even if not acted upon it here, is not good for the project or the community. We can always find others willing to contribute who don't pose the same legal risks. Irregardless, your actions were clearly WRONG and show extreamly POOR JUDGEMENT. Do you acknowledge this?--] 11:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::Yes, I was wrong in blocking Giano. He did not present an immediate threat to the Misplaced Pages project or to other users. --] 18:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::No, you were wrong in all three cases. NONE of them did. The proper course of action now would be for you to offer an apology and your resignation.--] 11:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	::''None'' of these actions were acceptable. The whole sequence of events surrounding this ridiculous box are a disgrace. <TT>] <SMALL>(] • ])</SMALL></TT> 04:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::The blocks where so Horrendously out of policy, that such admins should be blocked or desysoped, this is just ridiculous.''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 04:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	Jimbo, you're still a loser. But look, haha, all the people follow you like lemmings off a cliff. Boy, is this debate sure headed downhill. ] 08:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	: Blocked indefinitely for being a block-evading sock. Shall we increase the block length to ]? ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 08:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:: Joeyramoney2 could be any old troll trying to stir up trouble, not necessarily the same person as Joeyramoney the first. ] ] 08:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Hey trolls...don't feed em (now where is that cute lil sign..:) I'm not part of the "Cult of Jimbo" here. I don't think his every word is some holy pronouncement. But in this case he did the right thing. Most of the time he does. As for the rest, well, I'm willing to cut the man some slack.--] 11:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	==Love and Sunshine on a rainy day==
	I've desysopped Carnildo for tonight, and leave it to the ArbCom to engage in careful thinking and discussion about what should be done in the longer term. In the meantime, no wheel warring please, and everyone please try to relax and let's write the encyclopedia, eh?
	This is a rather historic moment. I believe with some degree of certainty that I have never personally desysopped anyone. On a Sunday night, too.
	And a pedophile userbox prank? Please. David was right to speedy it as a blatant disruption. If people want to argue that we should have it, they can do so at their leisure. --] 01:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Sunday night? ... we should be watching the Super Bowl! ] <small>]</small> 01:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::I think it was half-time at 1:18 (UTC).&#160;— ]] 04:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I've just stumble across this whole discussion. Sometimes I'm thinking that this whole project would simply fall apart and/or explode without you Jimbo, so thank you very much for your existance. --]|] 01:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I'd say something has been happening in the last few days. I can't exactly put my finger on it, but I'd say the overall level of civility around here seems to have decreased sharply. I know correlation is not causation, but perhaps the sysops are a bit more stressed than usual due to the current events? --] 01:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::I Agree 100% that Carnildo should be desysopped, which for tonight, he has. I also agree that ] on WP has dropped fast. Admins lately have been leaving, wheel warring, and plain just being uncivil. All this is going to turn into is one big RFC. I HATE to disagree with Jimbo but a "pedophile userbox prank" is very possible. ] ] <sup>]</sup><sup>]</sup> 01:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::See my comments on ]. I fear that the Great Userbox War of 2006 will either turn Misplaced Pages into a closed community or destroy it entirely. I, for one, would not want to be a part of a community that found "This user thinks that the SNES was the last great game console" to be an unacceptable statement on my user page, just as I would not want to work for a company that told me I couldn't put pictures on my cubicle walls. (Companies in the tech field that try to do this kind of thing often ] with it.) <TT>] <SMALL>(] • ])</SMALL></TT> 02:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I assume Carnildo was desysopped primarily for indefinitely blocking three users without consensus. If so, perhaps Carbonite should also be temporarily desysopped for the that started this incident. ] - ] 02:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Correct link (I believe): —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 02:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::You're correct, of course. I have now corrected the link in my original post. However, you beat me to it with this post. I had been going through all the block logs to clear things up for myself, and I copied the wrong one. ] - ] 02:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	IMHO, we don't need an RFC about this. Both sides of recent debates about censorship, userboxes, etc. are understandable and don't need to escalate into wheel wars. What we do need is a resolution to the userbox debate specifically, because it is much too stressful. ] <small>]</small> 01:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	I think it all dates back to Kelly's mishandling of the userbox issue, along with Neo's behaviour over templates. Whatever about the rights and wrongs of the issues, their mishandling of the incidents created such a breakdown in community trust that everyone seems to mistrust everyone else. It had been unravelling before then but their actions led to a firestorm of anger that is still raging, except that it is now directed elsewhere. So issues that could have been handled (reasonably) calmly are now mired in mistrust and a fear that someone else is going to try to bulldoze something through. As the fiasco over the Mohammad cartoons shows in the Middle East shows, a small issue can ignite an underlying unhappiness, impacting far beyond the original issue. So instead of community trust, we seem to have a lot of "I'll do it to you before you do it to me". But I don't know how we stop it. As WP gets bigger it becomes less manageable, less governable and less of a small community. Organic societies like ours can go one of two ways: they can work or they can implode. WP could go either way. It needs management to avoid implosion, but the problem is that its lack of rules at the start means that some will see that management as controlling and react against it. (Examples: if we had had a policy on userboxes to start off with, we wouldn't have got into the mess that has resulted, leading to Kelly's unilateral mishandling of the situation, in turn producing a negative reaction. If we had from the start a cohesive strategy for photo use we wouldn't have all the bad feeling caused by poorly judged deletions.) It is a complex problem. I expect theses will be written in the future not merely on Misplaced Pages but with titles such as "WIKIPEDIA: THE ORGANIC EVOLUTION OF A COMMUNITY", "MANAGING DIVERSE COMMUNITIES: THE WIKIPEDIA EXPERIENCE" and "CENTRALISING POWER IN ORGANICALLY EVOLVING ORGANISATIONS: THE WIKIPEDIA EXAMPLE". And the stuff on this page on on for example paedophiles will be analysed in academic papers and books. (Maybe I should write one of my own on WP! lol. But only when I finish the two I am currently writing.) ]]\<sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 02:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	: Remove polemical things from Template: and Category: space, but let people subst: them first, and otherwise let users state rather inflamatory things on their user pages. That is, make it clear such things aren't officially endorsed, and they're discouraged from spreading, but that it's not censorship because people can say (almost) whatever they want on their user page. --] 02:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:: This isn't the proper place to discuss that, use ] (although I have given up on there because there are too many different opinions). I agree with Jtdirl that Misplaced Pages's community is becoming big enough to merit sociological studies; ] was a hundredth of this size when they started getting into debates about democracy and freedom of speech. In case you're interested, in the end deciding policies by vote became just too stressful and the God-Kings took back their powers. ] <small>]</small> 02:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::See ]. This isn't exactly ready to announce, but the gist is there. The proposal is essentially "put the userboxes into the user namespace and treat them like any other user page." --] (]) 02:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::Why not create a separate namespace (Userboxes:) for them? <TT>] <SMALL>(] • ])</SMALL></TT> 02:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Same problem as the current template space: we'd have to define rules for it, and nobody would be accountable for creating them. ] <small>]</small> 03:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	I wouldn't put too much of the blame just on Kelly. There are a number of long-timers who have taken the stance that their personal ideas of what is best for the encyclopedia are so important and urgent that there is no civil way to approach the issues. The rhetoric seems to be, "If I'm right, I don't have to be civil." And I think the community has somewhat unwittingly encouraged this behavior by making it pay off&mdash;the most expedient way to get attention for one's pet issue lately seems to be taking rash action that is bound to raise a ruckus. Allowing "]" to be misused in this way with impunity has helped this kind of culture take root. --] 02:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Yet another reason why it's time to take ] and flush it down the toilet. And to ''finally'' get a working de-sysopping procedure in place. <TT>] <SMALL>(] • ])</SMALL></TT> 02:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Neither ] nor ] is an overriding philosophy on Misplaced Pages, what ever the most extremest editors might wish. There is also, may I add, ], among many others. ] ] 02:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::: Okay, since we're doing novelty today, I'll put on my ruleslawyer hat. Ha! I bet you didn't know I had one!
	::: So actually Ignore All rules, if taken together with together with don't be a dick and neutral point of view, actually does a pretty good job of handeling the encyclopedia. There's no similar trifecta including process is important, at this point in time. ] 07:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::*Actually there is; ], ] and ]. Whilst process is important, the latter indicate reasons not to follow them; if an article is deleted through process but through process there isn't a snowball's hell in chance of it remaining deleted, one is simply making a ]. ] ] 11:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::: Could you give the example derivations for some of the other wikipedia guidelines, based on those three? ] 21:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::: Note that people here were ignoring all rules without the requisite common sense or duty to the encyclopedia, so they could in fact be punished for IARvio ;-). But wait for it! They also violated Don't be a dick. And forget NPOV, they weren't even anywhere NEAR the article namespace. In short, they broke all three rules in the trifecta, and thus should probably be blocked if not deadminned, which oh, by the way they were.
	::: Sooooo you folks were saying we should flush ''those'' rules through the toilet, and get some new ones that may or may not have a similar outcome? Hmmm, odd logic! ] 07:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::: Say someone comes along and says "I say Carnildo was not being a dick, but who disagree with him are and should be banned" (I don't think that, but regardless). How do we decide who is right? ] 08:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::: We can establish that somewhat objectively by checking diffs. ] 21:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::: But who makes the final decision? You talk about "deriving guidelines" from your three rules, but what do we do when two people derive things differently? Aren't rules necessary to codify how these conflicts will be dealt with? ] 00:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	Howdy! A quick related note, I've noticed that there has been frequent allusion to ] during this discussion. I'd like to propose a wikipedia namespace'd guideline for identifying and avoiding these brushfires in the future. I don't think it's necessarily a silver bullet, but I hope that it might be a useful tool. ] is where I've stored it for now, and I'd like some thoughts on the matter. I'm hoping it'll help, and hope to get some feedback on whether or not it's a dumb idea. Thanks! - ]</small> (]) 07:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	Oi... I leave for a month and wiki-admins descend into madness! I'm never leaving again...''']''' ]|] 07:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	==Final decision==
	The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the ] case. ] 01:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	I moved to this title from ] because that title seemed to be pushing a conclusion and not an encyclopedic topic. I don't know what to do and I don't want it to be forgotten in the sands of time. Can someone find the correct name for this? ] ] <sup>]</sup> 02:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I think that the memo should be merged into something. Perhaps with ]? &mdash; ]]]] 03:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Hmm, it's ''a'' Downing Street memo... but that article seems to refer to a specific one. That's not a bad idea though. ] ] <sup>]</sup> 04:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	==Super Bowl XL==
	Due to recent vandalism, can someone protect the pages ], ] and ]. ] ] <sup>]</sup><sup>]</sup> 04:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:They're all linked from the front page. Wasn't there some discussion recently where it was decided that such articles shouldn't be protected for more than a few minutes at a time, if at all? --] 07:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::That's what it says on ].--] 07:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::: Most vandals have been removed promptly, as per WP's front page policy (sry, no link at the moment) it should remain unprotected. Many anon users have been posting useful content, no point in blocking all to catch a few bad apples ] 08:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	==Desysoppings==
	After several hours of deliberations and discussions with a variety of people, including several ArbCom members, I have temporarily desysopped everyone who in any way was 'wheel warring' tonight over the stupid trolling template. The ArbCom will be considering the whole thing and handing out a more permanent ruling on the whole thing very soon.
	I am desirous that we have peace until morning. <small>&mdash;''The preceding ] comment was added by'' ] (]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) 06:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned2-->
	::* <span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • • • • )</span>
	::* <span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • • • • )</span>
	::* <span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • • • • )</span>
	::* <span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • • • • )</span>
	::* <span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • • • • )</span>
	:: For the . See and . -- ] ] 06:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Good move. Hopefully it doesn't escalate further after everyone's had some sleep. ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> 06:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:: Am I right in thinking that the issue of whether pedophiles should be blocked won't/cannot be decided by the ArbCom case? ArbCom can't end up establishing some sort of policy on blocking pedophiles if, for example, it considers the block of Joeyramoney made by Carbonite, right? (I'm a little afraid ArbCom might assume there's a consensus some way where there isn't one, which would be bad.) --]]]] 07:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::: I'm pretty sure the ArbCom is looking into issues of administrator conduct, not the actual pedophilia case. Either way, it is idle speculation on my part, and that's for the ArbCom to decide. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 07:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::I cannot at this time say whether or not we will be addressing the issue of admitted pedophiles editing Misplaced Pages. One excellent suggestion for a guideline we will be considering is "Don't put anything on your userpage that could bring the project into disrepute". ] 07:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I am not sure I see where El_C was wheel warring. ] 07:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:: I believe it was his block of ]. -- ] ] 07:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::You are correct - El C was included in the list of desysopped people because he blocked Carnildo shortly after Carnildo blocked him (which, on its face, is an abuse of admin powers). ] 07:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::Your , Misplaced Pages. ] 07:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::Note: El C has with an edit summary that indicates he's leaving/on an indefinite wikibreak. ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> 07:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	Persuant to Jimbo's comment, I have started ]. Due to the nature of this case, I believe the arbitration committee will be giving this top priority, so anyone who wishes to participate would be well advised not to delay. ] 08:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	hmmm way not to handle things.] 09:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:What a mess. I don't know what to make of it at this stage. I'm just glad that this seems to be provoking some action on the wheel warring issues. ] 11:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Jimbo, you missed one. While 'temporarily desysopping' would be pointless in this case, you yourself were clearly 'wheel-warring' as well. If nothing else I think that shows how easy a trap it is to fall into and why discussion should generally take place before controversial admin actions. --] <big><sub>]</sub></big> <sup>]</sup> 11:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Looking at the logs you also gave David Gerard a pass, even though he was clearly 'wheel-warring' also. --] <big><sub>]</sub></big> <sup>]</sup> 12:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Yeah, what's up with the second bit? He's right there in the deletion log. ] <small>]</small> 12:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::I hereby declare that ] is not a sockpuppet of mine - ] 13:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::No, he's mine. ;-) ] (]) 14:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Firstly, Jimbo can't wheel war, because edict from him trumps all community process. Secondly: Ashibaka, I can see why you feel hard done-by, but would observe that all parties involved in this affair, including David Gerard (and me!), are being looked at by ArbCom: so there will be a fair hearing and one hopes a proportionate outcome for everybody. ] 12:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Edict from jimbo does not trump the community unless he can show he has board backing.] 13:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::In deference to your apparent intelligence, I shall assume that statement was intended as high comedy - ] 13:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::No as far as they exist this is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the foundation rules. Of course in this case the point is moot because there is not community consensus (that we know of) because people chose to slug it out with admin tools rather than waiting for consensus to form.] 13:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::I'd guess that he wins ''by default'' unless the rest of the board shows up and says otherwise. --] 13:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::That's true. And Jimbo technically still has the power to completely override the findings of ArbCom and everyone else to set his own ruling, though, as he himself as pointed out, he doesn't plan to do that at all. --]]]] 13:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Not really becuase that clearly doesn't apply to arbcom members. In reality the odds of the board going against a jimbo descision are so small they can be safely ignored.] 13:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	*With all the desysoping going on lately, wikipedia is going to need some new leadership, someone stronger, and less likely to bow down the demands of vandals, trolls, and POV pushers, less likely to create/provoke scandals--] 12:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:*Not that I'm suggesting that <i>I</i> should be nominated, but I certianly wouldn't turn it down if I was--] 12:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:: And out of the post-pedophile-wheel-war desolation, when all hope appeared lost, a hero emerged...] 13:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Since a significant percentage of our current problems can be traced to people not knowing when to walk away I think not.] 13:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::Are you suggesting that <i>'''I'''</i> don't know when to walk away?--] 21:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Well you did respond to that comment... "stronger, and less likely to bow down the demands of vandals, trolls, and POV pushers" does not strike me as the kind of person who would find it easy to walk away.] 22:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	..I just have to ask, WTF were these people thinking? How did they see this as the proper thing to do in this situation? --] <sub>.</sub> <small>o</small> º<sup> O (])</sup> 14:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:In so far as Karmafist's unblocking, I think he did the right thing. See ]. —] • ] • ] 14:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Well unblocking without agreement from the blocking admin usually is to be avoided, especially in a wheel-waring environment. However, I no longer agree with the 1 week block. The newbie in question was mainly adding good faith edits (albiet he has a short edit history), and the Pedofile thing was a joke as he was 16 (not a funny joke though). Also, people need realize that "pedophile", by definition, is not a inherently "rapists" just like heterosexuals are not inherent rapist of the opposite sex...Yes, the template could easily be interpreted to refer to "rape", but it at least deserved ''some'' minimal discussion, such as the TfD. I wish people would actually know the definitions of words they through around and start using to bash other people. People ''just love'' any excuse to bash criminals, most likely to fluff up their own ego while ignoring their own faults. If people put reason, common sense, and process over emotion and blind, incorrect, and uncivil statements...none of this would have happened. Jimbo appears to not even have researched the newbie's edit history. I acted to hastely earlier by supporting the block.''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 16:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::: <offtopic> Under-age sex is (generally) considered rape, even if 'consenting', because people under the age of consent are not (generally) considered capable of giving informed consent. Regards, ] 12:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	: While I don't agree with everything else in Voice of All's note, I agree that a one-week block is quite excessive. An otherwise decent new user who makes one stupid userbox should have been let off with a warning not to create sophomoric templates. He shouldn't be punished for the fact that admins weren't mature enough to handle the situation without wheel warring, multiple desysoppings, wikidepartures, et cetera. That reflects on us more so than on anything he did. ] 16:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	===Three-egg omelette and an auto-desysopping protest===
	All the three indefinitely blocked "miscreants" ], ], and ] are now taking wikibreaks. :-( The de-sysopping of El C is most unfair IMO. If that's what he gets for being a great admin and indefatiguable peacemaker on contentious pages, I won't be using my own admin buttons either (until his are restored). ] | ] 14:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC).
	:Bishonen, is there something I missed? What I see is that El C blocked Carnildo after Carnildo blocked El C, which looks like a blatant abuse to me. If I missed something, Jimbo probably did too.. --] <sub>.</sub> <small>o</small> º<sup> O (])</sup> 15:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Though Carnildo did infef block for no reason. How in hell's bathroom did he become an admin in the first place?''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 15:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Good. Maybe the rest of us can discuss this calmly now. There is no need for emotive language. -- ] 16:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::Carnildo is the true villian of the peace here. I call upon him to do the right thing and resign as admin. The rest, if they have not already, should be reinstated.--] 11:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I repeat, there is no need for emotive language. Grammatically correct language would be nice though. -- ] 12:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	::ElC and Karmafist are outstanding admins. Carnildo, on the other hand, clearly lacks good judgement and temperment. It would save Arbcomm a LOT of trouble if he simply admitted this and resigned. Or don't admit it and resign. I'm not being emotive...simply stating the facts from my perspective and what should be done about them. There's also no need for snide comments about grammar.--] 14:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	===My Reply To This===
	It's an unfortunate symptom of leaders these days, both with Dubya, and apparently with Jimbo... the ends justify the means. You've likely already seen the contribs, so I won't bother with that.
	The Pedophilia Userbox issue has shown just how dysfunctional, hotheaded and lawless our community has become.
	Here's what I saw...
	*Carbonite said he'd block any Pedophiles, basically just for being Pedophiles rather than any rule or guideline.
	The only person who fit this was {{User|Joeyramoney}}, who had less than 100 edits, making Carbonite a ]/] violator, putting Ashibaka in the right here, trying to stem a huge knee jerk reaction.
	*After being unblocked, Joeyramoney voted on the TFD regarding the userbox, in a fairly repentent tone, likely from a self ] after his treatment from Carbonite.
	*Jimbo, likely wanting to sweep this under the rug before any major media got wind of it, but forgetting that these things seem to happen just about once a month or so now (Kelly Martin, The No Ads Project, Wikipedians for Decency, Siegenthaler, Fair Use, etc.), ] and Wheel Warred to block Joeyramoney for a week, like Carbonite, violating ] and ], but that's no big deal since he's violated ] multiple times, despite the fact that he said it was a faux pas to do so.
	*Me, wanting desperately to believe that there is some rule of law on Misplaced Pages, unblocked Joeyramoney since he hadn't really done anything wrong other than being a silly teenager (which we have to AGF since that's what he says on his talk page) and wandering into this mine field.
	Like i've tried to say, at the top of my lungs, for the past several months, this is a ]. If we block people just for being pedophiles, a perception will arise that we are biased against them, and ], as well as any other related article will be seen as automatically POV by outsiders since the people "running" Misplaced Pages don't allow Pedophiles to add their side. Today it's Pedophilia, what will be next tomorrow?
	Hell, ] is about as POV as ] is on Encarta, if someone were to add a "criticisms" section, let me ask you, how quickly would that be reverted? Even if it was NPOV and properly referenced, I could almost guarantee you that given the current state of things here, an accolyte, if not Jimbo himself, would get rid of it almost immediately.
	====Where We Can Go From Here====
	I had hoped that the community would eventually address this, and it seems to be slowly creeping towards it, but there are two roads we can take from here.
	'''The High Road'''<br>
	Everyone, even Jimbo and the Arbcom, is bound by the laws of Misplaced Pages, because the laws are the only thing holding in place the ideals of Misplaced Pages -- an encyclopedic collection of all human knowledge.<br>
	'''The Low Road'''<br>
	Misplaced Pages becomes an ], and eventually, one of the people hurt by the autocracy will strike back, likely in a smear campaign(see ]), or in something even bigger. Remember, we've blocked all of the IPs of Congress before, and we are quickly becoming the top source of information on the internet, and we become discredited as an encyclopedic collection of human knowledge that fits a certain point of view that benefits the Wikimedia Foundation's public persona.
	It's up to you all to choose which way we go, I hope you take the high road, but if you do take the low road, i'll still be around welcoming people(at the current rate, I will hit 2000 around mid month)until that autocracy gets rid of me(likely with no real justification under rules and guidelines), sitting back and laughing at the next crisis to come down the pike, and likely being someone those who want to discredit Misplaced Pages will come to. I have a clear conscience either way, i've done nothing wrong. <font color="#4682B4">]</font><font color="#00FF00">]</font><font color="#E32636">]</font> 16:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	If we would all remember to avoid hysteria and take short breaks when angry, we could let things cool down instead of escalating. If I was the troll who'd created the template, I would be very pleased with myself seeing the uproar it has caused. "Slippery slope" arguments are almost always fallacious. ] is not edited by penguins, so why should it be desireable that ] is edited by pedophiles? That said, chill out, take breaks and help the community regain its balance and friendly atmosphere. ] <small>]</small> 18:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	*There is a strength to having a final arbiter of content and policy (that being Jimbo in this case), in that it means that at the top, instead of rules, there is common sense, and that can be used to put an end to people gaming the rules. We are fortunate to have someone who has proven to be both disinclined to get involved in every small dispute and has exercised overall good judgement when he does get involved. The system works because it is pretty open, and because we have had good people at the top (that being Arbcom, Bureaucrats, Jimbo, etc). Misplaced Pages has never been simply a democracy, nor has it been a pure autocracy -- it mixes elements of both. So long as one doesn't feel the need to be a purist about either, one can deal with the mess of a mixed system and find it to be pretty good at avoiding the faults of both. Jimbo has a lot tied up in Misplaced Pages, including time, reputation, and presumably finances. Given these things and that he's been around longer than almost anyone else here, I think we can learn to trust his judgement as to what's needed for the good of the project (even if it ruffles a few feathers in the meantime). --] 19:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	**Also... remember who ''started'' this damn project. It's his... Jimbo is in charge, and if you don't agree with his decisions, then you have the right to fork and/or the right to leave. Plain and simple. ] (drop me a ]) 22:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	Jimbo's status isn't revered because he founded Misplaced Pages; it's because he's taken a position of common sense on every issue presented to him, and thus made himself a good leader for the project. But even so, he is still human and can make mistakes, and people should be allowed to point out those mistakes. ] <small>]</small> 23:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Takeing a position of common sense is meaningless. It is takeing the right one that is important.] 01:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	::We're not doing maths here. There isn't always a "right" solution. --<span style="font-family:monospace">&nbsp;] </span>] 16:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::The one that causes the greatest good for the geatest number of articles for the greatest length of time.] 18:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::Like ] said, this isn't maths. Your "greatest good" is not remotely well-defined, and pretending that you can proceed from that as an axiom is dangerous. -]<sup>(])</sup> 18:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::It's better defined than "common sense" as it at least gives us a structure within which to frame our arguments.] 02:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	::The problem with a purely legalistic approach is that users cannot decide on the rules which are the most important. Further up the page we had one admin suggest ], ] and ] as the trifecta, another chose ], ] and ]. I'm left feeling old-fashioned: I always thought it was ], ] and ]. ] ] 05:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::You can get around this one by useing a varation of the falsificationist position.] 02:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	] has been around since last April and it's always been ], ] and ]. --] 06:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	== What is Desysopping & Wheel-Warring? ==
	In an effort to learn all I can about "revert warring" and all kinds of warring on Misplaced Pages to avoid it totally - what is Desysopping, and Wheel-Warring, may I ask?] 05:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	: De-sysopping is removing admin ("sysop") status from someone. ]ring is warring with abuse of admin powers (blocks, etc.).
	: (Shouldn't this be at the bottom?) --]]]] 05:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	==Mesh Computers==
	] was recently deleted after an ] and subsequently listed at ]. The closure of the debate was out of process, it had been relisted on the 4th of February, although the previous relisting was not removed and thus it was inadvertantly closed as delete the same day as the relisting. On that basis, per ] I have undeleted and closed the deletion review listing. Given the strength of the opinion during that a relisting at afd is unnecessary, I am uncertain whether to relist or not. I am minded not to relist, since the article is about a notable company, but am aware that is my point of view. Is a relisting of worth to the project, or would an expansion of the article be of more worth? ] ] 10:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:As the closing admin...]. ] | ] 11:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Do not relist. What came out in the DRV was sufficient to indicate that this article will easily survive any AfD. A re-listing would just be process for process's sake: a waste of everyone's time. Of course, if anyone, having read the evidence presented in the DRV, still thinks it should be deleted, they are free to knock themselves out at AfD. --] ] 11:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	*I wish to apologise to John; I am not criticising his closure, I appreciate how it came to be closed so early, and I should have made that fact more widely known in edit summaries and my posting here. I was merely trying to prevent the situation becoming even more unnecessarily bogged down in process. ] ] 11:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	**The article itself ''still'' looks like an deletion candidate, but god forbid we should use AfD as speedy clean-up... *looks innocent, whistles* - ]]] 11:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	***No it doesn't, Aaron; With the line ''MESH won over 90 industry and technical accolades in 2005. They won the Personal Computer Worlds best PC manafacturer in 2001.'' it passes ]. The award by a major computer magazine denotes press coverage. ] ] 11:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	****Not to put to fine a point on it, but it does say "multiple nontrivial". But this is really talk for the AfD. *wink* <br/> ]]] 14:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	Now that we're talking about this. This whole incident was because I didn't take out ] from the January 29 AFD log, and I did that because I had seen other admins leave them after using {{tl|relist}}. I then got yelled at for not taking it out, but if others are not doing it, can we make sure ''everyone'' starts doing it now? ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 22:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	=="—This user has left wikipedia" signature==
	I don't know if this is a problem or not, but it looks like ]'s signature has been changed to "—This user has left wikipedia," with no link to a user page, which makes the AfDs he or she voted on a bit confusing. See ] for an example. -- ] 11:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Achille used a signature template for the vote above (actually it is a doppleganger account being transcluded as a signature). At the time of the vote, a signature was there. Since then, the template has been changed and the user has announced leaving wiki. ] ] 13:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Yes, note that there are two similarly-named users, {{user|Achille}} and {{user|Αchille}}, the latter using Greek letter alpha instead of Latin letter A. As far as I can see, the one is a sockpuppet of the other, but I'm still confused. Either way, I agree using a template inclusion of a user page in a signature is a Bad Thing. — ] ] 13:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Achille has created multiple dopplegangers and many are properly labelled. This one is not, but has been edited by Achille. And transcluding signatures (not using subst:) is definitely bad idea. ] ] 13:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I suggest reverting the page used as the signature template, subst:ing it everywhere it's used, and reverting back to his latest version. --] 13:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::That may be easier said than done. He's been using it for a while including on many user talk pages. Maybe we should leave it reverted to the signature, post a notice on the talk page, and subst: where it is important to do so. Unless there is a bot that can do these subst:'s. Is there? ] ] 14:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::] (run by ]) does template subst:ing. ] 14:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::I left him a message. ] ] 14:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Sure, I'll get my bot to do it, but I assume we want to revert the sig back to something meaningful before subst'ing it? ] 16:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	MediaWiki ''should'' be forcing signatures to be substituted as part of the pre-save transform signature check. ] (]) 14:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	Achilles used to have a long commentary on the use of transclusion for his signature (I believe it was on ]) and it seemed to have been okayed. As for MediaWiki, it in fact ''prevents'' you from subst:ing signatures. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;] <sup>(])</sup> <small>]&nbsp;17:36]</small></i></span>
	: If this user has elected to withdraw from Misplaced Pages, and implicitly nullify contributions he'd previously signed, it's not really anyone else's business whether his contributions are difficult to attribute to him.
	: The man's gone, for chrissakes, and not because he found Misplaced Pages pleasant, from his perspective. Let's not add insult to subjective injury. <b><font color="000000">]</font></b><font color="#646060">drian</font><b> <font color="#000000">]</font></b><font color="#646060">amo </font><b><font color="#F660AB">·· </font></b>20:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Actually, for legal purposes it's rather important to properly attribute contributions. --] | ] 00:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::If that was true every article would bear the signature of each author. The GFDL does not require signatures. GFDL requirements are satisfied by the edit history. ~ PiXiE {{unsigned|198.22.121.110}}
	::::And GFDL is the only law in the world? --] | ] 07:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::No, it's not a law at all :) It's a copyright license, and it's the only one under which Misplaced Pages is licensed. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;] <sup>(])</sup> <small>]&nbsp;07:52]</small></i></span>
	::::::Come on, I meant law, not Law. Vernacular. --] | ] 18:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	Lol, I noticed the same thing and decided to take matters into my own hands, even prior to reading this discussion. ] is handling this as we speak. Note that I would not have reacted this way if he had had the courtesy to retain some form of username identification in his globalized "goodbye" message. &mdash; ''''']'' <small>(<span class="plainlinks"></span>)</small>''' <small>08:11, Feb. 8, 2006</small>
	== duration of adminship ==
	Why are admins appointed for life and not for, say, one or two years like the ArbCom? —'']'' 15:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:This has been discussed before, and generally dismissed because admins regularly take actions that would make other editors none-too-happy, even if such actions are good and in line with policy. As such, if admins are required to regularly re-apply for adminship, there aren't too many that would pass. --]]]] 15:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:: Makes sort of sense, though I doubt all the 3RR violating trolls would have that big of an impact on the votes? —'']'' 15:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::You'd be surprised. Another issue is that, with so many admins nowadays (I understand the number's nearly at 800 now?), we'd spend all our time reconfirming admins: RfA would be swamped with people who already have privileges. ] (]) 15:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::: Actually, assuming exponential growth of the number of admins, this would only increase the number of active RfAs by a constant factor. —'']'' 15:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::: <math>\lim_{x\to\infty} \left( \frac{z^x+\sum_{y=0}^{x-1} z^y }{z^x} \right) = \frac{z}{z-1}</math> when ''z'' > 1. —'']'' 16:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Unless you have a similar increase in the number of RfA voters and bureaucrats, it will leave RfA seriously understaffed, and in any case, RfA will still be swamped. --]]]] 16:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	Actually, a lot of other projects have that policy; Meta, for instance, requires confirmation every year. We don't because we haven't adopted it, but the community could at any time (but is unlikely to do so anytime soon). <font color=#696969>] <sup>] • ]</sup></font> 15:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	: True, I believe the Dutch Misplaced Pages does this as well. —'']'' 15:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	Inactive (=no edits in one year iirc) admins at commons are desysopped and have to request it again if/when they return. ] 15:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::I think that the problem with admins-for-life is more theoretical than practical. I don't know of any admins who are ''generally'' considered to be misusing their powers (as opposed to having pissed off a particular group of users). Those who might be considered clueless tend to be the newer, less-experienced ones, so term limits wouldn't help there. And anything we do can be undone by other admins. The recent hysteria over some ill-considered blocks could have been avoided if people had just taken 24 hours to wait for bad blocks to be undone rather than getting overexcited at someone having dared to block them. ]] 17:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	== New Template CSD ==
	The following has been added to ]:
	'':+ 1 Templates that are divisive and inflammatory.''
	This seems to have the support of Jimbo, see , although he cautions:
	''At least for a little bit, I advise everyone to chill about this. Let's take some time to reflect on this issue as a community. That means: don't make any crazy userboxes designed to try to trip this rule, and don't go on any sprees deleting ones that already exist.''
	''A thoughtful process of change is important. And whatever you do, do NOT wheel war about this.--] 07:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)'' .
	--] ] 17:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	A final decision has been published in this case.
	Benjamin Gatti is placed on probation for one year and on general probation indefinitely. Enforcement is by blocking. See the final decision for details.
	For the arbitration committee. --] 18:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	== ] and ] ==
	A quick glance at the userpages indicates this is the same person. Looking at contrib's, Fplay appears to be a bot (I'm no expert on identifying one). This may well be an interested person who didn't know what a sockpuppet is (or the extent to which they're frowned upon) and decided to set up a couple of accounts and I wouldn't normally care... But...
	Pinktulip ("the person" I've dealt with) is extremely troublesome. Not trolling (insofar as disruption doesn't appear to be the main goal) but a really bad pattern of talk posts. I've noticed (on ], God help us):
	* "Why do not just cry "rape" while you are at it? (sic)" amongst other things:
	* Rambling attack idiocy in general (don't know how else to describe it):
	So, click on his talk contributions (as I did having been put off on one talk page). It's a pile of conceited, assume-bad-faith crap. I don't know what to do with this editor. I'm hoping a truly disinterested third-party might offer to mentor. He obviously wants to edit articles but he appears absolutely unable to do so while dealing with others constructively. Cheers, ] 23:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I have to agree with Marskell. Pinktulip does some good writing, but can come across as hostile and belligerent on talk pages, to the point of causing disruption. I am not aware that he has misused his multiple accounts to violate policy. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Whilst not wanting to disagree too much with Marskell, who I firmly believe is some kind of superhero (he nommed me for RFA after all), I feel the need to poke my nose in. Whilst Pinktulip can be obstreporous, rambling, and too quick to refer to his own work elsewhere (back to the ] again), his intentions are good, he doesn't edit war, and he is willing to participate in attempts to find compromise. Probably his main offense is using rather colorful and (occasionally) misjudged similies, synonyms and metaphors to try and make his point. I think this is more a case of the guy need to have his sharp edges rubbed off, rather than telling him he doesn't fit in the community and singling him out. I always think formal mentoring is a backwards step, and suggests that the person is either incompetent, or incapable of applying good judgement. This is sometimes the case, but is usually only a suitable solution following some kind of request for mediation/arbitration. I don't think mentorship would be the best route to go down; being civil and polite with Pinktulip has worked for me so far, and he's done nothing but respond in the same manner - if his views on what an article should be differ greatly from yours, then that's what a talk page is for. He's obviously more than willing to use them. I don't know anything about the ] thing though. A quick look suggests that Marskell is right about the user being a sock of Pinktulip. Perhaps someone wiser and, um, sager could confirm this and have a quiet word with Pinktulip on his talk page about sockpuppets? ]<font color="#888800"><b>||</b></font><small>]</small> 14:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	IIRC, {{user|Emact}} is {{user|Fplay}}, and I'm reasonably certain they are {{user|Pinktulip}} as well. There was a bit of a dust-up about a month ago with Zoe blocking Fplay for running an unauthorized bot, and Emact came to ANI to "defend" the Fplay. I don't have time to dig up diffs ATM, but I will later. This is not a comment on the behavior of any of these usernames; using a sockpuppet to defend the block of another account is clearly bad form, but I have nothing to say ATM about any other disputed behavior. ]] 14:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:An old note on ] indicates that ] is an alternate account: . ]] 14:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Even more interesting, "Emact" appears to be an abbreviation of ], as indicated here: , which seems to be a favorite subject of banned {{user|Amorrow}}. Emact has made several edits to ]. ]] 15:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Emact has a severe case of misogyny, as well, although he only refers to women as "a certain demographic". ]|] 19:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	I KNEW I could count on dear, sweet Zoe to never forget a slight. You go girl!
	I have never denied that Amorrow=Fplay=Emact=Pinktulip=A_bunch_of_anonymous_work . However, I have mostly tried to avoid the cesspool of the Wikipeia "talk" pages which always degenerate into popularity contests. I am SO sorry for chosing to work on Articles that are "difficult" and usualy deal with real events and living people and current Law and getting the fact straight and getting the details. I am sure that you would prefer that I work on something REALLY important, like the exact and correct categorization of musical garage bands or something relaly important like that.
	User:Marskell's exact words when he detected that I had added some new articles to the "Terri Schiavo" category were:
	*''I'll be expunging most of these. Marskell 14:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)''
	Based on that, who really thinks that he has the Judgement and Charater to undo my work (which is what he is doing right now) in a fair and balance manner? Would you like him to work on what YOU have created? Any of you?
	Terri Shiavo is a big story about laws and people with power. If you have bothered to look at the infomation in ] you will see that relationship are not so trivial as parent-child. While a big powerful politician does a little thing about Terri Schiavo, it matters. OK, ] merely got converage on national television about his parodies of TS. I can conceed that one, despite the fact that he went on and on about it and millions and millions of people saw him do it. But does it really ruin the rest of the information browsing value by just throwing him in anyway. I did include Dubya or Jeb becuase they are in too many categories already. But oooh... Marskell really, really does not LIKE Triple H now, does he? Oooh.. he trivializes Terri and makes fun of her. Now tell me: does having Triple H in there, despite the fact that he is an entertainment imbecile, really destroy all of the rest of the information that category? I am not going to fight to keep Triple H in the category because he does not matter much. He is much more like a canary in mine: If he is not notable by going on national TV, who else is not notable? Powerful politicians? Huh?
	What is the percentage? How deeply does somebody have to be involved in TS before it sticks them? I am not going to fight with "Terri's defenders" to trying and shove all of the power players (and there are dozens of them) into her page or a subpage. I say: if the powerful politician was stupid enough to open his mouth even a little bit about Terri, he gets to join the club. Take a look at Bill Frist. Board-certified physician. Does he know enough not to try and publicly diagnose Terri Schiavo, effectively invoking his valid medical license, based on a video provided by her parents? He does not. That is worth remembering. It is not trivial. Do you want a man of so little judgement to be operating on YOU? Should a man of so little judgement remain Majority Leader in the U.S. Senate. We cannot answer these questions here, but we can do our best to provide the information and make it easy to find. But Marskell, choising to live a coutnry that has NEVER known Democrary, wants it all covered up. He likes it that way it was a few days ago. All hidden away. All that mess and fuss out of the way so that he can defend his precious Terri and keep her pre-1990 pretty, slender young face as the ONLY face you will have to think about. Now, run along children, and do not think about anything but that very pretty (and entirely irrelevant, except for its propaganda value) face.
	I see. This is now more than 10 items up from the end of the current noticeboard. You have all "moved on", so to speak because you have all already had your turn in the character-assassination shooting gallery that went on behind my back. None of you even tried to suggest that this was happening to me. How thoughtful and communicative of you all. -- ] 00:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I stand by my remarks above. Nothing in the subsequent discussion has changed my mind, your own comments least of all. I do wonder if "Marskell, choosing to live a country that has NEVER known Democrary, wants it all covered up" is a sufficiently nasty personnal attack that blocking is required. Since we've had editing disagreements of our own recently, I'm not going to be the judge of that. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::I have to agree. This person, under whatever User name he edits, has long outlived his usefulness. ]|] 19:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Another IP, for them what are keeping track and all: on my talk page. --] | ] 14:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	This request for arbitration is closed. The Arbitration Committe has imposed the following remedies:
	*{{User|Deeceevoice}} is placed on personal attack parole. She may be briefly blocked if she engages in personal attacks or racially-related incivility, up to a week in the case of repeat violations.
	*Deeceevoice is reminded of the need to follow ], ], ]. and ]. In addition, her attention is directed to ]
	*Deeceevoice is counseled to assume good faith and avoid offense, see ].
	*Deeceevoice is prohibited from using her user page to publish offensive rants. Any administrator may delete any offensive material from her user page at any time. If she attempts to restore the offensive material, she may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the case of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.
	*{{User|Friday}} is cautioned to avoid suggesting to users who are the subject of Arbitration proceedings that they abandon Misplaced Pages.
	*{{User|Jim Apple}} is cautioned to avoid suggesting to users who are the subject of Arbitration proceedings that they abandon Misplaced Pages.
	*Deeceevoice is placed on ]. She may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article or talk page which she disrupts. She may be banned from Misplaced Pages for up to one year by any three administrators for good cause. All bans and blocks together with the basis for them shall be logged at ]
	For the Arbitration Committee, --] ] 04:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
	: Is there a reason why I'm seeing <nowiki>{{User|Friday}}</nowiki> instead of the rendered template? ] (]) 23:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	== What was that? ==
	: for a moment I thought we were under some kind of bot attack. What precisely happened? The page got duplicated 5-6 times (!) ]'' 23:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)''
	:In attempting to post my notice about the Deeceevoice arbcom case, I accidentally copy/pasted the entire administrator's noticeboard, when I had only meant to copy/pasty my notice. Oops! --] ] 00:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	::LoL. OK, no problem :). MY CPU protested wildly, but she needed the exercise, I guess. ]'' 00:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)''
	== ] ==
	After all the bitterness, wheel warring and wikistress caused by the User:paedophile template in the last few days, it has been recreated, this time by ]. Considering the story that has gone with said template and it tremendous side effects, I personally consider it an enormous error to recreate it; not only for its highly questionable contents, but also because of the atrocious timing. It may be a ] at best, if not a delliberate disruption. '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">]</font>''''' <font style="color:navy;">♥</font> ''<sup><font style="color:#22AA00;">]</font></sup>'' - 00:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Deleting the template and blocking Dschor. --] ] 00:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Thank you. Throw in a CheckUser too, if you can. --]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 00:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Don't have checkuser, sorry. --] ] 00:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:It is not exactly the same. Likely a WP:POINT vio though. Trurly annoying now. Looks like more desysopping might come.''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 00:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Looks like he is not an admin...good.''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 00:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::If he was an admin that'd be a baaaad sign. ] <small>]</small> 00:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	Ok, I've just about had it. {{vandal|Dschor}} has come close to trolling before, e.g. when he created ]. <s>Today, he also re-created ], which I had previously speedied as an attack page. While the new version is no longer an attack,</s> he's on some ] mission. I'll support a block. --]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 00:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC) '''Update:''' Got ] confused with ]. The characterization of ] acting in violation of ] still stands. --]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 00:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Technically, by definition, the old one was not an attack. It was however used to troll and was to devisive and its connotations were not well recieved. I am against any such boxes. I support a longer block.''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 00:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::<small>Not to go too far off topic here, but did you see what the "deluded egomaniac" link pointed to in the version I speedied? If that's not an attack, I don't know what is. --]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 00:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)</small>
	::I second the move for a longer block. This is {{vandal|Dschor}}'s fifth block in total. --]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 00:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::I blocked for three hours because I didn't know whether he had a history of this sort of disruption. Feel free to extend if you think it's warranted. --] ] 00:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::: (5 ecs)I've previously blocked Dschor for trolling on a simmilar issue and for personal attacks- and this is the final straw. I'd support a ''lot'' longer. Oh, and for the record he is not an admin, and the day he is - I leave. --] ] 00:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I extended the block. Maybe he will get it this time. Maybe...''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 00:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::::If he doesn't and continues with whatever it is he's doing, I'll call for a ban. --]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 00:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::::: He also previously created {{tl|user oppose Kelly Martin}} after previously being blocked for creating attack templates (I blocked him for that). &mdash; ] ] 01:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:A block of a longer duration is not unreasonable, under the present circumstances, and with his block history. He was of what happened, and appears to have intentionally created the template to make his ]. He also placed it on his userpage after creating it. Should be added to ]. ]'' 00:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)''
	::Not sure if I correctly interpreted the missing subject of "should be added". I just posted a request on ]. Please correct if my interpretation of your proposal is wrong. --]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 00:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	Per a request, I have added Dschor to the arbitratino case. ] 01:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I guess this means that he should now be temporarily unblocked, so that he can tell his side of the story. It would be best if the last admin to block him undid that block, so as to avoid even the appearance of wheel warring. --]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 01:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	::We seem to all still be quivering on our boots...:). Unblocking...(sigh). It would be nice if someone could keep the attack templates of his page.''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 01:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::I think this is unwise, this guy has been angling to be a 'martyr for free speech' for weeks. Arbcomming him, he will just love. I'd have blocked him for a week and ignored him. --] ] 01:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::Yeah...I kind of agree...but it is in arbcom's hands now.''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 01:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I see everyone is having a good time in my honor. Good to see you again, Doc. I understand that there is some concern that I created this template in an effort to make a point. This appears to be a failure to assume good faith. The template was created for my personal use, and was not added to any other pages. I did not recreate a deleted template, and intentionally crafted the template to not be offensive or disruptive. Unfortunately, I have been drawn into a tar pit here, and it seems unlikely that a fair hearing is possible given the prejudice voiced above. I have been blocked before, but I consider myself to have been unfairly targeted due to my unpopular opinions and outspoken nature. I have to say, I am beginning to think that Doc is on a personal crusade against me, based on his comments above, and his previous interactions with me. I hope that this is not the case. --] 13:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Dschor, being the user who gave notice of the creation of the template in question by you after seeing it at RC, and without any previous contact with you prior to this very message, I must tell you that your assertion of being targeted for your previous activities is completely out of the question, at least when it comes to my public denounce. As I try my best to AGF on your part, immediately previous to the creation of the ] give me pause in said assumption. Yet, not my personal opinion, or anyone else's here matter anyway, as the whole issue is now in the hands of the ArbCom. I sincerely wish you good luck explaining your case there, and I'm confident that, if you indeed created it in GF, the ArbCom will be happy to clear your name. Regards, '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">]</font>''''' <font style="color:navy;">♥</font> ''<sup><font style="color:#22AA00;">]</font></sup>'' - 14:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::I certainly hope that you are correct, but the vote appears to be going badly. I will AGF, and expect the ArbComm to find in my favor - but there is a strong chance I will be blocked. It would have been much more ] to try some other form of dispute resolution before submitting directly to ArbComm. I am reasonable. --] 10:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	== Zen-master banned for 1 year ==
	By ruling of the ], {{user|Zen-master}} is ] from the English Misplaced Pages for a period of one year, ending on February 06, 2007.
	For the Arbitration Committee, --] ] 00:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Can you provide a link to the ruling? I'm not disputing it, but I don't see any specific rational for a full ban on either the user's talk page, ], ], or ]. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	::There is arbitration discussion, including the passed motion to ban, at this <span class="plainlinks"></span> of Requests for Arbitration. ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 15:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Ok - one of you needs to update the actual case page so it's not left in the edit history of that fast moving page. ] 16:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I can't see any recent changes on the ] page. Last edit to that page is ], ]. Was blocked for one year by ] on 23:45 UTC, 6 February 2006. Was previously blocked by ] for 48 hours on 12:03 UTC, 29 January 2006. ] 15:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	::I have made a note re the ban. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	== Potential hacking of my (]'s) account ==
	Whoa! Hope I didn't scare anyone there, but here's the deal: I logged in, checked my watchlist, and went into the "edit your watchlist" page. There I found a number of pages, all redlinked, with highly suspect titles, which I ''certainly'' hadn't added. The list of the added pages is as follows:
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	Although I'm not entirely sure why someone would break into my account to add bizarre titles to my watchlist, I don't really know what else could've happened. As far as I checked, all of the edits made under my account were done by me, so as far as editing goes I appear to be clear.
	Given the names of some of the titles, I have to ask: if one of you lads did this, kindly fess up. It's O.K., it's funny enough, no worries, I won't prosecute. If this is the case, then I don't really care.
	If that unlikely scenario doesn't bear fruit, then I'd appreciate someone CheckUsering me to see what that reveals. When you do so, e-mail me and I'll give you a list of the locations of the IP addresses you should be seeing (sadly, I don't know the exact addresses, and I know that at least my home IP is static). I'll ask an ArbCom member if I need to, but if one of you is reading this, then please feel free and welcome to do so now.
	Sadly, I don't have the internet access I'd like to have in order to deal with this, but I'll make a strong and concerted effort to find some tomorrow to see what's been written and to respond. Oh, and if anyone's had a similar experience or has any ideas about what happened, please leave a post. Sorry to everyone, and thanks much, ] ] 00:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Pages on your watchlist may have been moved to those page titles by a page-move vandal. ] 00:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Change your password to something unrelated immediately, and make ''sure'' you log-off at home and wherever else you contribute. That would be the advice I suggest. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 00:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:: I get these kinds of things also, but I've noticed that it often is a result of page-move vandalism (both entries remain in your watchlist). However, Flcelloguy's advice is good, so follow it. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 00:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Yep... see for the first entry above. --] <sup><font color="#3D9140">]</font></sup> 00:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::As far as I can tell, there never was a page called ] though. Another possibility might be that someone managed to mess with the MediaWiki namespace, but that's extremely unlikely. --]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 00:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::Yeah, but you can add page names that never existed to your watchlist which if the account was breached was probably what happened, must have been some idiot who breached his account though because they let him blatantly know that his account was breached. <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 00:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Or a page move vandal. &mdash; ]]]] 01:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::::But that would leave a redirect that even if deleted would show up on deleted revisions as well as the fact page move vandals normally set off all the bells and whistles for people monitoring the move log, just doesn't seem like the standard page move vandal style... but that's just my take on it. <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 01:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	Those really were the result of page move vandalism. When you add a talk page to your watchlist, only the main page itself shows up on the actual list. I took a look at the rest of them, and it appears that they were moved and later deleted talk pages.&#160;— ]] 01:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:If I were a mischievous vandal-type person and I had somehow accessed someone's account, I can think of far more amusing things to do with it than to add non-existent pages to his watchlist and wait for him to edit it to see the non-existent entries. Can't explain why there's no deleted redirect, though. &mdash; ] ] 01:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:: ya go! :-) --] <sup><font color="#3D9140">]</font></sup> 01:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	* In your user space, create ]
	* Add it to your watchlist.
	* Move ] → ]
	* Move it back.
	* ] is now a redirect.
	* Delete it.
	* View your watchlist, then click to edit it.
	* You'll see the redlink ]. It doesn't exist anymore but its ghost lives on in your watchlist.
	Of course, the same thing results if somebody else did the page moves instead of you, or if the pages aren't in your user space but in the main article space. That's what happened above. Many of the above names seem to be the result of the pagemove vandal ]. -- ] 04:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. I hadn't thought of the possibility of a pagemove vandal, which makes total sense. Thanks to everyone for giving a hand with that, I can now rest easy. ] ] 09:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	=={{vandal|Troll_Penis}}==
	Huge huge problem, major denial of service attack going on--] 02:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	== the vandal account ] ==
	Things happened pretty quickly, so I'm not sure if my action was appropriate. However, I will do my best to explain what happened:
	The account was originally blocked by ] for having an inappropriate username. However, the block seemed to cause collateral damage, as several IPs (possible AOL proxies) were automatically blocked. I unblocked the account, hoping that the vandal had gone away. Unfortunately, I was wrong. As soon as the account was unblocked, it started vandalizing again.
	However, the vandal had posted his password on his talk page, although the edits containing the password have been deleted. I logged onto the account and changed its password so that it cannot be used again.
	I hope that I did the right thing. --] 02:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	'''To other administrators:''' If you want to know the new password, please let me know. --] 03:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	(ec)Sounds good to me. I wondered why the talk-page vandalism had suddenly stopped (following up on an admin intervention report). ] 03:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:There's nothing new here: vandals have figured out how to leverage a single username block into a denial of service attack on all of AOL, thanks to the deadly combination of Mediawiki's autoblocking and AOL's round-robin allocation of IP addresses.
	:By the way, "Troll penis" was not blocked just for the username... this is a known vandal. This user has created socks with various variations of this name (including Greek and Cyrillic letters spoofing Latin... that's actually a capital Tau) and has committed vandalism with them in the past.
	:There's nothing admins can do about this. Since AOL won't change their IP allocation policies, only a Mediawiki software change will work (maybe build in knowledge of AOL ranges and never autoblock an AOL range; maybe abolish autoblocks altogether; maybe allow admins to specify at block time whether or not a block should be applied on an underlying IP address; maybe create a new class of "confirmed" registered users (any account that's demonstrably not a throwaway account) who are immune to autoblocks).
	:This has been going on for months. AOL users complain to us, but only the developers can do something about this.
	:-- ] 03:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	::I have suggested a similar idea before. Basically, administrators would be able to "whitelist" users. Unless explicitly blocked, "whitelisted" accounts would be able to edit regardless of whether their underlying IPs are blocked. --] 03:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:: Different iterations being used by this "Troll Penis" vandal are being posted to ]. ] 03:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	Regarding other usernames, it's fairly clear that some of them are created simply for the purpose of getting the underlying IP blocked (eg, the "please block me" accounts). The problem is, if you ignore them and don't block, then they vandalize with that account, see for instance -- ] 03:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	It appears that Brion won't fix it.
	<pre> <TimStarling> * Titoxd pokes brion
	<TimStarling> <brion> what
	<TimStarling> <Titoxd> http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Ipblocklist
	<TimStarling> <brion> why remove them? let it block em.
	<TimStarling> <Titoxd> we're blocking all of AOL
	<TimStarling> <brion> fine by me
	<TimStarling> <Titoxd> ok
	<TimStarling> <Titoxd> :)
	<TimStarling> <brion> if aol doesn't want to fix their shit, that's their problem
	<TimStarling> <brion> bad apples are going to get their other customers blocked</pre>
	Tell the AOL users to petition AOL or something. &mdash; <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">]</span><sup style="font-family:serif;">(])</sup> 03:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:The problem is, AOL users only see the name of the administrator who applied the block on the original username, and complain bitterly to us. Often they don't read the autoblock notice carefully, they only see the edit summary applicable to the original block, mistakenly believe it applies to them, and then they ask "Why are you accusing me of vandalism? please look at my contribution history, I've never vandalized". Sometimes angry, sometimes anguished.
	:What exactly are we supposed to tell these folks? Too bad, and it'll happen again soon.
	:These autoblocks presumably last 24 hours like any other, which is inconsistent with the suggested policy of limiting explicit AOL IP blocks to a much shorter duration.
	:And of course, admins have no way of knowing that the registered user they just blocked is an AOL user, and even if we knew, it wouldn't matter because there's no way to block just the username without triggering autoblocks. And we can't not block because then the vandal just goes nuts and laughs at us.
	:Given AOL's round-robin IP allocation, we ''know'' that autoblocks on an AOL IP address:
	:# never do any good
	:# always do harm
	:So, logically, somehow we have to find some way, any way, to avoid doing something that never does any good and always does harm. However, there is literally absolutely nothing that admins can do about this... an answer can only come from the developers, Jimbo, or AOL. -- ] 04:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:: We spent quite a lot of time unblocking these addresses . However, this thing most likely will keep happening, unless soemething changes at ''AOL'''s end. :S ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 04:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	A useful solution would be a checkbox labelled "''Do not block other users from this IP''". It'd have a dual purpose: if applied to a username block, it would disable the autoblocker; if applied to an IP block, it would allow logged-in users to edit from that IP. Both are features that have been frequently requested. —] <small>(])</small> 06:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:The problem with that, as noted above, is that blocking admins generally won't know that they're blocking someone editing from an AOL account, and therefore won't know when to click the checkbox. --] 08:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	::That's true, it won't solve the AOL issue. It ''would'' solve a number of other issues, but for AOL I suppose the only practical solution is a list of IP ranges that are exempt from autoblocking. —] <small>(])</small> 14:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	Got to agree with Ambush Commander, the AOL users complaining about blocks should also complain to AOL and ask them what AOL are doing to ease the situation. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 07:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:all things considered, AOL treats it's '''paying''' customers like cattle, so it's not terribly realistic to expect them to actually respond to a representative of wikipedia, when they basically ignore their own clients, not to mention, they're not exactly going to go out an change their entire proxy system just because someone asks them to, I mean of the last 8 or so "upgrades" for AOL, none of been anything more than cosmetic, I don't think they've even upgraded their servers since back in the days of the dial-up-modem, I wouldn't be suprised if they don't even ''have'' real tech support people on staff, just graphic artists who decide how to make the interface even more ugly than the previous version...
	:In short, chances of AOL responding to non-customers with anything other than a sales pitch: ~ 0.000%
	:chances of AOL responding to complaints from existing customers: ~ 0.001%
	:--] 15:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	Brion also said:
	<brion> anyway at some point we'll have to sit down and make a decision on this block crap
	<brion> too many options on the table
	<brion> - blocks that don't autoblock
	<brion> - blocks that sometimes autoblock
	<brion> - users that can't be autoblocked
	<brion> - users that can't be ip-blocked
	<brion> - ip ranges that have different block behavior
	<brion> etc
	If you think the text shown to blocked users should make it clear that AOL is to blame, you can always ]. And let's be very specific about what we want AOL to do: we want their proxies to forward client IP addresses in an X-Forwarded-For header. The issue is not the use of proxies per se, nor the way they choose a proxy server for any given request. -- ] 08:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	*Yes, but they haven't made ''any'' changes to their proxy system since roughly the days of the 56k modem--] 15:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	Well, considering we now have more traffic than they do (says Alexa at least), we may have some leverage with them. Has anyone in an official position tried contacting their network admins? There's got to be a way to find their actual contact information rather than abuse@aol.com. But if they don't respond to polite, well placed requests, we could always issue a press release saying we're banning all of AOL because of their brain damaged policies. (More politely worded of course.) My guess is finally the bad press would be enough to get some action out of AOL and we could all live happily ever after. Controversies re Misplaced Pages get pretty wide airplay. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	*They're pretty oblivious, I honestly doubt they'd respond at all, and if you've ever seen an AOL''news'' message board, you'd realize why attacks like this don't even register on their abuse-O-meter--] 21:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:*and a small comment, fighting a denial of service attack by denying service to all AOL users, is kind of counterproductive--] 21:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::I wouldn't say counterproductive, but ironic.&#160;— ]] 21:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	*Also, while we're at it, it would be nice if people would stop putting <nowiki>{{AOL}}</nowiki> templates on the talk pages of non-AOL IPs--] 18:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	==User RFC Reform==
	I've opened a straw poll on the User RFC process at ]. Please feel free to contribute. All comments are welcome. <TT>] <SMALL>(] • ])</SMALL></TT> 04:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	His arbitration case concluded today. He was placed on both probation and general probation. ] is the final decision. I'm posting this here because he's been rather active on ] lately and we need as many admins as possible watch his actions on that page...similar with ]. I'm involved so I can't block or ban him myself. So any help in monitoring his edits on those 2 articles especially would be appreciated. He has also hit ] hard in the past. Thanks for everyone's help. --]<sup>]</sup> 05:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	: Um, what is the difference between "Probation" and "General probation"? Perhaps I'm missing something, but aren't they the same thing? ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 05:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:: Probation allows blocking Gatti from editing any article or talk page. General probation, with three administrators' support, allows blocking Gatti from anything they want to, up to a general ban of up to one year. ] ] 18:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::: Yep and the terms are different. Probation is year to year in case Ben improves. General is indefinite. --]<sup>]</sup> 07:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	A final decision has been reached in this arbitration case. Beckjord and his socks are banned from Misplaced Pages for one year. When he comes back he may not edit articles related to the paranormal, interpreted broadly to include the likes of crop circles and Bigfoot. He is banned from sock puppetry, placed on personal attack parole, and general probation. He can be banned for disruption by any three administrators.
	This is a formal request for implementation of the one year ban by a block. His socks are listed on the evidence page.
	For the arbitration committee. --] 06:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Was blocked by ] at 9.35 UTC, 7 February 2006. ] 15:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Sockpuppets (], ] and ] have previously been indefinitely blocked by ]. ] 15:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	==] moved my user page==
	] moved my user page from ] to ]. I have no idea why this user chose to do such an unwelcome act against me, as far as I know the only "contact" I've had with this user is that we have both editted the article ], and none of my edits were reverts of User:Darth mhaw's edits. Could an admin please delete the page ] and if possible remove the revisions from the edit history that deal with the move? (User:Darth mhaw's initial move, and my move back) ] 06:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Deleted and partially restored. Someone else had already deleted the redirect. Have a nice day. --] 11:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	EffK is banned from Misplaced Pages for one year (I have enforced this already). When he returns, he is banned from editing Catholicism articles, and may be banned from any articles he disrupts. Should EffK violate these prohibitions, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year.
	On behalf of the arbitration committee, ] | ] 10:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:] has already blocked ] for 1 year, in addition I have blocked sockpuppet ] for 1 year. ] 15:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Famekeeper was certainly the same user as EffK, but it's not a normal case of sockpuppetry. He registered originally as ], but did not want to give Misplaced Pages his e-mail address. Therefore, when after a few months the computer asked him to re-enter his password, which he had lost, he had to register a new account, ]. Then he lost his password again, and when the computer demanded that he log in, he registered again as ]. That was abandoned for ], which was followed by ], and he finally re-emerged as ]. He has never tried to deny that his new account was a reincarnation of an old one, and has on various occasions denied that he used sockpuppets. He recently made a long farewell speech, and signed it as EffK, then logged in again as Flamekeeper, and signed, saying that he had found his password, then signed again as Corecticus and Famekeeper, but said he was unable to sign as Fiamekeeper, and didn't attempt to sign as PureSoupS. Since he has been open about these identities, and never used two accounts simultaneously, until the night of his grand farewell, I don't think they should be blocked as ''sockpuppets''. I do, however, think it's appropriate to block them, but feel a different wording should be used. ] ] 21:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::I've blocked them as ''identities''. ] 21:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	== The price of rules-lawyering and bureaucracy ==
	See ] and . -- the wub 15:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Actually we're all totally dispensible. I left for 12 months with no ill effects at all.. ] 15:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	::But we were still glad to see you return... -- ] | ] 17:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::And I am not away either (and have in fact never nurtured any illusions about my dispensability or that of any other admin). It's not the encyclopedia from which I wish to disengage, it's a community several of whose prominent members seem to have lost every sense of good will, common sense or basic decency. If this situation helps reorient Misplaced Pages away from its current bureaucratic madness towards a common-sense-driven meritocracy, there is still hope. ] 19:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::: You've added so much to Misplaced Pages as a contributor, your continued editing is very much appreciated. ] 19:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	== Sockpuppet Tags ==
	Hi I tagged 3 accounts last night as sockpuppets (], ] and ]) as they are all responsible for blanking AFDs and are the same person (as the talk page states). Did I do the right thing? I've restored the tags even though he has threatened me for "wikistalking". ] <sub>(] ])</sub> ] 17:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Sounds sensible enough. If they say they're the same person ... - ] 20:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Where does it say they are the same person? ] 23:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Talk pages. ] <sub>(] ])</sub> ] 23:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::Which ones and says who? If you want people to defend you please make it slightly easier for us.. ] 23:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::"No point in a talk page. see User Kenpo" from Kenpo0110's talk page. "See REMAGINE" from Kenpo's talk page. ] <sub>(] ])</sub> ] 00:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::::But that also seems to refer to a deleted article ] - and who put that on the talk pages? You've blocked them all as socks - but one has the be the primary account - you've basically blocked every account this person is alleged to have as a sock of the others. ] 12:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::I'm not really sure which is his main account, im thinking Kenpo is now, but before it was just a roundabout, each account seemed to be the main one. ] <sub>(] ])</sub> ] 18:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	==Misplaced Pages:List of lists==
	Whose idea was it to delete ]? I tried to find it out myself, but there's too many deleted edits (227) so my network connection seems to be taking forever to load the page. ] | ] 19:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:It was deleted on ], the closing admin was ], the discussion is ]. ] <small><font color="black">]</font></small> 20:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:(EC) It's not because of the edits, but because it's such a huge page. It's easier to look at the . Anyway, the deletion summary merely links to ]. --] <small>(])</small> 20:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Rats. I spent the connection time opening up the page (and it took a while!), finding ], then come back, only to see it's already answered. --]]]] 20:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Heh, I was amused by the mention of ], and was inspired to look deeper. I didn't find any more triple-deep lists, but I did create ] while researching it. --] 21:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	== Wonderfool has been LARTed ==
	There has been email communication from Wonderfool's ]. Said BOFH is ''most'' displeased. Wonderfool has been requested to make good the damage done by him and his assorted sockpuppets, once they let him back on their network. So keep an eye out and see if he can be turned back into a decent contributor - ] 20:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	:How exactly (and under what name, I guess) would he be making these good contributions? He's still . ] 01:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Under some other name, presumably. But having read the email, I'm personally reasonably sure his contributions will be of much greater quality if he wishes to continue using his present connection - ] 16:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	I have restored this template. It is ''not'' stating that someone is a pedophile, it is stating they are part of the ]. I don't see the problem with this. Incidently, you should also all note that I see no discussion of the deletion, it appears to have been made on #wikipedia-en-admins. I may not have given Doc_Glasgow much time to do this, however. Anyway, take this through AfD. It's not an attack template. - ] 02:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:And what, pray tell does the Pedophile project hope to accomplish? Is this percieved as a benefit or detriment to the Misplaced Pages project? Seems inflamatory on the face of it, and perhaps a ] violation, just like all the other paedo-centric user boxes. ] 02:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Good question. How about when we decide that ''then'' we remove the userbox? Seems that we have everything arse-about. - ] 05:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Seconded. It seems that this project has only been started in reply to the recent hullabaloo. ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> 02:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::: That appears to be the case, but arguably there is a place for articles related to pedophilia on this project. ] (]) 02:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::Actually, it was started in late January as {{article|User:Herostratus/Pedophilia}}. --]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 03:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:It may not be an attack template but it is blatant trolling and 'divisive and inflammetory'. It was created by ] (23:39, 7 February 2006 Dschor) and was unused. It was listed on TfD, but givn that Dschor (currently under arbcom interdict) has done nothing but troll on this issue, and given all that happened yesterday, I followed Jimbo's lead in deleting this. I am very disapointed that Ta-bu-shi-du-ya immediately undeleted this (we were bothon IRC, and he undeleted before discussion was concluded), but I will not wheel war with him. I leave it for others to decided whether we need to go through the sham of process or common sense will prevail. --] ] 02:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::And this is why admin only IRC is a bad idea. How about discussing this a TFD with everyone else? 7 Days is not that long to wait.] 02:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::An IRC-only discussion empowers those on IRC at that particular time, and disempowers everyone else. If you make up policy by yourselves with no input from anyone else I don't think you can expect other people to follow it. ] 11:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::This has little to do with IRC, the question is do we speedy trolling and disruption, violating ] and ] or do we use the process of TfD? --] ] 02:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::Which I was only made aware of when I went into the IRC channel. Had I not been able to go in, at ''exactly'' this time (like the vast majority of editors who are NOT admins) then I never would have known. I was originally told that the IRC channel was for "sensitive" issues that needed to remain confidential. Explain to me again how this was such a sensitive issue that the admin decision was made behind closed doors? Perhaps ''now'' people see my concern over the IRC channel? It's ''not'' being used to discuss sensitive issues such as defamation. It's being used to decide on ordinary admin decisions. - ] 05:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::Isn't that what the new CSD T1 is for? ;-) —]]] 02:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Can someone explain how giveing admins even more subjective powers is logical when we have just had one of our more major wheel wars? I mean "clearly divisive" logicaly that would cover every userbox (bable boxes devide between those who can speak something other than english and those who can't). Is there a reason why these need to be speedied rather than being left to TFD to sort out? Can't TFD handle the load or something?] 03:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::::It's quite sensible, actually: wide powers to delete divisive userboxes + absolute ban on wheel-warring = a significant decrease in the number of divisive userboxes (note that this is true regardless of what definition of divisive is used, since undeletion is ''verboten'') ;-) —]]] 03:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::The bit where large numbers of people get blocked for template recreation is not an acceptable side effect.] 03:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Something to consider: the most controversial userboxes seem to be created by users with no intention of adding them to their ''own'' userpages (note that this one, for instance, isn't used by ''any'' users). —]]] 02:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Actually, it's subst-ed in ].&#160;— ]] 02:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Fair enough (although, if it's subst'ed, there's no real reason for its continued existence). —]]] 02:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::Saying it was discussed on IRC counts for nothing, discussions are to be done on the wiki as per the meta IRC page. ] <sub>(] ])</sub> ] 04:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:From ]: "Dschor's recreation of an almost-verbatim copy of the pedophile userbox was extremely foolish..." I wish the latest re-creator would reconsider and delete this. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::It's the ] as before, incidentally. —]]] 02:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Uh now just let this quitely flow through TDF and away end of problem with the minium level of effort and shouting.] 03:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	And the Pedophilia WikiProject is now on ]... ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 03:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::I can't even believe that there is 4 members in the Pedophilia WikiProject. It might be a little extreme but maybe a 24 hour block should be made to people joining the project for ] violation. ] ] <sup>]</sup><sup>]</sup> 03:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Ignore them and they will go away.] 03:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::Yeah, on second review on who was actually in the project, there was an admin. Not sure if we want to block any of them. Just going to ]. ] ] <sup>]</sup><sup>]</sup> 03:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Probably not necessary, given ; most of them seem to have joined prior to this whole mess. —]]] 03:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	I have blocked {{Vandal|Dschor}} indefinitely. He was only unblocked so he could participate in his arbitration. He can do that on his user talk page. ] 04:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:There are not quite enough votes at ] to support this yet. But we all need a rest. ] 04:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	Where the hell do these moral panics come from? The media where you are - or do we need to close down the IRC channel to stop you whipping yourselves up? In no sense is any of this to the benefit of the project - been targetting paediatricians yet? ] 12:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:No offense, but could you rephrase that? I can't work out what you are trying to say. - ] 13:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Moral panics over paedophiles. There was an actual case in the UK of a bunch of yobs targeting a paediatrician thinking that was the same as a paedophile - ] 16:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:This particular moral panic came from the very top. --] 16:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	I was on the channel at the time (Sunday evening UTC). It wasn't a policy decision made on IRC - it was a pile of us discussing the {user pedophile} template and finding others to sanity-check our initial "wtf. DIE." reactions to it. (IRC is very good for really quick sanity-checks.) I should note that IRC was very good for calming the forest fire as it occurred - specifically ] running around various talk pages and IRC trying to calm people down. I was unspeakably pissed off by the whole incident and he did a great job calming me down too ;-)
	Anyway, using IRC for sanity-checking is IMO quite different from 'making up policy on IRC'. Of course, waiting would be more ideal. Mind you, I still don't see why a blatant trolling disruption template like that wouldn't warrant speedy deletion on sight and why anyone would think keeping it on TFD for seven days was actually a better idea. c.f. CSD versus AFD - ] 16:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Ok. I'm trying to work out where the hysteria comes from. It seems to appear at random and escalate. ] 16:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Editors are human, I think - ] 16:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	Now this hamfisted MFD and "wtf? DIE!" method of making decisions has managed to drive two good contributors out of editing pædophilia articles - a place where we sorely need solid unbiased editors. - ] 16:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::I really don't see what all the fuss is about. If the name was changed to Wikiproject:Pedophilia it would be an improvement, but autodeleting and speedy banning people smacks of hysteria. ] 16:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	Speaking as a member of the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject:Paedophilia I joined after the furore started because I was not aware of it before. This is not a ] violation as I actually intend to contribute to this Wikiproject if it survives its MfD (which appears to me to consists of supports giving long point-by-point explanations as to why it should stay being shouted at by people who are apparently beleive "paedophilia is bad therefore anything related to it or mentioning it must be bad" and hysterically shouting this to try and get their point accross. (note I am not neutral in this). I am not a paedophile but I beleive that it is possible and indeed desirable to have high quality, NPOV articles and discussions relating to it. ] 13:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	==More AfD problems==
	Someone wanna take a look at ] and see what's wrong? Somehow, a whole bunch of the AfDs are included within a {{tl|at}} that's making them all look closed when they're not. (There are some other problems in there as well, but they're not so obvious because of the problem I'm describing...) ]<font color="#008000">]</font>]] 03:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	: I'll fix it. -- <small> ( ] ] )</small> 03:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	: Hmmm.. I see nothing. Can you pint me one afd that looks closed but it's not?-- <small> ( ] ] )</small> 03:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::It appears to have been fixed...for all I really know, my attempts to flush the cache just weren't working properly... What it looked like was a double {{tl|at}} above either the ] or ], and the top one was causing all the AfDs below that to show up inside the "closed AfD" box (although there was no matching {{tl|ab}} at the bottom of the day's AfD page). ]<font color="#008000">]</font>]] 06:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	==Awag==
	Now that ] was deleted, I finally decided to read it. And I found it that it was complete nonsense, so it was right all along to delete it (possibly it could have been speedied). Did this really deserve a 39-kilobyte AfD discussion? ] | ] 05:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I'd say so. There was a case to be made (in amongst the sock BS) that it was a term with some currency; it was just a bad case. Debatable deletions should go to AFD. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 20:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	== Wheel warring ==
	Now that we have had some of our better admins desysopped for wheel warring, exactly how do we know that we will not be desysopped for reversing another admins decision? I have done this from time to time. I try not to, but sometimes it is unavoidable. How do we a) know that we can reverse an admin action, and b) make sure that wheel warring does not occur? - ] 05:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:The same way we stop edit wars. Chill out, and stop. It takes two to tango. The encyclopedia won't die if someone accidentally bit a newbie by blocking. It won't die if an article that should've been kept was deleted, or vice-versa. If you're right, the facts will bear you out in the end. ] | ] 06:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I'm trying to develop a clear, objective policy at ]. It's based on the 1RR. — ''']''' '']'' 07:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::If you want to undo an admin's decision, ''talk'' as well as acting. If you think they've done something wrong, ask them about it. This is what admins are supposed to be good at doing. ] 07:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Hell yes. Anyone can make a bad call, talking first is common courtesy. - ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] 10:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:They were desysopped as an emergency temporary measure during a ForestFire (in the wiki sense) and for the duration of the arbitration case, which appears to be moving at fantastic speed and should be resolved shortly - ] 16:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	I blocked {{vandal|Hooba}} as a sock in the classic {{vandal|Jason_Gastrich}} "]" pattern (, word for word re-insertion of content previously removed), he has now emailed me to ask (actually demand) to unblock as he protests he is not Gastrich. Since the email domain is "wiki4christ.com", one of Gastrich's domains, and given Gastrich's known use of sockpuppets per ] and his recent threat to continue doing so, I am rather suspicious. I am taking the request at face value per ] but would appreciate an outside view. ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] 09:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	*He's a puppet whether of the sock or meat variety. IMHO the block is justified. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">''']]]''' <small>{]}</small></span> 18:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	== Personal attacks and discourtesy by Camridge ==
	Can someone please check out and advise on this {{vandal|Camridge}}. See arbcom workshop ]. This user has continued after arbcom decision was passed, and after many ] and vandalism warnings. The most recent being a removal of my post on the discussion board . I am the at the brunt of most of these attacks so I need an external opinion. It was not mentioned in the final arbcom decision so there are no special interventions available at the moment. --] 09:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Sorry, I for one am not going there. You appear to be pushing a barrow, and Camridge called you on it. Today's edits are forcefully put but not, to my mind, actual attacks. But I will advise Camridge not to personalise the issue. - ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] 10:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:See below, the associated page (NLP) is placed under mentorship so this should be sorted out. I'll check in with mentors/admin to make sure that I'm don't push any POV. Thanks again --] 11:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	I just speedied it. It was...shall we say...complete nonsense. Anyway. I protected the page from recreation. Today was this supposed "holiday", so expect that users will try to recreate the article under similar names. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	Excuse me, what means this? What for you that page removed? --] 16:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I vill go and vheel var your page protections. You know such things are allowed not, ya? --]]]] 17:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	== ] mentorship ==
	The arbitration has recently ruled, in ]:
	<blockquote>The article ] is placed under the ] of three to five administrators to be named later. All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page. The mentors are to have a free hand, do not have veto over each other's actions, will be communicating closely and will generally trust each other's judgement. Any mentor, upon good cause shown, may ban any user from editing ] or a related page. All bans shall be posted on the affected user's talk page and at ]. The mentorship arrangement will be reviewed in three months. If, at that time, the mentors agree that the article has demonstrated the ability to grow without strife, the mentorship may be ended and this remedy declared void.</blockquote>
	The selected mentors are ], ], ], and ]. They will get to know the situation and actively monitor this article. Any questions of enforcement or questionable conduct should be directed to them. While any admin is empowered to enforce the probation, it would be preferable to alert one of the mentors (unless necessity dictates otherwise) as they will serve as admins knowledgeable and aware of the conflict. They may of course come here for other opinions as well. This is just a heads-up. Thank you. ]·] 10:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	== Shared IP blocks ==
	I'm getting rather annoyed at 217.33.74.20 being blocked continually - I have to unblock it in order to edit while I'm using these computers. Problem is, the vast majority of the edits from that IP is vandalism, and it deserves a block. We can't just say that the user has to create an account as that is simple enough, but we shouldn't keep preventing legitimate registered users from contributing simply because they share an IP with a bunch of kids.
	What solutions, if any, can we come up with? Perhaps it could block users with less than 50 edits, or something. ] ] 11:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:You're suggesting that some IP ranges could be somehow marked as badlands? Not completely banned, but less trusted than most? Eg, can't create new accounts, no anon-editing from those addresses? It'd be subject to the same sort of scope creep that semi-protect is, but it's a real problem and absent any better ideas, I'd be inclined to look on something like that as a necessary evil. Regards, ] 12:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	Well, there is a bug to prevent IP blocks from affecting logged-in users. If fire is lit under it, then the devs might implement it. <font color=#696969>] <sup>] • ]</sup></font> 14:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:It's . <font color=#696969>] <sup>] • ]</sup></font> 14:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	Allow me to plug again ], which is a different solution to the problem. --] 15:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	550 is pretty much as above - a flag on IP blocks to say if they block everything, block anon editing, or block anon editing and account creation. 3706 is different, but not all that different. It proposes a flag on accounts to allow them to edit through IP blocks. More discussion (arguably more heat than light) may be found at ]. I think that Tony Sidaway says it best
	:"this isn't a magic bullet, it doesn't solve all vandalism and it doesn't totally eliminate collateral damage, it isn't any *worse* than the situation at present. It does permit us to deal with a widespread class of vandalism, by non-logged-in editors, in a manner that causes less disruption to other editors than at present. And there is no instance in which an editor who would not find himself wrongly blocked in the current scheme, would find himself blocked"
	It seems the only obstacle is getting someone to do it. Regards, ] 08:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	== Sock puppet block ==
	I've blocked ] as a suspected sock puppet of frequent copyright violator ], who is currently under his second block for repeatedly violating copyright despite repeated requests and warnings. ] has responded on his talk page to say that he's just a friend of ] working on his behalf. Am I justified in leaving the block in place, or should this be lifted pending the outcome of a check user? Thanks for any advice... ] 11:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I don't think CheckUser would tell you very much: if it were my call, I would say give a stern warning against uploading copyrighted material then unblock to see what happens. You might want to wait for some other opinions though, I'm not familiar with the {{user|Rick lay95|Rick_lay95}} case. ] ] 13:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::] hasn't actually breached copyright, but I suspect that it's the same person attempting to get round a block. But if others also think that the block on ] should be lifted, I'll do it. ] 13:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::By the way, does getting a friend to carry on your work while you're blocked constitute sock puppetry in itself? ] 13:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::That's meatpuppetry. I'm not sure what the exact policy is on that. Just follow ] and you'll be fine. ] | ] 13:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:The more ] comments on his user page and uses the same language and mis-spellings as ], the more confident I am that I did the right thing. I'll leave the block in place unless anyone disagrees. ] 14:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	== Pedophilia: What do we do? ==
	This is obviously a very sensitive area, as we can see from recent discussion. I think there are questions that we need to formalise answers to, before we are forced to by hostile media interviews.
	*What would we do if someone found evidence that a pedophile was using Misplaced Pages for indecent purposes? I think this is very unlikely, since Misplaced Pages is fundamentally public (and the opposite of most chatrooms or messaging services). But we need an answer.
	*Is there a consensus that self-identifying pedophiles are entitled to edit as much as anyone else? Are there limits to the degree to which they can state that identity on Misplaced Pages?
	*Do any additional steps need to be taken to ensure that pedopilia-related articles are NPOV?
	There is already the ludicrous . As we grow, people are going to look for more dumbass criticisms of Misplaced Pages and you can bet there will be more on this topic.
	What dy'all reckon? ] 16:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:We are an encyclopedia and and as such are as much use to paedophiles as a paper encylopedia or a reference library. I don't think we need to necessarily do anything apart be hard on trolls. Nobody would actually self-identify as a paedophile after all - people playing silly userbox games don't count. ] 16:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::There are at least four self-identified paedophiles here. - ] 16:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Yes, do nothing works well enough I think. Blogspot is a more likely target. - ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] 16:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Well, actually, some Wikipedians do seem to identify as pedophiles.]. Also, if you look at the history of ], for instance, it's clear that people have been inserting pro-pedophilia comments. In that particular case the Wiki process sorted it out, and the last thing I want is any more moral panic. But I think the best way to prevent problems dowwn the line is by taking the issue seriously, and even if we don't do anything, be sure our inaction is considered rather than by default. ] 16:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::: Report illegal behavior such as child grooming to the police. Otherwise, just try to ensure their edits are NPOV, NOR, et cetera...like we do for any other Wikipedian. In other words, Misplaced Pages does not need a special policy for pedophiles, for heaven's sake. ] 16:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::I think self-identifying paedophiles are ''less'' of a risk to our younger contributers than those who don't identify themselves. Statistically, we probably have an active paedophile or two among our editors and we certainly have active paedophiles among our readers: but then the same goes for blog sites. It is a question of general Internet security: people should not just assume that because someone says they are a 16-year old boy from the Sydney suburbs then they really are. ] ] 17:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	To try to defragment the discussion I copied the following comment by The Land from the MFD on the WikiProject.
	'''Rename''' at very least, '''preferably delete'''. I think these topics need to be kept under close observation given the sensitivity of this area, but don't think an open WikiProject is the way to do it. Frankly I think this whole area is a public-relations timebomb and would like the Cabal to have much more involvement in it. ] 16:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:What sort of Cabal involvement do you envision? What disadvantages to you see in an open WikiProject? What faults do you see in the one you are voting to delete, in particular? - ] 17:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::I don't know; the possibility of it going horribly wrong (being infiltrated by bad-faith users of one sort or another); and the likelihood that it will a) be misinterpreted and b) be inactive. However, this is WP:AN and not a deletion debate.The recent storms suggest that the default position of 'do nothing' might not have a consensus, i'm trying to stimulate more discussion to see whether that is the case. However, no one will be happier than me if we are convinced that the existing processes are strong enough. ] 17:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	I agree with SecretLondon's comment above. I really don't think we need to do anything except ensure that our articles are neutral and factual and that our users don't post illegal material on their user pages. ] 17:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	I agree with Exploding Boy and SecretLondon, all we need to do is what we should be doing everywhere - be firm on trolls and rigourously (sp?) apply our ], ] and ] policies. ] 17:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	I agree with you lot. Additionally I think a WikiProject would be nice. I'm willing to listen to any proposals, though, and I'm interested in what ideas The Land has. - ] 17:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Guidelines at ] are a bit vague, but I think they cover us for this situation: notably
	:*], so your user page is not a personal homepage. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian.
	:*No opinion pieces not related to Misplaced Pages or other non-encyclopedic material
	:*No communications with people uninvolved with the project
	:Personally I would allow a comment along the lines of "''As an advocate of ], I have contributed to the following ]-related articles...''". {{tl|User pedophile}} was originally deleted then nominated for TfD as "needlessly provocative": the "needlessly" is important in their as well, as we have some ] for which there is general consensus to keep. With hindsight, "needlessly disruptive" would also have been a perfectly good reason for deleting it. ] ] 17:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	'''Pedophilia: What do we do?''' The same as we do about ] as in the ]. See ] and . In article space we must be the best encyclopedia we can be. In other space we must lay the foundations for the best articles we can create. (See ].) ] 18:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	==Enforced wikibreak==
	I need to take some time off. Can someone block me for a week? Thanks.--]]] 17:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I don't think that's allowed. The ] explicitly says that admins should not block themselves to enforce a wikibreak. That probably applies to everyone (I may be wrong though). --] (]) 17:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Yeah, having someone else block you has the same consequences as blocking yourself (collateral damage to underlying IPs and users that share the IP address), hence, it's not generally allowed. Slap on a "I'm off for a week" notice on your user and user_talk pages, then don't make any more edits. :-) --]]]] 17:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::If you don't trust your willpower, cut the plug off your computer. That would at least slow you down. ]] 17:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::It would slow me down, but not by enough. :-) Thanks anyway!--]]] 17:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Just disagree with Jimbo on something, i'm sure the arbcom will be happy to block you. ;-) <font color="#4682B4">]</font><font color="#00FF00">]</font><font color="#E32636">]</font> 17:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Add a "If you see me making any edits before blah please shout at me mercilessly" notice to your page and talk page. It might help. ] 17:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	== Legal Threat??? ==
	In reference to my sockpuppet tags, here is what he replaced them with:
	To User User:Onthost, this is a warning. One more harassment from you and I am submiting you as a wiki stocker on wikipedia. Leave me alone. Your contribution logs prove it. Remagine 04:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	Last Warning Mike Kenpo 05:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	<BR>] <sub>(] ])</sub> ] 18:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:That's not a legal threat- possibly a threat to submit a ] about you. It doesn't mention outside agencies or the law. ] 19:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::He can go ahead and open a RFC, I AFD'd his article because it was an advertisment, reverted his spam, and exposed his socks, I haven't done anything wrong. ] <sub>(] ])</sub> ] 20:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	I agree; not a legal threat, but if it escalates, could turn into personal attacks. Who is he a sock of, anyway, and do we have a checkuser to back it up? (If we do, then it's time to block and protect.) <font color=#696969>] <sup>] • ]</sup></font> 19:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:There isn't a need for checkuser, look at his talk pages. He admits all 3 accounts are the same person. I first crossed his path when I nominated his article for AFD, then he started blanking the AFD page. ] <sub>(] ])</sub> ] 19:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:What is a "wiki stocker"? Enquiring minds would like to know... -- ] 19:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Maybe he meant a wikistockinger. &middot; ]<sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small> 20:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Clearly a typo. I'm sure he meant a Wiki socker, or maybe Wiki soccer (or maybe Wiki football in some places). --]]]] 20:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::Wikistockers make sure there's enough inventory of wikis for the holiday sale season. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">''']]]''' <small>{]}</small></span> 22:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::LOL thanks for all your humor, sure made me smile =). Seriously though should I restore the tags (since they are sockpuppets, and probably put the guy over the edge), or not restore them? ] <sub>(] ])</sub> ] 23:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	Block, then retag. <font color=#696969>] <sup>] • ]</sup></font> 22:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	==another legal threat==
	from the VIP page
	* {{vandal|Frankmash}} Specifically , ] has been issuing legal threats against Misplaced Pages, violation of WP:NLT and grounds for instant ban. // ] ] ] ] ] ] 19:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	**No, that's not a legal threat in the sense of ]: it is, however, copyvio! ] ] 22:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	== Threat of Islamic hackers? ==
	The BBC has published an interesting story on Islamic hackers "retaliating" against the publication of the ] by attacking and defacing almost 1,000 Danish websites . We, of course, have also published the controversial cartoons, albeit in a much reduced format. I'm sure there are plenty of hostile probes against Misplaced Pages's servers in any case, but the developers might want to be aware that there's now possibly a higher level of threat due to the cartoons controversy. -- ] 19:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:You probably should post this to ] then, since that's the place where the developers have the most chance of noticing. --] 19:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Done - thanks. The article itself obviously has an ongoing vandalism problem, so if anyone hasn't added it to their watchlists it might be a good idea to do so. :-) -- ]
	*um, yeah.. people could come along and hack wikipedia, they could just change the content at a whim, I bet they could even edit content right out of articles with their hax0ring skillz--] 22:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:*PS, I just wikipedia, then un-haxored it--] 23:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	::WOW your 1337. ] <sub>(] ])</sub> ] 23:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	== A company intent on advertising its product here ==
	A group of ] are intent on a product called ] being advertised here. Previously they were spamming external links to their product all over the place. Now that they have been persuaded not to do that any more, they are starting a page on their product with content copied directly from their website. If I could find a single mention of their product on a site like or I wouldn't object so much, but this product doesn't seem to come close to passing any kind of notability test. A Google search returns thousands of results, but after a long search I couldn't find a single real review. Just tons of listings on software directories. ] 22:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:So ] then. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">''']]]''' <small>{]}</small></span> 22:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	== Self described Cuban counter-revolutionary (systemic attacks) ==
	'''This was archived without being delt with, so I'm re-posting it. ] was blocked for one week, but it only helped him understand that he is a victim of a Red conspiracy. --His edits continue ''' --]] 22:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	----
	Just bringing attention to ] aka "El Jigüe" aka "at the Bay of Pigs I was jailed by Castro"
	:Under an anon account El Jigue has been inserting counter-revolutionary propaganda several times a day since 15 September last year. All his edits have been related to Cuba, and most use Miami dissident websites as a source. Unlike most with a pov campaign, he has avoided edit wars, and has gone relatively unoticed. I don't know how you folks deal with this, may I suggest an exploding cigar?--]] 03:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Update: The sooner an admin gets on this the better! Take a look at the recent edits (still not reverted as of now) . Random older example: . Here is a recent example of the systemic bias taken in his edits. ] An elementry knowledge of Cuban history is all that is needed to see how this statement is plain wrong. The editor has made thousands of edits, I have only spent a few minutes scratching the surface. I picked these examples out of the blue in order to show what is going on here, these are ''not'' the worst cases. Good luck.--]] 09:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
	Some weeks and months ago this anon was misbehaving... re-creating AfD'd articles under new names (not just once but multiple times, and with unencyclopedic titles), vandalizing ] to make some point about Cuba , adding an out-of-place link to espionage in Castro's Cuba to ] , editing the ] and ] articles based on some apparent conspiracy theory of his . The latter egregious stuff was a few months ago, I guess he doesn't do that anymore, but apparently the POV editing has continued.
	Back in December he took exception when I speedy deleted his fourth or fifth re-creation of an AfD'd article, and some discussions ensued, see ]. At the time it was clear he didn't believe in ], believed he owned the articles he created, and most significantly, did not believe his contributions were covered under the GFDL. He appeared to be quite suspicious of the motives of others and not easily won over to Misplaced Pages philosophies and principles.
	After that I moved on, it was mostly the stuff I considered egregious that I was concerned with (re-creation of deleted articles and adding Cuba stuff to non-Cuba articles), and I didn't really care to get involved in content disputes over Cuban-related topics. For those who would wish to do so, there's ]. -- ] 23:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
	----
	==Re:]'''==
	{{user|65.182.172.21}} has vandalized ] and is engaging in stalking behaviour at ] by directing ] to a blog in which he is harassing her there. Anonymous user was blocked by ] here: ] with the admonition that any new IP's in this range that engaged in said behaviour were to be blocked. ] 23:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I have blocked this IP per ]'s . ARIN query indicates . ] 23:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	==Moving a page with links==
	I posted this on ] but got no reply, so I guess it's either a dumb question or the wrong place to post. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
	"Had a look at Misplaced Pages:Merging_and_moving_pages but it doesn't seem to cover this. When you move a page, the old page is replaced with a redirect so that links to the page still work. Is there any way of getting all the linking pages updated with the new page name automatically, or do I have to update them all by hand. Hope someone can help :)" ] 23:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Not that I'm aware of, but I think that some programs, such as ], can help with this task. Otherwise, it's purely manual replacing. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 00:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Hmm, is that what ] is meant to link to? Weird... Oh well, I guess it will up my edit counts :) Thanks ] 00:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Erm, slight typo - maybe next time I should check what I link to? :-) Anyways, what I meant was ], a semi-automated browser that may help you. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 00:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::Excellent, thanks. Looks like a handy thing to have. Cheers. ] 00:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	==Amorrow/Pinktulip==
	I've just received an aggrieved email from an ordinary editor who is this &gt;&lt; close to leaving Misplaced Pages because of this fellow. Please do feel free to deal with him conclusively in the proper manner - we can really do without this - ] 23:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:David, my good man. I think of you often and the admin bit that is set on your corresponding user record in the MySQL database that Misplaced Pages is based upon. You know that I like to highlight the subtle differences between our two countries, especially the rather dull legal differences which, it seems to me quite conclusively, esacpe you attention. I do this because I know how much it annoys you to face the reality of the tragically Lost Empire that you live within, but I am just doing it for your own good and to enhance your grasp of that same reality. Please also keep trying to diagnose my mental illness from your little island. You might want to ask for a few pointers from ]. Go contact him. I find that he is a likable guy. If he files an effective restaining order against me someday, well, maybe I will change my mind about that. But until then, go for it! (You might getting a nicer reception from him if you did NOT mention my name, but do as you see fit) I breathe the fresh clean air and walk in the sunshine of my beloved native land, marveling at my good fortune to be born here and also at how far it is away from where you are. Have a most excellent day on your little island. -- ] 01:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	::For crying out loud. Having seen what he's been up to, we really don't need to keep someone around who is harassing users through Misplaced Pages like this. I have blocked him indefinitely. Someone might like to keep an eye out for socks. ] ] 01:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Thank you.--] <sup><font color="#FC0FC0">]</font></sup> 01:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::He's used ''at least'' four socks already (Amorrow, Fplay, Emact and Pinktulip), so he will surely be back, if he doesn't have a sock already in use. ]|] 03:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::add ] to that list. Last I knew he was useing earthlink so removeing him is going to be trickly.] 04:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::''Uh. That should be "tricky" Geni, not "trickly". Just trying to help you obtain a more complete mastery of your native toungue. You see, "trickly" is an adverb and in the grammaticall construction and context of your sentence, an adjective would have been more appropriate. But rather than boss you around, I will let you correct the sentence on your own. Good luck in the endevor!'' -- ] 08:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Pedantic spelling corrections containing multiple spelling errors: always funny! --] | ] 08:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Not coming in from Earthlink this time; but this is certainly material for an ISP complaint. I dropped a note to the AC list suggesting someone with checkuser write a nice one. (Lots of AC and former AC have a remarkable collection of remarkably email from this fellow.) - ] 04:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::::The person being stalked (and I received an email from the person as well) may want to contact Amorrow's ISP, and possibly the police, as well. ]|] 04:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::we know he uses proxies. One of the emails I got contained what the indivial claims is his real name. I don't know if you already know this.] 18:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::Ah yes I see he used the name on his user page at some point.] 18:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Folks: Please get a grip on yourselves. That man is so far away from you Brits. You are in the U.K. and he has only concerned himself about strcitly internal affairs of the United States of American which, after killing a whole bunch of you, threw you royalist British people out over 200 years ago. Really, you are attempting to meddle with the internal affairs of a foriegn country. That does not make diplomatic sense. I have always heard such fine things about you British people and your high sense of diplomacy! He has only concerned himself with the Laws of the USA and your attempts to tell the USA what to do via your remote control is very inappropriate. Please: just go back to concerning yourselves with U.K.-specific matters of which you have some expertise and things will be so much more simple and quite and copacetic. You know what I mean: You Brits concern yourself with ] and us Americans will concern ourselves with ]. But you Brits who used to rule the world when the sun never sat on Britsh Empire and have now you have watched your sun set finally and fotever on your so-called Empire. Again: you Brits just concern yourselves with your internal affairs, and we Americans (and few meddlesome and highly disgruntled Canadians) will concern ourselves with our internal affaris. Always, always remember: Good fences make good neighbors. Even a whole Atlantic Ocean is not quite good enough for you Brits. I will strive to construct a more substantial barrier for you silly English persons real soon now. -- ] 06:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	::I presume your heart would glow at the thought of a good, upstanding, patriotic American blocking you forever then. I'm sure someone will oblige. ] 12:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	Oh! My goodness! Some unnamed person this &gt;&lt; close to making a decision! That simply shows indecisiveness. You know, Limbo is actually a very terrible place, what with all of those aborted babies and stuff. Knock 'em around some! Make 'em decide one way or the other and get them out of that terrible Limbo place. -- ] 06:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	: I have blocked User:67.127.58.57 as an obvious impostor of Pinktulip, as evidenced by his imitation of pinktulip's opaque and incomprehensible style of writing. ] 12:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	This is like playing poker or chess. I call. Read 'em and weep:
	*http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=User:Amorrow
	*or a large number of other MediaWiki-based sites, with those corresponding MySQL databases
	*] how is fine ship "just happened" to sail out of the U.K. and help to extend the duration of the ] by several months, costing the corresponding number of American lives on BOTH sides.
	*I have become quite concerned about the best interests, especially the best interests David Gerard's financial dependents.
	*About the best interests of the UAE, WRT a certain Wikipedian
	*] - a man thoroughly educated by fine British institutions. BTW: He is a very interesting convesationalist. I want you to note how much more mature a person Jo Tufnell is than David Gerard is, despite the fact that Patty greased her daddy. He is gratified that somebody took time to write his Wikpedia biography, with its fair and balanced approach. No can argue that he is not notable. I want you Brits to notice especially how he also breaths fresh, clean air and takes peaceful, relaxing walks with Joey.
	*About the best interests of Dublin Institute of Technology and how easily controversy can harm its reputation and how easily that can cause difficulties with the local community it exists in and can cause prospective students to enroll elsewhere.
	*This old World is so complex. One can choose to be a Bully. When we see this behavior in children, it is so much easier to see how being a Bully only costs that Bully oh so much in the long run.
	-- ] 18:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	You know, these sort of analyses can be much more specific, detailed and focused. Would you like that? Huh? Think twice before you try to go around suppressing information. Information and good advice. Good, sound advice that you would have to you pay your barrister many euros to obtain. The same advice. You barrister resents the some kind person is giving you this good advice for free. You should be more circumspect about how many of those messy, nasty controveries that you publicly get yourself dragged into at Misplaced Pages. You do not see your barrister living out load on the Internet and at Misplaced Pages, do you? Huh? No. You do not. Your barrister, if you can afford him, would ask you how much money you are making at this thing. He would then point out the subtle ways in which the financial costs to you can accrue. Think about it. You have plenty of time to do so. Life if long. Go to a quiet place and meditate about that for a while. Breath the fresh clean air in that quiet place and find the serenity you currently seem to lack. Some of the decisions you are making in public are very poor ones and reflect poorly upon you. Find that serenity to accept those things that you cannot change, just like the goddam prayer tells you to. -- ] 18:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	You gotta admit that Paddy did a MUCH better job than this dodo: ]. When Tommy-baby got his stature shorted by about 10 inches, the World was probably better off for is. That heretical person of a certain demongraphic on the throne at the time was way too smart for him. And she gave you guys a Golden Opportunity to REALLY rule the World. Look what you did with that Opportunity! Lost! Forever lost! -- ] 14:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	You know, I gotta admit, Patty made a few mistakes along the way. Insufficent information about his objectives. Insufficient equipment for the task at hand. But that is such old news now. Look at his young, energetic and highly intelligent eyes and face. Why did Pinky spend so many months laying the groundwork with preperation, prepreration, preperation. Doing ALL of the Nature articles. Why did he do it? Just so that, David, Zeo And Geni, he could slap you three really hard in the face. Slap you and slap you and slap you in the face with and grind your noses in the fact that burns an ulcer into your stomachs. He walked. He walked away a free man. A freeeeee maaaaan. Look into the vacuum of David's eyes. Look at the intelligence of Paddy's eyes. Get yourself a good big glass of maximally strong Irish Wiskey. You ready? Ooooooooohhh..
	:''When Irish eyes are smiling,''
	:''Sure, 'tis like the morn in Spring.''
	:''In the lilt of Irish laughter''
	:''You can hear the angels sing.''
	:''When Irish hearts are happy,''
	:''All the world seems bright and gay.''
	:''And when Irish eyes are smiling,''
	:''Sure, they steal your heart away.''
	-- ] 20:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I've blocked ] and ] as IPs being used by Pinktulip to circumvent a block. Other adminstrators, please review, and reverse if necessary. -]<sup>(])</sup> 20:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	Today, we put a few more pieces together. People like David Gerard, Geni and Zoe (or their parents, or whatever) created that little situation in Ulster. Messy. Now that we have had a chagne to read and think about Paddy and his friends in the IRA (note: a terrorist organization) how the IRA has a well-developed network of cells in the land where David, Geni and Zoe exist, we can poner their siatuion. The men and women of these IRA cells have jobs, maybe even kids, and waiting. Who knows? maybe David, Geni and Zoe knew a few people who have had brains blown out of their heads by the IRA. See? When you try to look at if from their point of view, it adds impact and deeper understanding of their situation. Now clearly, some American money flows to the IRA, somehow. (BTW: Neither Andrew Wiliiam Morrow, nor anyone he knows of, does not do that sort of thing, to the best of his knowledge. But he has met some people with strong feelings about the matter) They want those Brits out of Ulster. Ah. Push 'em out into the sea. You kids all just want to cry out "Terrorist! Get him!". That is the dumb, immature response. The world is not that simple. If an American chooses to go to particular shop in Boston and pay $5000 for a $300 statuette and the difference "just happens" to end IRA coffers, well... (remember that CSS Alabama ship? Huh?) If your job was to find out that that was happening, then your job could be rather difficult. Same goes for an American tourist with that same money spending it somewhere special in Dublin. If that American was overpaying for that statuette by a sufficient amount, and they indicated a few "preferences", well... you get the idea. You see? When you analyze the situation and get into it, the individual steps become banal and plausible. That is not a threat, that is ANALYSIS. Again, if you think otherwise, go ask your barrister for advice. He will confirm the analysis and then charge you for his time. Have you studied the Manhatten Project? Several dozen steps were required in that complex process. Each step was worked on until it was feasible and thereby solved. How does one do a Math proof? Through a series of valid steps. Same for a particular chess puzzle. Etc. -- ] 02:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
	In case you are not familiar with traditional military ediquette, it is incumbant upon the besieged to ask for terms. My email is amorrow@earthlink.net -- ] 10:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
	==Explanation of ]'s deletion and protection from recreation of ]==
	I looked at this page and it appeared to me to be undergoing some kind of project to bring Misplaced Pages into disrepute, in connection with the recent pedophile userbox affair. I checked the deletion log; nothing recent. I deleted and protected with <nowiki>{{deletedpage}}</nowiki>
	Please review and, if necessary, reverse. --] 23:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Good job. ] 23:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	I'd also like to note for the record that I deleted ], the pedophile box that he was recreating, and replaced it with <nowiki>{{deletedpage}}</nowiki> and protected it. ] ] 23:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
	: ... which was a recreation of {{tl|User paedo}}. There were a large number of ]s being made, I can't imagine some sort of response wasn't expected. --] 00:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	Yup, and Uninvited Company blocked him for vandalism when he reverted the blanking of his own page -- man, you guys sure do good work keeping Misplaced Pages "reputable!" <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 00:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Apparently, we have a policy saying Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. Can't think why. ] 00:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Maybe UC's blanking would be justified if all other wikisillyness that didn't help the encyclopedia was deleted. <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 00:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Rubbish. Nonsense has to stop somewhere. By the way, Paroxysm's user subpage which contained the same content as SPUI's userpage was just deleted by Doc Glasgow, and I recreated and protected it as a deletedpage as well. ] 00:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	<nowiki>*facepalm*</nowiki> SPUI, you're a great and productive editor, but you really don't do yourself any favours sometimes. THERE'S A TIME NOT TO MAKE A ] - ] 00:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	And all the administrators are behaving themselves. Looks like the userbox case has already had a salutory effect. The bit is now worth more when you know the cost of abusing it. --] 00:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Quite correct Tony, although maybe just a tad patronising ;) --] ] 00:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	Why did you delete the whole history? If your so concerned about the damage a satirical template is going to do to Misplaced Pages's reputation, take it to the last non-pedo version. <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 00:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	Yet again another GNAA troll finally revealing his true self. ]|] 03:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	:That's not really fair - see ] - ] 08:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	We have no mandate to issue ] rulings. Unless someone tells me a good reason why I shouldn't in the next two hours I will restore the history of the page. I will then leave it in an innocuous state and protected until the people editing it can work out their differences. If any of my actions are undone I will not redo them. - ] 12:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	: I'm not going to do anything more to that page, but I don't think the whole thing should be restored. Certain edits were placed there solely for the purpose of trolling, and as such have no place on Misplaced Pages. Others constitute an open invitation to vandalism.
	: You say "We have no mandate to issue ] rulings." Of course we have. We can delete any and all material that damages Misplaced Pages. That is not only something we ''can'' do, it's a very important part of our job. --] 12:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Thanks for responding. I'll rephrase my position. I think it is ''cruel and unnecessary'' to delete the userpage of a long-time contributor who has done excellent work with a "do not recreate" banner. Specific items on his userpage which are out of bounds can be removed separately. - ] 12:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::I would agree with Haukurth. I have listed the page on ]. I don't find the deletion very helpful, even though SPUI clearly violated ]. Why wouldn't reverting and protecting have done the job just as well? - ] 14:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	...There was absolutely no reason to delete this page. I undeleted it and reverted to the last version, with some junk removed, and Haukurth made his edit at almost the same time as me, replacing the page with a duck. I replaced the duck with a huge duckpram. --] <sub>.</sub> <small>o</small> º<sup> O (])</sup> 14:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::Indeed, Phroziac and I restored it the very same minute and now I had an edit conflict with him here too :) My guess would be that ] would be a better forum than ] if someone still wants this gone. - ] 14:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	The deletion was unneccessary, and the restoration was the right thing to do. Removing the offending content was all that needed done; removing the page and history accomplished nothing useful. Guys, try using the ''smallest'' tool that will get the job done, not the biggest. ] ] 14:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	::At least they didn't use ''nukePage'' on it. ] (]) 18:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	So you're saying that satire of this seemingly unstoppable moral panic must be confined to then? &mdash; ''''']'' <small>(<span class="plainlinks"></span>)</small>''' <small>15:50, Feb. 9, 2006</small>
	*I think some people have found a way to make Misplaced Pages act in a hasty, potentially irrational manner. Utter the word "Pedophilia" now and you're just as likely to be attacked as not. --] 16:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	I think people got in a huff about SPUI's satire and sarcasm and went on a rampage. As usual, blame isn't 100% one side or the other. SPUI acted foolishly in some cases, but so did some of the people responding to his actions. I decry the recent trend towards deleting entire pages rather than the troublesome content. This is hardly a defensible action. We don't delete entire articles for having vandalism on them, or copyrighted images. Similarly, we should not be deleting entire user pages because of an aspect of it that is objectionable. SPUI reverting blanking of his own userpage was ''not'' vandalism. --] 16:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	There are some hasty statements in the above. Nobody went on a rampage, and this had nothing to do with moral panic. I deleted the page and protected it from recreation, then submitted this action to review. The reason was that the page, as a whole, was deliberately and avowedly being used for purposes incompatible with the project. There were several personal attacks in the history, many incivil edit summaries, as well as incitements to vandalism and attacks on the project. I strongly disagree with the resurrection of the page's entire history and suggest that a more sensible approach would be to selectively delete revisions, so as to discourage SPUI from further activities incompatible with the project to produce a high quality encyclopedia. --] 19:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	I've been having some trouble with the user ] over the past week or so, with him insisting upon reverting to a previous version of the page that contains a link he insist on keeping in the page, but which also contains a number of grammatical and typographical errors. After a number of reversions by myself and some others, he began reverting from several anon IPs, apparently to try to avoid 3RR. Eventually, it came to my attention this this user (and his IPs) have been engaging in this form of disruption - and worse - in school articles since his first edit about two months ago, and has been warned and blocked for it in the past. I placed this text on ] and ], indicating that I blocked both accounts for a period of a week, for the reasons detailed therein:
	:''You and your aliases (], ], and a number of AOL mirrors) have performed a number of edits that are clearly in bad faith, including many instances of , repeated that are effectively blanking vandalism, and . Combined with your obvious tendency to rotate IP's to skirt the 3RR rules, it is clear that you are what may be referred to as a problem user. For that reason, I'm blocking your user name and your known static IP's for one week. After consultation with other administrators, the duration of this block may be adjusted up or down as deemed appropriate. If you choose to evade your block, all of your changes will be reverted without prejudice, and your block will be extended, perhaps indefinitely.''
	I'm thinking that a ban may be in order, but due to my involvement, I thought it would be inappropriate for me to unilaterally make such a judgement, and for that reason I ask that others take a look into this user's activities. &ndash; ]] 00:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	someone seems to have deleted this page--] 00:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	*This can't be good--] 00:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	:*has somebody hacked us or something?--] 00:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	::. ] 00:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	*So it was willy again?--] 00:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	**The deletion log indicates that ] deleted the page to remove personal information in an edit summary (mighty long time to load, too). Could I remind people that for pages with long histories (like this and ]) a developer should be contacted to remove the edit, in order to reduce the server strain of deleting and restoring the page? Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 00:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	***I immediately thought that it probably did the same thing as AfD's deletion long time ago. Plus it's kind of annoying when you lose an entire page of discussions even temporarily. &mdash; ]]]] 00:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	****I have requested that ], a developer take a look at this and see if he can rectify it. I'm sure restoring the page is taking a huge strain on the server (viewing it sure was); in the future, please don't delete pages with long histories. Instead, contact a developer, who can easily remove the edit from the database. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 01:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	*****Fortunately, it's back to normal now :) &mdash; ]]]] 01:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	******Yup, thanks to Ral for restoring it. (My computer wasn't able to handle it...) Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 01:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	*******I'm honestly curious how mine did :) ] ] 01:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	*So you're sure we weren' hax0red?--] 01:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	**Yes, I'm sure.--] <sup><font color="#FC0FC0">]</font></sup> 01:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	I'm sorry for causing a hassle. I was urgent to remove this information, and I was evidently too urgent :). Anyways, I hope that it gets removed in due course. Thanks, and again, I'm sorry.--] <sup><font color="#FC0FC0">]</font></sup> 01:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	* No real harm done. &ndash; ]] 01:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	**I apologize also if I caused any hax0ring to happen. It was actually really strange; I tried deleting the page, got a timeout error, checked the log to see if it was deleted. That indicated that nothing happened, so I left the computer, and went away. Apparently, it was deleted. Thanks to all for rectifying this. ]<sup>] | ]</sup> 03:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	== Editing ] ==
	I have asked Tim Starling to look into this. Just adding a signed comment seems to remove other contributors content. This is not my way of editing an article.
	So once again I apologize for a result that I never would have intended nor contemplated in my life. ] 01:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	==AOL==
	Do admins know they're not supposed to give long term blocks to AOL IP ranges? It seems like don't know--] 01:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	*Zanimum is "most editors"? When did that happen? Why did no one post here? Seriously, I imagine it was a case of misreading the IP, and is easily recitified. First step would be to contact the blocking admin on their talk, or via email, explain the IP issue. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	**I tried, didn't help, didn't seem to believe me about AOL, hence me asking if admins actually know about AOL--] 02:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	***We know. See ]. ] 02:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	And that isn't a range-block, it's just a block of one IP. Although even then 48 hours is a bit long... ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> 02:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	*somebody mind explaining why I can't my own question?--] 03:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	** On Misplaced Pages, we very rarely remove conversations, even completed ones, from pages. In a way, our talk pages are part of our history, and to remove them is to remove some small part of that history. &ndash; ]] 05:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	For what it's worth, there are a ''lot'' of AOL proxy blocks going on. Just about every other night, I find that I'm "blocked" because this or that vandal had used the IP. The reason, just so everyone passing by knows, that you don't block for longer than :15 is that AOL proxies aren't just dynamic: they're shifting. Hence, :15 is about as long as a person is at a given IP. Blocking for longer than that ''doesn't block the vandal.'' It blocks the next poor schmo who gets the address. This is why blocking AOL (and therefore my own poison: Netscape ISP) IP's is very bad juju. ] 20:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	==DATABASE TROUBLE???==
	Does anyone know what's going on here? are you ''positive'' we aren't being hax0red? --] 02:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	*nevermind, database seems to be fixed--] 02:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	*LOL ]--] 02:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	Yes, we're ''sure'' we aren't being hax0red :) &mdash; ]]]] 02:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I've had a few "Bad something or other" error messages when going to some user's talk pages/userpages tonight. Its happened atleast 5 times. Refreshing the page usually fixes it. ] <sub>(] ])</sub> ] 03:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	Are you sure that ''I'm'' not being ]ed? &ndash; ]] 05:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	== Leaving Misplaced Pages: Sorry to Waste Administrators' Time ==
	'''NOTE: From Theodore7''': My experience as a newcomer to Misplaced Pages has been horrible. Recently, I lost a good friend in a car accident and had to bury him. My heart is broken. That is why I was away. When I returned, I was surprised to find out that I had been blocked for a week. I did not know this, so had to wait until today to write. After careful consideration due to the bad experiences I've had since joining Misplaced Pages in December: I am leaving Misplaced Pages. I apologize to all who have had to spend considerable time on what I believe has been attempts at censorship and a witch-hunt. I also apologize to anyone who has taken offense to me. I did not join Misplaced Pages to be mean, spiteful, nor to fight with anyone. However, I apologize for my mistakes, and for my comments. They were not meant to do harm to anyone. I thought with my experience, and knowledge that I could be a positive member of the Misplaced Pages community. I cannot say my experience as a newcomer has been positive, it has not. I don't know why I was attacked, but having seen a good friend suddenly lose his life so horribly, I'm sorry, my heart is just so broken. Please forgive me. I am an experienced journalist & editor, and above all, a kind human being. I do know, however, when I am not wanted. So, I will leave Misplaced Pages. I am sorry for taking the time of others who have had to spend so much time on the RFC and Arbitration. I did not intend to be such trouble for anyone. I am so sorry.] 06:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	: ''Removed conversations pasted verbatim from user talk pages'' ] ] 06:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Sorry to hear about your friend, Theo :( It makes it harder to say this, but judging from your talk page, it appears that many, ''many'' editors have tried to explain how this site works, and yet there were still too many reverts occuring. Again, however, my condolences about your friend. ] 15:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	Thank you for your kind words. From my experience, what seems to be the problem is that some Wikipedians think a revert is an "attack" on them. How is this possible since all pages are saved after adding information, sources, and common editing? As a professional writer & editor it seems that some Misplaced Pages members have a problem thinking that anyone's edit is some kind of attack on them. Others have "claimed" particular topics as their own, and act violently through words, threats, etc. Moreover, Misplaced Pages is going to have to make some rather serious changes to stop the accusations of, and the real "revert wars" which seem to orignate from the confusion that a editor working on any Misplaced Pages topic is "reverting" - thus, threatening another. How is this so? When the "Save" button is clicked after a Misplaced Pages editor completes an edit, or addition on any Wiki topic - it ''automatically'' reverts. Now, how is this an attack on anyone? Misplaced Pages has some ''serious issues'' to deal with here since this problem affects all users - especially newcomers who are urged by Jimbo Wales to "be bold." There are many Wikipedians who do not take this advice, and rather, claim topics to the point of being hostile to other Wikipedians. These "wars" threaten Misplaced Pages's reputation. I know. In fact, my newspaper editors refuse to cite Wikipediabecause of their own experiences, and advise reporters to use great caution in using Misplaced Pages as a honest resource because of the actions, words, and behaviors of administrators who seem not to follow Wales' principles except when it suits them to enforce matters on Misplaced Pages editors they don't like, or those who add information that they personally disagree with. Newcomers often arrive at Misplaced Pages with fresh eyes, so it would not be wise to discount their wisdom. It could help to save Misplaced Pages, and its reputation in the near future. I joined to see if what newspaper editors were saying was true, and sadly, I discovered that it was. I am a fan of Misplaced Pages, and Jimbo Wales. However, I state that if Misplaced Pages's leaders don't get their act together soon, and fix these internal issues with some Misplaced Pages members and administrators, ArbCom, RFCs, etc., that the problem will become larger, and much more difficult to resolve. Already, there are newcomers with some experience on Misplaced Pages really citing true problems that are similiar - yet, the "biting of newcomers" continues. I would suggest that more "bite" be put into enforcing not "biting the newcomers" because Misplaced Pages wants to grow - not contract. And, right now, like in my arbitration case (I've been a Wikipedian only since December) as a newcomer, there really isn't much help for us, and there is a "gang-mentality" in Misplaced Pages that is not a community. There are too many misconceptions about the Misplaced Pages "community" that is not positive at all, but hostile:- what I have found: personal attacks, and not much ] taking place, and an Inquisition-like mentality that borders on censorship. This is not positive for Misplaced Pages whatsoever, and the word is spreading fast - particularly over the Internet and within professional newsrooms, schools, and universities. There is a serious problem with administrators, Arbitration Coms, etc., and their judgements are turning many newcomers off Misplaced Pages. This is not good. Not at all. One of the key reasons for this is that many consider a "revert" - which is automatic to any edit - to be an attack on another. This is going to ruin Misplaced Pages, from my perspective as a newcomer. It has to be fixed. Many longer-term Wikipedians think a newcomer is a "threat" - when they are not. This is going to destroy Misplaced Pages if things are not changed, and order restored - especially on the subject of what a "revert" really is, and that it should not be taken as an attack on another Wikipedian. Just my two cents, but sometimes, even two shiny pennies can show some wisdom of their own.] 12:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	It appears a blog showing up at http://www.democrats.com/ is encouraging users to add what appears to be libelous statements to the article on ]. The original anon was blocked, but appears to be evading it. It looks like democrats.com is a frequented website, so please keep an eye on the article if possible. — ]] 07:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	:The anon also appears to be making ].&#160;— ]] 08:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	:: I've blocked the second IP address for continued vandalism, evading the original block, and making legal threats. —] 08:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	::: I've put a commented-out paragraph in the appropriate section to hopefully prevent some vandalism. --]]]] 09:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::Looks like time for semi-protect. Regards, ] 09:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I unprotected for now. The reason is that the main culprit was using a static IP and he has now been blocked. Easier to do that than to semi protect, but I'm watching it. Another flare up and we can try SP. --]<sup>]</sup> 12:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Actually, Woohookitty, if you look closer, you can see that that culprit is probably not at a static IP and has already switched IP once, but I suspect that he/she doesn't know the mechanism well enough to be constantly shifting IPs. I understand your reason for unprotecting, but I think a semi-protect would be warranted. --] (]) 12:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	Eh, I tried to reason with them on their site and help explain what happened and why to stop, but someone deleted my post (or posts, I'm not sure whether I managed to post the second one) and blocked me (trying to access the site redirects me to http://www.democrats.com/modules/troll/blocked.html ). *shrug* Oh well. I didn't think I made any trollish comments; I went in my history and saved what I wrote at ], if anyone else wants to try to reason with them with anything along the same lines. --]]]] 04:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Heh, what's the deal with that. He also forgot all the other thousands of articles on Misplaced Pages about politicians. He's speaks like ] is the only one.&#160;— ]] 04:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	It looks like the guy saw a local TV news report (and we know how detailed, nuanced, and factual THEY can be) and immediately jumped to some conclusions -- though perhaps I should say "jump" in he ] sense.
	My long post on the subject -- which includes links to ], ], ], ]'s government IP round-up page, and (in the hopes of recruiting the productive) ] -- seems to have survived. The main instigator still seems self-righteously clueless, but maybe other people with better reading comprehension skills will pick up on how things really work. --] | ] 05:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	:In the words of Jon Stewart, Why can't Republicans and Democrats just get along? ''']''' ]|] 05:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	==Regarding copyright==
	I've always thought that one cannot take a copyrighted or trademarked logo, modify it, and release it as public domain or free, as has been done here. I removed the image from the userbox template and nominated it for deletion as a copyright violation. ] immediately grilled me with a list of question at my talk page (]) insinuating that my nomination was done in bad faith. He removed all deletion tags and struck my comments on the Images and media for deletion page, the latter of which isn't good Wiki etiquette.
	The policy at ] states that: ''"Defaced logos or logo parodies should be used with care and not given undue prominence. Parodies of logos can be used in under fair use in an article about a parody site or campaign against some aspect of the operations of the company, but in an article about the company itself, a parody is less likely to be as important or likely to be fair use."'' This parody has been released as public domain and is used solely in user pages and templates.
	I'm not concerned with the content of the userbox, nor am I concerned with his incivility. However, does this image need to be deleted as a copyright violation? I'm leaning towards yes, but I hesitate to revert my changes and have this degrade into an edit war. &mdash; ''']''' <sup><font color="#CC5500">]</font></sup> 08:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	Related pages are linked below:
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	:Copyrighted fair use images shouldn't be modified and released under public domain. It does seem like a copyvio to me.&#160;— ]] 08:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	::From the Boy Scouts Website: The 1916 act specifically gives the Boy Scouts of America the sole and exclusive right to use its "emblems, badges, descriptive and designating marks" in connection with carrying out its purposes. To me that means it is copyrighted, no? ] <sub>(] ])</sub> ] 13:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::I agree. Even parts of fair use images cannot be used and realised into the public domain (that was, for example, one of the reasons why a few Scouts-related barnstars cannot be used: because they feature the copyrighted Scouts logos).
	===U.S. trademark law===
	did not create any copyright interests because the Constitution specifies that copyrights may only be granted for "limited times," and the ] (BSA) do not claim any copyrights,
	U.S. law protects the use of trademarks by nonowners for purposes of criticism and commentary. First Amendment considerations override any expressive, noncommercial use of trademarks. "The Constitution is not offended when the antidilution statute is applied to prevent a defendant from using a trademark without permission in order to merchandise dissimilar products or services. ... '''The Constitution does not, however, permit the range of the antidilution statute to encompass the unauthorized use of a trademark in a noncommercial setting such as an editorial or artistic context.'''" (emphasis added) ''L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Pubs., Inc.,'' 811 F.2d 26, 31, 33 (1st Cir. 1987).
	Similarly, the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 does not apply to the "noncommercial use" of a famous mark. . The U.S. Supreme Court has defined "commercial speech" as "speech which ... propose a commercial transaction." ''Virginia Pharmacy Ed. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.,'' 425 U.S. 748, 762 (1976).
	The only limit on that right is whether someone might think that the commentary was produced by the trademark owner, and this limit is explicity defined in reference to Boy Scouts. "n author certainly would have a First Amendment right to write about the subject of the Boy Scouts and/or Girl Scouts. However, this right is diluted by trademark law insofar as that author cannot present her subject in a manner that confuses or misleads the public into believing, through the use of one or more trademarks, that those organizations have produced or sponsored the work in question." ''Girl Scouts of the United States v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc.,'' 808 F. Supp. 1112 at 1121, n. 12 (S.D.N.Y. 1992.) --'']'' 15:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Also any copyright registered in 1916 in the U.S. is expired. ] 15:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	] has introduced some good, new evidence, and the issue is now resolved. Thanks for everyone's input. &mdash; ''']''' <sup><font color="#CC5500">]</font></sup> 16:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	== Blocked ] ==
	I have blocked <span class="plainlinks">] (] &bull; ] &bull; &bull; ] &bull; )</span> twice for repeatedly linking to a site he owns and writing vanity articles about himself (he confirms in e-mail that he is Philip Wilkinson). Since this user has been e-mailing me and complaining about the blocks, I thought I'd ask other admins to take a look and make sure I've blocked him appropriately. He feels that if other commercial links are allowed in articles, he should be allowed to link to his sites. ] 14:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	: I would keep the block, but inform the user that links should only be done in the "External links" area, and '''only''' when relevant. Give a few examples of what it should be- for example, ] has a relatively short links area, with really no unofficial sites, apart from a few third-party builds. We provide links when necessary, but we are not a link clearinghouse. That's my two cents. ] ] 16:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Looks fine to me! ] ] 17:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	== WP in BBC News ==
	"Congress changed Misplaced Pages" - is this something for the front page? Greetings, --] | ] 15:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	:No, not really. We've been aware of this for some time - in fact, they got this info from us, not the other way around. - ] 15:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Yep. It seems the news has caught on across the pond. I was talking to Jimbo in Wikinews IRC, and he was asking for UK Parliament IPs to add to their stories (and he seemed disappointed when I gave him only 3 that were found editing Misplaced Pages, and in good faith =) ).&#160;— ]] 19:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	:According to the ], we blocked the ]ional IP "for brief periods on a number of occasions". There's a kind of poetry in that. &ndash; ]] 04:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	== Errant password requests ==
	After I blocked him, {{vandal|156.63.242.11}} repeatedly tried to have new passwords sent to me. I don't know if this was an attempt to harass or an attempt to break into my account, but regardless, should I simply ignore, or is there something else that can be done? --] (]) 15:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	:There's not much you can do but ignore the emails. This happened to me awhile ago, and fixing this problem would require developer intervention, which is at a premium these days. ]] 15:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I had this happen to me as well. I left a notice on their talk page, letting them know I was aware they were responsible, and that if they didn't cut it out, I'd extend their block. –] <sup>'''(]/])'''</sup> 16:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	==New essay==
	I've written an essay, ], distilling a number of my thoughts on the userbox matter. Any comments, support, criticism, etc. are appreciated. <TT>] <SMALL>(] • ])</SMALL></TT> 18:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	:So, your main point is that banning userboxes will create unrest? Perhaps, but this is not so much an argument in favour of userboxes, as it is an argument against agressively removing them. If we can reach consensus over their merit, or if we can establish some guidelines, perhaps many of the disagreements will go away.
	:You analogy doesn't take into account that many/most/all offices have a dresscode. Perhaps something similar will develop here. -- ] 20:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	::I think userbox policy is already set by ], which is in fact policy. From ]:
	:::''User pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of User pages should not be social networking but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration.''
	::So your user page is about you, but in the context of your work on the project. I think this also captures what upset quite a lot of people about the spate of wiki games last year &mdash; it was Wikipedians doing it, but it was clearly nothing to do even slightly tangentially with writing an encyclopedia, so people got upset.
	::I think this is a good principle for userboxes too. I on the subject as well, using this test:
	::* Babel boxes: yep.
	::* Location boxes: yep.
	::* Nationality boxes: probably. (I live in the UK but I can give an Australian perspective, at least as of 2002.)
	::* Firefox/Opera/IE boxes: possibly (good for browser issues).
	::* "du-1: This user does not wish to speak or hear ''dumbass'', but is resigned to the necessity of at least understanding it in an environment of massive collaboration." - probably not as a template, which is why the one on my page is substed. But I put it there as a restatement of what I say a lot, that on Misplaced Pages working effectively with people you think are complete idiots is ''not optional''.
	::* "This user is a critic of Scientology." I probably wouldn't use this myself. It indicates an area of knowledge but also indicates a strong POV in a way that may unduly alienate other editors.
	::* "This user is Catholic." I don't think this passes the test. It states a POV but doesn't actually indicate a depth of knowledge.
	::* "This user is a Jesuit priest." This might be useful - indicates a depth of knowledge as well as a belief - but would probably go better in article text.
	::* "This user is a pedophile" - um, no.
	::- ] 23:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::My Misplaced Pages user page has some biographical information about me that says ''nothing'' about the project. For example, that I live in Bloomington Indiana, and that I enjoy ]. No one has ever said a word to me about this. Suppose I had a userbox that says "This user enjoys ]". Apparently, that would be a ] violation. But just stating the fact on my userpage isn't. Do you see where I am going with this? --] ] 04:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::Huh? That states an area of interest which you might therefore be knowledgeable of. Also, location is useful, as above. I have no idea how you read the above and reach the conclusions you have - ] 20:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	{{User:Doc glasgow/box}}
	Because sometimes boxes speak louder than words ;) --] ] 02:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	:rofl! very nice. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	Can we put these essays in the userspace instead of giving the illusion that they are anything more than pompous vanity on the part of their creators? ] 04:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I agree, keep them off template space.--] 04:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	== An oddity awhile back... ==
	]
	Yes, I'm a moron, and my fingers went too fast for me... Anywho, back to the subject at hand... earlier today, I tried editing a page and was sent to this page when I clicked save:
	The link leads to ], but obviously this page does not exist. Is this something that is going to be introduced in the future to stop spambots? Why did this happen? Any ideas? It was confirmed by another person too. Thanks. --] <sup><font color="#3D9140">]</font></sup> 20:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	:The captcha was briefly enabled sitewide while investigating a vandalbot attack. This may happen from time to time. --] 20:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Fun. What page is shown to editors? Perhaps someone should add a brief explanation. -- ] 20:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Thanks, Brion! I was a little confused, especially the next time I tried editing a page and it wasn't there. Thanks again. --] <sup><font color="#3D9140">]</font></sup> 20:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	==Assyrian people reverts==
	Revert war going on at ] by ], ], and possibly ], hard to tell as I looked at this briefly from recent changes. ] 21:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	I may have acted under a conflict of interests with regard to this user, so I am listing the details here for review.
	*Nicodemus had a long history of aggression an incivility on afd's. The result was an ] filed against him in November 2005. Although I didn't file the RfC, (and Nicodemus has never been uncivil to me), I certified it, as I had reproached him for his incivility and one various occasions and he had refused to mend his ways . Nicodemus refused to respond to the RfC, and indicated that he had left Misplaced Pages and no longer wished to correspond with any wikipedians . I said at the time, his decision was a loss, as civility issues aside, he was good contrubutor - and we had actually got on personally.
	*Nicodemus, however, returned this week to oppose Brennemans's RfA (having previously done the same for Phroziac’s Arbcom nomination). I felt this was wrong, since he was longer a contributor, and his talk page declined any interaction. I left a note inviting the closing 'crat to consider the vote, and at the same time I removed the 'don't leave messages' note from his talk page, and substituted a welcome back greeting . His response was a blatant 'eat shit' personal attack on myself and Brenneman . (There has been continued incivility and personal attacks on his talk page.)
	Feeling that it was unacceptable for a non-contributor, who was indicating a continued unwillingness to communicate with any wikipedians, to return at will to oppose community elections and abuse other wikipedians, I blocked him indefinitely. Although I stand by my belief that he should be blocked, ''I realise that I should probably not have been the once to do it''. I apologise for this. I am thus removing the block, and requesting other admins to decide what action should be taken.--] ] 21:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I have to say that I'd agree with a block (for the "eat shit" comment), but, then again, I was the one who filed the RfC in question. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 22:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I also agree, but I also endorsed the RfC. Someone less involved should take a look. ]] 22:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Does this mean that if we ever had every single admin endorse an RfC on some user, no one would be able to block that user? ] 22:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Well, since he's accusing everyone of ganging up on and conspiring against him, it might be best if someone who wasn't previously involved intervened, to make it more clear that the problem is his conduct and not some personal clash. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 22:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
	Done! :D &mdash; ''''']'' <small>(<span class="plainlinks"></span>)</small>''' <small>22:42, Feb. 9, 2006</small>
	If everyone would re-read the blocking policy, there's actually nothing in it preventing a necessary block by an involved admin. It's just not a good idea in case your judgement in clouded, and someone else can always do it. But point is, there's no problem where a user can't be blocked because everyone's involved. But from the description above I don't see under what criteria the user was blocked for. One personal attack and a couple bad faith votes barely accounts for disruption, but even then, it's not all that disruptive, just make a note by the votes and that can be taken into account. Done deal, walk away happy. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	I agree that he's been chronically uncivil, and his latest responses are completely unacceptable. However up to December he did make useful contributions, and given the recentness of his latest editing activity (less than two months) I cannot but think that Doc's actions here were needlessly provocative.
	The block is merited, but I'd prefer to see a fixed term block in case he should choose to resume his editing. If he comes back and engages in further attacks, the nature of his targets (nearly all administrators) means that we're quite capable of dealing with him at that date, and if necessary we can get the arbitration committee to put him on an official personal attack parole, which would stil enable him to do useful work.
	Duration of the block? Oh perhaps one calendar month. --] 17:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I've examined the situation here, and it appears that if the operator of this account has any continued interest in editing wikipedia, he is most likely doing so from a new account and retaining the ] account as an abusive sockpuppet. The former is within his discretion, the latter is clearly unacceptable. ''Please, please''... look at the timespan shown for ] and reconsider. &mdash; ''''']'' <small>(<span class="plainlinks"></span>)</small>''' <small>03:16, Feb. 12, 2006</small>
	== Admin buttons ==
	Following Bishonen's lead (), I'm not using my admin powers until ]'s are restored, which will hopefully be at the closing of the ArbCom case. I encourage others to do the same. Thanks. Oh, and yes, I'm probably just drawing attention to myself, but blame Bishonen- it was her idea :).--] <sup><font color="#FC0FC0">]</font></sup> 00:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	: That's ridiculous. Going on strike is going cripple the place. ] (]) 00:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	::It's not ridiculous to want to support El C.--] 01:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Never said it was ridiculous to support another admin. It's before ArbCom currently, and it'll be resolved soon, so let them deal with them deal with it without a rash of irrational actions. ] (]) 03:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Seems like a nice act of protest and solidarity with El C, but I don't see how it will help anything.--] 01:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Yes, how ''does'' this help? Do you think it will influence the ArbCom? Does it make you feel better? I doubt if it would make El C (or anyone else) feel better. Let the ArbCom determine his innocence or guilt (myself, I don't really know what should be done). ]] 01:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Missing the point. El C should never have been desysopped, in my opinion, and this is my way of expressing that. It doesn't actively harm anything, and yes, it makes me feel better.--] <sup><font color="#FC0FC0">]</font></sup> 01:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::The fact that El C was "wronged" (whether or not he was) has nothing to do with whether you should continue to use your admin powers. Who are you expressing your opinion to and why? These kinds of actions, in my opinion, raise the stress level of the project. It's not that important. If everyone just calmed down, we'd all be better off. Of course, it is entirely your choice. ]] 01:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::My own protest wasn't especially meant to be "nice", and I don't see why I shouldn't share my view of Jimbo's desysopping of El C merely because the ArbCom is arbitrating the case. That's what the ArbCom does, that's fine, we've elected them for it; deciding what I or Sean or anybody else should think or say about innocence or guilt is not what the ArbCom is for. ] | ] 01:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC).
	I would suggest a different act of solidarity: No wheelwarring until wheelwarring no longer exists. (Not to suggest anyone involved in the protest, or El C for that matter, was or ever has wheel warred; I do my best not to have views on such.) <font color=#696969>] <sup>] • ]</sup></font> 01:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Technically, I'm doing that too :).--] <sup><font color="#FC0FC0">]</font></sup> 01:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Yes, but you can do that and ''still'' help out with the vandals, come on now. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Us plain vanilla editors can still undo various forms of vandalism naughtiness. ] 01:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::I hardly ever do anti-vandalism stuff anyway, this will be no great loss in that area.--] <sup><font color="#FC0FC0">]</font></sup> 01:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Excellent point, Ruby, however I was thinking of blocking blatant vandals, protecting pages, and the like. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::::I'm sure the other 700 of us can handle it. ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> 02:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::I'm worried about pile-ons. What if there are only 699 of us? ]<sup>]</sup> 02:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::OMG Misplaced Pages is going to collapse!!! Someone please call Jimbo, 699 admins can't do the job!!!! =) ] <sub>(] ])</sub> ] 02:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::Actually, minus Sean Black and Bishonen, there are 802 of us :-) ] 03:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::::accourding to ] 673 active ones and based on past trends maybe at most 300 active as admins on any real scale.] 03:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::::I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (obscure Davy Crockett reference). Anyways, good point, I didn't take that into account.--] 03:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	It's your prerogative to do what you think is best, but this does really seem like a childish way of registering disagreement. In a sense it's also a bit arrogant to presume that one's own presence is so integral to the operation of the wiki that one's departure (or abstention from administrating) will have any effect on unrelated processes. This may, of course, just be a reflection of my bias against excessive drama, which I realize is not universal, though I have little respect for those who would rather make a point than get on with encyclopedia-building. &mdash; ] | ] 03:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Thanks for detailing so amply your disrespect for Sean and myself for acting on our convictions, RDSmith. Your defense of authority against our breath of criticism is presumably ''not'' arrogant, and ''does'' help build the encyclopedia? You're doing a fine job of building a congenial community climate, too. ] | ] 18:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC).
	I managed to deal with vandalism for my first three years without using admin powers -- in fact nobody had admin powers until 2002 so up till that time we all dealt with vandalism without the admin buttons. I'm sure that you will cope, Sean. -- ] | ] 03:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	Is it just me that think that this whole pedophile userbox thing is getting blown WAY out of proportion? I await the trumpets to annouce Wiki War I... ''']''' ]|] 05:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	I'm not using my admin buttons either. They never work anyway... --] 17:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	*If everyone could agree on a solid userbox policy then stuff like this wouldn't happen.--''']]''' 15:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	**Solid userbox policy == anything goes? ;-) Well, that was the original starting point, but it would be nieve to say that all those who wheel-warred didn't have a choice. No-one compelled them to. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	***"Anything goes" works for me, as long as a given userbox isn't in violation of ] or somehow libelous. People's userpages should be left alone; without the ability to have some sort of "home page", it would be almost impossible for many people here to feel even the slightest sense of community. We're not drones. --] 17:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	****I fully respect that opinion. I was only commenting on God of War's oblique reference. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	== User:Wjhonson ==
	] has over the last few days been deleting negative comments from his talk page. ] is an admin who tried to correct him, and he responded by vandalizing KillerChihuahua's comments and deleting more stuff. He was reconciled by someone creating an archive for him and moving all the comments there, and now he just deleted a comment in his archive. I would put it back myself, but I am sure he will not keep it there. I'm not an admin and don't want to police him, but he is extremely active on pages I'm editing, and it's important that a record remains of his actions. is the most recent example of a deletion. You will have to look through history to find more extreme cases of what he's been doing. ] ] - ] 02:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	:He's also been edit warring on ], including breaking the 3RR with five reverts in less than two hours. <font color=#696969>] <sup>] • ]</sup></font> 03:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	::And now he's just changed a bunch of his own comments in the archive. See edits. Is this allowed? Please do something ] ] - ] 08:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Suggestion: List him on ] -- ] | ] 08:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::Actually, he was just blocked for 24 hours -- ] | ] 08:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Opinion requested: is "BushRules" an inappropriate user name -- inappropriate enough to warrant a user name block? --] (]) 06:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	:The user, incidentally, has since put up a personal-attack-filled user page, which I've blanked and warned him about. Another personal attack and I'll block him for 24 hours, but I still would like opinion on whether indefinite block is warranted based on name alone. --] (]) 07:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	The username itself doesn't warrant a block, but I would be on the lookout for trolling. --] ] 07:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	:There's been a lot of ] at ] lately - all trying to add the claim the USA is a police state. <span class="plainlinks">] (] &bull; ] &bull; &bull; ] &bull; )</span> strikes me as (rather sad) attempt to create a mindlessly over the top pro-bush voice to agree violently with anyone who agrees that the USA is not a police state. Regards, ] 08:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	:: Clearly, this account was created for no reason other than to disrupt Misplaced Pages. Perhaps we should consider a genuine ban? &ndash; ]] 14:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I thought it was merely a reference to a ]... ;) ] ] 14:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	::His (feigned?) ruralism is most amusing but probably intended to troll/trawl. The misspelling of "filthy" as "firthy" is way, way out of the way -- the kind of error that a non-native and regional person would not generally make. That's why I tentatively agree that this is a disruption account, or some attempt at satire. ] 15:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Agreed. I'm going to be bold and block indefinitely. Feel free, of course, to modify/unblock as you see fit. &ndash; ]] 16:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Fiend deletes/moves pages in contradiction with ]. This although he was specifically advised of this guideline . -- User:Docu
	==Revert warring, disruption on ]==
	I have blocked ] and range-blocked 70.85.195/24 for 48 hours for constant revert-warring and disruption on ]. I did not bother asking for a checkuser because I believe (a) looking at the history , that their sockitude is extremely likely, and (b) even if they are not socks, they are revert warring and are not engaged in any discussion on the article's talk page. If other admins believe I'm being too harsh, feel free to review or reverse the blocks.] 07:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I had asked for a checkuser the day before, but considering the backlog it is unlikely that will happen soon; considering the edit history of these users it is unlikely that these are not socks. Strongly agree Nandesuka took a reasonable course of action. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Do we know who that IP range belongs to? ] 18:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	::It's an . However, ] is my dear friend ] (see ]). --]] 15:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	==Block length==
	I do not have time to look into this. Please make sure the correct block duration is given to ]. --] 16:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I blocked this user indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. ] ] 16:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	This template was listed at ]. It was later tagged as a speedy, and as nobody removed the tag after quite a while, I took the liberty of following ] and . The userbox has zero use whatsoever. You can defend a "Fuck George Bush" userbox as indicative of possible bias, but this has zero relevance WRT the encyclopedia and only encourages factionalism by defining TFD as a war and participants as warriors. ] | ] 18:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	Yes, tagged it myself. Death to stupid crud. --] 00:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I agree 100 percent. People seem very quick to ignore policy on TfD right now.--] 00:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	:by policy, I mean the policy that says templates are supposed to be NPOV and encyclopedic.--] 00:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	== Possible Username vio / vandalism account ==
	{{vandal|WOWGeek}}, created minutes ago, appears to violate ]. Seems to be continuing vandalism from {{vandal|66.191.128.8}}. <font style="color:#55BBBB"><u><b>s</b>murray</u></font><font style="color:#77AAAA"><u>inch</u></font>]<font style="color:#77AAAA"><u>ster</u></font><font style="color:#77AAAA"><sup>(]), (])</sup></font> 20:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	:No contributions from either for the last two hours. No opinion on the username, but it could be the word "wow" rather than our ]. ] 22:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	: I don't think it violates username policy at all; WOW likely refers to ]. They may warrant a block nonetheless, but we don't block everyone with 'WOW' in their name. ] ] 22:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	==Possible ] violation==
	]...at ].
	:20:13, 10 February 2006
	:20:18, 10 February 2006
	:20:26, 10 February 2006
	:20:27, 10 February 2006
	:20:29, 10 February 2006
	:20:36, 10 February 2006
	:20:37, 10 February 2006
	:20:38, 10 February 2006
	:20:39, 10 February 2006
	::] 20:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	Also, the user is a possible sockpuppet of ] and ]. ] 20:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	I placed this notice here because of the nature of the reverts not being "precise". ] 21:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	===Summary===
	*: ] adds "Inerrancy.org" and "Christian Thinktank" links
	*: ] removes said links
	*: ] removes 3 links: "Skeptics Annotated Bible", "A Few Bible Contradictions", and "ErrancyWiki"
	*: ] readds "Inerrancy.org" and "Christian Thinktank" links
	*: ] removes "Inerrancy.org" and "Christian Thinktank" links and readds "Skeptics Annotated Bible", "A Few Bible Contradictions", and "ErrancyWiki" links
	*: ] removes "Skeptics Annotated Bible", "A Few Bible Contradictions", and "ErrancyWiki" links
	*: ] readds "Inerrancy.org" and "Christian Thinktank" links
	*: ] removes "Christian Thinktank" link
	*: ] readds "Skeptics Annotated Bible", "A Few Bible Contradictions", and "ErrancyWiki" links
	*: ] readds "Christian Thinktank" link
	*: ] removes "Skeptics Annotated Bible", "A Few Bible Contradictions", and "ErrancyWiki" links
	*: ] removes "CreationWiki on Biblical inerrancy", "Inerrancy.org", and "Christian Thinktank" links
	*: ] readds "CreationWiki on Biblical inerrancy", "Inerrancy.org", and "Christian Thinktank" links (3 revs)
	- ] 23:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	==Data Loss Bug ?!==
	What is going on here ? ] 22:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	Is this site undergoing ''another'' '''meltdown''' ? ] 22:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	What are you talking about? --] 23:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	:The bug that gives you a notice that says "Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try again in a few moments, or if that doesn't work, try logging out and logging back in." or something to that effect. I got that three times in a row earlier. Just keep hitting "submit". ]]]''']''' 00:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	:: Just log out, delete your Misplaced Pages cookies, purge your cache, reload your browser and log back in. That should fix it. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 00:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	:: I agree with ]. This kind of error is almost always cured by simply removing the cookies used by Misplaced Pages. --] 00:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	Is this something new? I never saw this error (for two years) before today, and today I got it several times. --] 07:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Sometimes a session gets broken for no known reason. You were just lucky before. Killing the cookies makes the server generate another session. --] 14:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	I actually get this fairly often. I just hit the back button and resubmit, the vast majority of the time it goes through with no problems on the second try. Once in a grea while I have to copy my changes, go back to the article, hit edit again, and put the changes back in. I've never had to purge cookies/reload browser/restart computer etc. to get it working again. Simpler solutions are better. ] 18:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	==Possible plagiarism==
	Recently, '']'' received information that parts of an article published by '']'', a ] newspaper, may have been plagarized from Misplaced Pages without attribution. The user emailed us because of the ] ], who also plagarized from Misplaced Pages and has now since been dismissed from the ] newspaper where he worked. The article in question was published on October 8, 2005 and can be viewed . The second to last bullet pointed paragraph states:
			== Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request ==
	''In 1792, Lady Almeria Braddock and Mrs Elphinstone held a "petticoat duel" in London's Hyde Park after their conversation turned to the subject of Lady Almeria's true age. The ladies first exchanged pistol shots in which Lady Almeria's hat was damaged. They continued with swords until Mrs Elphinstone received a wound to her arm and agreed to write Lady Almeria an apology.''
			The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}:
	The article ] contains the following paragraph:
			{{tqb|I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: ] and ] (note that the two other accounts –- ] and ] -- at ] was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me.
			Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (], ], ]) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at ]). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see ]). I have created over 900 pages (see ]), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance ], ], ], ] or the event ] that is barely mentioned at the English ]. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see ] and ].
	''1792: Lady Almeria Braddock and Mrs Elphinstone; so called "petticoat duel"; Lady Almeria Braddock felt insulted by Mrs Elphinstone and challenged her to a duel in London's Hyde Park after their genteel conversation turned to the subject of Lady Almeria's true age. The ladies first exchanged pistol shots in which Lady Almeria's hat was damaged. They then continued with swords until Mrs. Elphinstone received a wound to her arm and agreed to write Lady Almeria an apology.''
			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 ].}}
	The paragraph in question was first in March of 2004, and most of that paragraph was on April 7, 2004, by ], who appears to have left Misplaced Pages, over a year before the ''Scotsman'' article was published. In addition, parts of the section "The traditions of duelling" in the ''Scotsman'' article also appear to be paraphrased from our article, ].
			] (]) 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)
			== Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft ==
	It would be really appreciated if other people could take a look at this situation. Let's not jump to conclusions, though; remember that there is an (albeit slim) chance that the wording was copied from a common source or that there is some other explanation. Thoughts on this? Thanks a lot! ] <small>(])</small> 23:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
			I have not come across a situation like ] before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it.
	:Bullet points 1 and 3-6 - similar to paragraphs in article ]:
	:*1 - Etymology - by ] as part of a series of edits.
	:*3 - Social class - on 19 May 2004 by ] as part of a series of extensive edits.
	:*4-6 - Rules of dueling - added on by ]. One day after this, ] "the graver the insult, the fewer the paces".
	:Bullet point 7 - similar to paragraph in article ]: on 17 July 2003 (initial revision) by ]; on 7 April 2004 by the same user.
	:<s>Bullet point 8 - similar to paragraph in article ]: to Misplaced Pages on 12 July 2004 by ]</s>. Likely copyvio on WP's part; see .
	:- ] 00:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			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.
	Searching on Google for short phrases from the paragraph in question finds only Misplaced Pages forks and irrelevant links (besides the news article itself): , . ] 00:32, 11 February 2006 (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.
	This is interesting: http://archive.scotsman.com/scotsman.cfm ; it appears to have similar text to "]", but it's unclear who copied from who. (in regard to the "duel" para.) ] 02:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I found this: http://web.archive.org/web/20010502165056/http://www.heritage.scotsman.com/cfm/thescotsman/index.cfm ; it's older than the WP , so that paragraph (and maybe more) is a copyvio on our part. ] 02:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			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.
	::Thanks for the reply! I'm a bit confused now: are you saying that only the Misplaced Pages article on '']'' may be copied from the newspaper website, or that all of it is copied? Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 20:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::No problem. Only the "]" article text appears to have been copied from the website as far as I can tell. The others may have been copied, but I haven't found any evidence of that. ] 10:08, 12 February 2006 (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?
	==Final decision in the pedophilia userbox wheel war==
	Having given this case top priority, the Arbitration Committee has reached a final decision in the ] case. ] 00:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			<small>'''Edit:'''</small> Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet ]?
	I've restored El C's sysop rights, but the rest of the decision remains to be implimented. ] 00:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			] (]) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	:I've implemented remedies 6.2 and 10.1, the blocks of ] for 2 months and ] for 10 days. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 00:10, 11 February 2006 (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. ]]<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)
	:And blocked ] for 3 days per remedy 3.0. ] <small>(])</small> 00:14, 11 February 2006 (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 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)
			**Thank you. ] (]) 15:01, 1 January 2025 (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)
	:Is there a delay built into the meta rights log? It's El C's restoration. &mdash;] (]) 00:26, 11 February 2006 (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)
	::It's not going to show up at the meta rights log, it should be at the bureaucrats log here, just like any other promotion. Raul's a bureaucrat, not a steward, too, so it couldn't. :) ]·] 00:37, 11 February 2006 (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)
	::: Aha. How... asymmetrical. :-) &mdash;] (]) 00:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	I've added a "Log of blocks and bans" section to the decision. Please use this to record such enforcement details that come out of the probation remedies in this case. --] 00:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Carnildo's and Karmafist's remedies are worded differently, but is there any substantive difference between them? Both are desysopped and may apply to RFA in no less than two weeks, yes? ] 00:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	::It looks that way. --] ] 06:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	::There is an inevitable difference in wording because they were arrived at with different reasoning based on different actions. The remedies are the same, however. ]·] 07:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I notice that ] seems still to be a sysop - is this intentional? He seems to have been re-sysopped on 09:24, 6 February 2006 UTC by ] ] 18:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Voluntarily desysoped. See and . ] 21:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==		== 43.249.196.179 (again) ==
	Should he/she be blocked as an inappropriate user name? --] (]) 00:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	* I don't think that it's an anappropriate username. People with the names of politicians are more likely to become trolls than other, though, so it may be wise to keep an eye on him for a bit. &ndash; ]] 00:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	* From ]: ''No harassing or defamatory usernames: Harassment and defamation is in any case inappropriate on Misplaced Pages. Further, your username is not a vehicle to attack other users with whom you have a disagreement. Your username should not be used to insult or mock other users, usernames, articles, or actions. Additionally, a username should not be used to defame other people, companies or groups, regardless of whether they edit Misplaced Pages. Fairly or unfairly, the line between acceptable and unacceptable user names is drawn by those who find the username inappropriate, not by the creator of the name.'' Given that this user is engaged exclusively in the editing of articles about U.S. politics, I think the real ] might consider some of this user's edits to be defamatory. I think the user should be gently guided to pick a different moniker. --] 00:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	** But HowardDean has been around since July 7, 2005. Shouldn't this have been raised earlier? At this point, I think the user should be judged on the merits of his/her contributions. If they violate ], then I'd say deal with the user on those grounds. -] (<small>] | ]</small>) 00:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	***] recommends users avoid "names of politicians." I believe this counts. Just because he's gone unnoticed for so long doesn't mean he's not subject to policy. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">''']]]''' <small>{]}</small></span> 00:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	**** Yes, I'm aware of that. And, I agree about users not choosing such usernames, but it's just a "recommendation". Maybe it should be made more than just a "recommendation". -] (<small>] | ]</small>) 01:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	** '''Comment''' recent blocked user <span class="plainlinks">] (] &bull; ] &bull; &bull; ] &bull; )</span>--] 00:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	*** ]'s user page also read "I'm a wackjob, truely", and his sig redirected to ]. Not the same thing. &ndash; ]] 04:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	Has anyone asked this user if his name is actually Howard Dean? It's not like it's necessarily such an odd name. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 05:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	*It's not unknown for members of Congress to take part in the Misplaced Pages fun. &lt;speculation&gt;For all we know, it could be ] himself.&lt;/speculation&gt; &ndash; ]] 05:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	*This is ridiculous I should be able to have whatever username I want as long as its not already taken. Did anyone stop to consider that maybe Howard Dean is actually my real name. The former governor of Vermont doesn't own the names Howard and Dean. But if this is indeed some kind of wikipedia rule...then fine I'll simply choose a new username. -- ] 05:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	** If you read most of this text, you'll see that most of the comments are along the lines of "he's an upright editor, so no big deal". Nobody's asking anybody to change names. &ndash; ]] 05:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	**I would have no problem allowing the user to keep his/her name, so long as they put something on their User page saying they're not the former Governor. ]|] 05:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			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)
	We once had a very good editor with the username DickCheney (or something like that). He left in 2004 for unknown reasons. So I think there's precedent for accepting editors with usernames resembling politicians' real names if they make good edits. ] | ] 09:26, 11 February 2006 (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)
	* That is true. Indeed, I think no such notice is necessary. If he decides to stick with us, such a note will likely go up there when he decides to create a proper user page. &ndash; ]] 15:52, 11 February 2006 (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)
	== Nipping boxen in the bud ==
			: 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've just removed speedy tags from ] and ] not because I think that the templates are doing anything for the encyclopedia but because they were stretching the new CSD as well an not actually going towards solving the underlying problem.
			::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)
			::You are looking at two different IP addresses. Getting things right is important. ] (]) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::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)
			== Incivility at ] ==
	'''Note 1''' - A quick look shows that about 2% of existing boxen are actually useful. About .001% appear to cleanly fall under ]. The vast majority are humorous, attempt to be humorous, or are Dada-esque.
			@] 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)
	'''Note 2''' - Every other speedy deletion criteria is for things that would have no chance at passing their respective XfD. The new one is being used for things that would probably pass TfD in the current climate. We've had a few examples of gaming the system by deleting things "out of process" and then taking them to deletion review because DRV is conservative in restoration. This simply ''codifies'' said gaming into the rules.
			:This looks to me like it's covered by ]. ] ] 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	Unless it's only applied to the .001% using this CSD is never going to work. You can't change behavior with rules, you can only enforce it. Especially not when those rules are applied arbitrarily, and without communication to those affected.
			: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)
			::{{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)
			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)
	The big problem is that it's dead easy for new users to find and place boxen. Some of them have ten boxes before they've made ten article edits, because we've got massive ] for them to choose from. Rather than throwing our weight around and playing ] we'd be better served by doing a bit more thought and a bit less action.
			:Agreed. An admin got involved and simply continued off-topic discussion. ] (]) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 01:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			*'''Warn both to drop the stick''', otherwise, no action at this point. ] (]) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:The line between what is truly "divisive and inflammatory" and what is not is blurred.--] 01:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			*:'''''Hands ] two ]''''' You want to hand them out, or me? ] (]) 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Topic ban appeal ==
	::I suppose it depends what we mean by 'divisive'. One ready could see all political POV boxes as divisive, and that has pretty good authority . Jimbos's comments on the new CSD T1 seem to imply that ''many'' existing userboxes ''could eventualy'' be deleted be deleted under it. The problem, as Aaron rightly recognises, is that if two admins disagree on a speedy on any other criteria, the sollution is to send to xfd, as the criteria are designed to delete those thing that would always be shot after a debate. T1, however, seems designed to give a different result to TfD, and so there is no mechanism to solve any admin disputes. --] ] 01:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			{{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)
	:::I'm trying to ignore userboxes as much as I can but everwhere I go they turn up. I'm cleaning up ] and I get hit by ] which Tony Sidaway has tagged for speedy deletion. The text reads "This user opposes the Iraq War and advocates immediate troop withdrawal." I think you would have no chance of getting this deleted in a TfD. I'm not going to touch it, neither to delete it nor to remove the speedy tag. ] 01:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::Are userboxes in the template space exempted from rules governing templates? I'm pretty sure they aren't, but correct me if I'm wrong. If they are subject to template rules, ] says that templates have to be NPOV and encyclopedic. That's policy. People voting in TfD are voting to keep because they want to keep their pretty userboxes, but they're completely ignoring existing policy.--] 04:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::*I cannot and have not disagreed with this. I think that userboxen are a total waste of time and effort and every method available to us should be taken to root them out and destroy them. Even the ones that are "harmless" are taking up space, and when the '''first thing''' new users do is hang curtains on their user page it starts them off on totally the wrong track. They are here to support the encyclopedia, not the other way around.
	::::*The thing is that we've tried the brute force approach, and that was a complete failure. In fact, trying the brute force approach ''first'' is why TfD is a no fly zone right now when it comes to "harmless" user boxen. I'm simply suggeting that we attempt to use less bullying, more tact.
	::::]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 05:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::* Just a humble observation: it seems to me that the people wasting the most time and effort are those that are raging against userboxen. &ndash; ]] 05:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::::*That's funny, I've come to exactly the opposite conclusion: the time-wasters on the pedo userbox debacle weren't the anit-troll-bait people.
	::::::*For a particularly over-the-top example of userbox-ititis, check out ]: compare with : Time and edits enough to create/install 79 or so user boxes, and only enough time for 5 article edits. --] | ] 06:29, 11 February 2006 (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? ]] 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:The we love userboxen crowd on TFD have gone overboard. Seriously. It's one thing to support keeping, say, User anti-UN. It's another to support keeping {{tl|User participant userbox war}}. That's just plain factionalist idiocy. ] | ] 09:28, 11 February 2006 (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. ] (]) 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 ==
	The new T1 speedy seems to work reasonably well. It's easy to get the wrong impression of the prevalence of userboxes--in my sampling of over 200 active editors, only around 10% had political, polemical or religious boxes, but the reason you often see lots of votes on TfD is that a small number of editors pay a lot of attention to their user pages and will notice if a template is listed for deletion. Outrage and freedom of speech rhetoric do the rest. So a TfD debate about userboxes cannot be taken as representative of Misplaced Pages consensus.
			{{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 ===
	I think Jimbo has made statements about userboxes with which I'm sure the vast majority can agree. We shouldn't feel afraid to get rid of rubbish that a few people, many of whom are evidently not interested in using Misplaced Pages to produce a high quality encyclopedia, want to keep. --] 09:59, 11 February 2006 (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>
			User:Mr.Choppers has not followed the ] rules because: <br/>
			'''-''' calling me a "nuisance" because of own ] supporting others in ] that have nothing to do with the user. ] ] <br/>
			'''-''' responded fairly aggressively to another user (me) without me being aggressive back or starting this edit war <br/>
			'''-''' note that he also called me a "sockpuppet of a banned user" without reliable clarification, also biased on that <br/>
			'''-''' also note the user had not informed me and used aggression to support own claims. <br/>
			<br/>
			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)
			: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)
			{{abot}}
			== user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation of ] violation, unfounded vandalism allegation ==
	:It's a small but vocal set of users who monitor ] and then go to ] to voice out-of-process opinions such as "STRONG Speedy Keep" without following the TfD instructions. Contrary to what Aaron Brenneman has stated above, the new CSD rule for templates does not contradict ], which says that biased templates ("not NPOV") can be deleted. CSD T.1 is simply a special case of the existing deletion policy for templates, since it's hard to imagine how a template can be divisive/inflammatory, yet neutral ("NPOV"). --]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 10:21, 11 February 2006 (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)}}
	::As niether of the above statements appear to address the issues I've raised, I'd ask the contributors to re-read my statements. '''Template:User UN useless''' is pretty innocuous, and highly unlikely to ''either'' be deleted in TfD ''or'' to cause any rift in the community. If we're going to appeal to a higher authority, also note that JW has said ''"don't go on any sprees deleting ones that already exist"''.- ]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 11:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			repost from archive:
	:::If all applicable policies are followed, they don't stand a chance. ] states clearly that biased templates can be deleted; ] requires people to get off their soapboxes and do their blogging elsewhere; and ] has spoken out against userboxes expressing a political or religious point of view. If you think that it's likely that these templates would survive TfD, it's only an indication that something is wrong with TfD, since the policies couldn't be clearer. --]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 11:18, 11 February 2006 (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.
	You probably need to rethink your opinion on "User UN useless", I think. I certainly don't find it in the least innocuous; we must not provide this kind of inflammatory statement as a ready-made bumper-sticker for user pages on this ''encyclopedia'' project. I don't think we're seeing any sprees here, either, just a few very bad templates being speedied. Let's stop pretending that this trash has any place here. --] 11:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	*It would be ridiculous for me to expect that all editors will remove any mention of the political, religious biases, sexual orientation and what not from their userpages...but there is no reason to continue to support the use of much more obtusive userboxes that clearly violate the NPOV.--] 11:21, 11 February 2006 (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 ].
	Can we, just for once, be pragmatic: the top down "admin-powers" approach simply is not working. I haven't checked in a few hours, but nominating a whole swag of things for TfD doesn't seem to have worked, repeatedly deleting and re-deleting things like GWB2 doesn't seem to have worked, and stretching the new CSD isn't going to work either. This whole "us against them" pissing contest is severly disruptive not because of the boxen but because of the continued quasi-hysterical heavy-handed response to the userboxen. Part of being an admin is supposed to be the ability to ''resolve'' disputes, not cause them. Quit playing with the buttons, get off the "stupid newbies" high horse and start talking to people. Shave a monkey and call him dad, the '''second person''' I asked nicely to remove a boxen did so. <br/>]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 11:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			'''Diffs:''' ''(all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 ) ''
	:I think you may have the wrong impression here. The problem is that there is a very small group of users who have created userboxes which violate existing policies, and who continue to air their grievances and political views through the vehicle of userboxes. This is entirely inappropriate. I'm all in favor of educating newbies who are unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages policy, but in some cases we're dealing with willful ignorance or outright filibusters by people who keep arguing about "free speech" (which was countered with ]), "censorship", etc. instead of actual Misplaced Pages policy. Among this problematic minority are people who will argue some of the time, but will argue whenever that's more convenient. We should not let ourselves be bullied around by a minority, just because they happen to have an astroturfing campaign going on. --]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 11:59, 11 February 2006 (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''
	: I cannot agree that it ''hasn't worked'', when the results show the opposite. We're slowly but surely building a consensus for the deletion of offensive userboxes. I'm all in favor of your attempts to reason with the perpetrators of these silly things, Aaron, but do please stop removing validly placed speedy tags. --] 12:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	:: Given that Aaron did so in an attempt to spark discussion &mdash; which seems to be working &mdash; and that he notified everyone that he did so, I think his actions were fine.
	:: I'll stake out an extreme position, just for the purposes of discussion: no wiki-markup, other than wikilinks, on User: pages. None. Nada. Zero. No markup, no images, no templates. Misplaced Pages is not a blog, and not a personal website. Whether or not such a proposal is technically doable, I have no idea. But it gets us out of the business of making subtle distinctions about politics and divisiveness in templates, which frankly many admins seem to be doing a poor job at. ] 13:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	::: As you say, this is ''extreme''. I think we should allow things like the Babel boxes, since they actually help building an encyclopedia. That is the criterium I would use anyway, when formulating a "policy" for the User: space. ] 13:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::: The elephant in the room is that I can't, for the life of me, understand why people are so worked up over (for example) a ''template'' that says "This user is against peanut butter sandwiches" but not ''text on a user page'' that says "This user is against peanut butter sandwiches." I don't see anything particularly special about the template. Can someone explain this? ] 13:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Perhaps because people are allowed to do what they want with their user space, but there are rules (outlined at ]) governing template space. Templates must be both NPOV and encyclopedic.--] 15:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I think that the word you're looking for is "hysteria" (though "mob psychology" might fit better).
	:::::As for your suggestion, I think that it ignores the fact that Misplaced Pages is meant to be a community engaged in building an encyclop&aelig;dia, hence the constsnt emphasis on community consensus. People's User and Talk pages are relevant to that aspect of what we do here. --] (]) 14:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::::This argument goes around and around so often, we may want to consider a creating a series of templates for it. Something like <nowiki>{{whatsthebigdeal}}</nowiki> to which one may reply <nowiki>{{becauseitmakesittooeasy}}</nowiki>. The number of questions/responses being finite, it may make a reasonable wikiproject. The questions remains, however: would that project have a corresponding userbox template? &ndash; ]] 16:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			* Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template.
	The arguments against (and in favor of) having inflammatory and divisive statements available in userbox form have been discussed on the appropriate policy pages, where they may be read by those interested. --] 18:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			* Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also ] for escalation in progress.".
	:Tony, can you provide links, for the rushed and lazy? Personally I think the antipope template is clearly harmless, and the UN one I would probably count for myself in the 'inflammatory and divisive' category. If there are people who are on this website who are here to make userboxes, rather than an encyclopedia, then I am very worried indeed. However, I would point out that some newbies will find playing with userboxes a fun way to learn how to work the wiki while they are stil finding their feet with articles: we have to watch out about ]. ] 20:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			* 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.
			---
	==]==
			* At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI.
	This user has recently taken to reverting an article (]), which in itself is quite unproductive. I believe his reasons to be spurious, as I have tried to explain to him in a civil tone. He once reverted a grammatically correct edit with the edit summary "grammatically better", following it with another edit summary: "rv. Ec5618, please stop reverting this article on spurious grounds. Learn how to write".
			* 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)
	He has now started to use foul language and to remove my comments from his talk page. Please see the history of his Talk page, which shows his removal of my comments using popups, and his use of foul language.
	Perhaps someone should talk to this user. -- ] 01:36, 11 February 2006 (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)
	:According to the ], this user is supposed to be permanently banned.
			::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)
	::''Case was closed after JarlaxleArtemis was banned permanently as a result of actions detailed at ]. ] 17:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)'' <small>&mdash;''The preceding ] comment was added by'' ] (]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
	:] brokered an agreement to enable him to return. You may want to contact him directly, as he is JarlaxleArtemis's mentor. ] 03:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	::I have left a note on ] Talk page, requesting him to take a look. Am I to take it that ] is unofficially exempt from the rules until Linuxbeak has commented? Note that he has technically broken ] since my initial comment here. -- ] 10:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			Reposted above from archive, see ]
	::Both users blocked for 24hrs for 3RR violations, and overall ]headed edit warring. &nbsp;]]] 12:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page:
	:I dont see where Ec5618 violated 3RR, am I missing something or did you miscount? ]<sup>]</sup> 12:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			::::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)
	::I am unblocking. If there is evidence of a 3RR, please post diffs and reblock. Thanks - ]<sup>]</sup> 14:12, 11 February 2006 (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.
	::He reverted at 06:55, February 10, 2006, 01:17, February 11, 2006 and 01:41, February 11, 2006. That is three reversions in less than 24 hours, but he didn't violate 3RR by reverting again. -- ] 17:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			:::::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.
	I will back Ec5618 up on this. Attempts at engaging in a civil dialogue with User:JarlaxleArtemis in regard to editing disagreements have been unproductive.] 16:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			:::::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)
	In Jarlaxle's defense, his version IS grammatically more correct than Ec's as per the current reversion. Furthermore, Ec's original comments on his talk page appear to be in response to his "Learn to write" edit summary, which, while not exactly appropriate, isn't offensive to anyone except the thinnest skins around. Jarlaxle told him it wasn't meant to be offensive, and from my view, appeared to be done with the matter, but Ec apparently kept talking about it on Jarlaxle's talk. If I were him, I'd be a little pissed about that too, and delete those comments. Jarlaxle has every right to delete them, as none of them are a warning. I think it all sums up in this, Ec's comment "Please consider discussing this matter. Please consider changing your stance too. and your attitude, perhaps. I have tried to reason with you, please don't force me to file an official complaint.". Ec feels he'd been trying to reason, but Jarlaxle feels that he's an unwelcome presence on the talk page. As an outside observer, I can't say I disagree with Jarlaxle about that. Now I'm not saying Jarlaxle isn't to blame, he obviously violated 3RR. But what I AM saying is that I think there's been far less attempt at engaging him in dialogue to reason with him than there is mentioned here.] ] ] ] ] ] 17:24, 11 February 2006 (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)
	:Perhaps I came across as a little agressive, without meaning to. And perhaps ] came across as obstinate and offensive, without meaning to. But the fact is that this user has been reverting this article, without ever bothering to Talk to me, or anyone else involved. I have tried to reason with him, and have tried to engage in discussion after virtually every reversion.
	:As for ] comment: "there's been far less attempt at engaging him in dialogue". To be honest, I'm not sure on what you're basing that conclusion. As ] Talk page shows, I have tried to get him to discuss the issue, but in turn, I have had to deduce his reasoning from reading his edit summaries. -- ] 18:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	::And I'm saying your attempts at discussion weren't necessarily well done on his talk page. He answered you, multiple times. You kept pressing the issue. I fail to see where there was a "failure to bother to talk to you or anyone else involved". Look back at the history, he answered you multiple times. Just cause you don't agree his response doesn't mean that he never actually made one.] ] ] ] ] ] 19:55, 11 February 2006 (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)
	:So help me understand this, Swatjester. The complaint is simultanously that people attempt discussion ("kept talking about it on Jarlaxle's talk", "he's an unwelcome presence on the talk page") and that people do not attempt discussion ("I think there's been far less attempt at engaging him in dialogue to reason with him")? ] 19:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			* 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)
	No, and please don't build a strawman. The complaint is that he had every right to delete comments on his talk page, especially if he felt annoyed by the unwelcome presence. AND, that the attempts to "reason" with him were not very well done, and more aggressive than they should have been. ] ] ] ] ] ] 19:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			*: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)
	:I'm sorry, but this is quite an odd thing to say. His 'responses' (the ones I didn't agree with, or tried to discuss) were, in order:
			* 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)
	:*Following the assertion that 'my version' was grammatically incorrect: "there isn't anything grammatically wrong. My version is just grammatically better."
	:*In response to a suggestion to refer to the Manual of Style, and the relevant Style subpage: "Anyway, I already have looked at it, but I don't agree with it."
	:*In response, again, to the assertion of grammatical incorrectness: "Sorry, but I can't explain intuition."
	:*Following a comment regarding his own verbal skills: "Whatever." He went on to remove one of my comments.
	:Following these were another number of attempts at communication, none of which were acknowledged. Note that his responses were brief, at best, and wholly useless at times. I'm sorry, but I tried. I don't see how there was anything I could have done to induce discussion. -- ] 10:56, 12 February 2006 (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=]}}.
	== ] ==
			:* Suggestion: Add the following calculator to ]:
	This request for arbitration is closed. The ] has imposed the following remedies:
	#Reddi shall for one year be limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page.
	#Reddi is placed on ] for one year. He may be banned from any article by any administrator for good cause. Each ban shall be recorded together with the reason at ]. A notice shall be placed on the talk page of the article and Reddi shall be notified.
	#Any three administrators, for good cause, may extend either Reddi's ban or probation in one year increments. Any extension shall be documented at ].
	Violations of the remedies imposed on Reddi shall be enforced by brief blocks, up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. Blocks are automatically recorded at {{Vandal|Reddi}} but should also be logged at ].
			{{calculator|id=edits|type=number|steps=1|size=3|default=3|min=0}}
	For the Arbitration Committe, --] ] 06:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			{{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifless(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is less than three.}}
			{{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)
	== ] ==
			::* 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)
	Shall we protect ] () for a ] experiment? -- ] 15:05, 11 February 2006 (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.
	== ] ==
			: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've been trying to keep on top of POV disputes to whittle them down. Even with my efforts, the number of disputes is growing about 300 a month or about 50% in 2 months. Either we need to come up with some way to make POV disputes from being used as knee-jerk reponses or I could use more people to help me clean it up. Or I support we can let POV tags become a key feature on every article on wikipedia. :) -- ] 17:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			{{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)
	==Google giving Misplaced Pages 1st-place: no wonder things are so slow==
	]
			{{reflist-talk}} ] (]/]) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	I'm probably not the only one who noticed that things have been particularly slow today, much more so than ever before.
			* '''(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}}
			== Non-EC editor editing ARBPIA, broadly construed. ==
	Well, perhaps this is why: Google is returning 1st-position search results from Misplaced Pages on a variety of queries. An example is shown to the right. I've been able to get a few more, but I can't figure out the rationalle.
			{{atop|1=] semi-protected until the 23rd. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			This is intended as a "heads-up", asking for admin eyes, and letting admins know what I have done. I noticed edits by {{userlinks|OnuJones}} to ] and ], removing mentions of Palestine or changing Palestine to Israel. I have undone the edits. I have placed welcome/warning templates on their usertalk page, as advised when I asked recently on AN about a similar situation. The account in question was created on 4 December 2020, made two edits on that day, and then nothing until the three edits on the 7th January this year that caught my eye. I shall forthwith add <nowiki>{{subst:AN-notice}}~~~~</nowiki> to their usertalk page. ] (]) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I don't think this really needs admin attention. Your CTOP notice suffices. If they continue making those kinds of edits, you can go to AE or ANI. ] (]/]) 23:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	Time to double the servers and squids? --'']'' 18:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			::I might have to reread the ARBPIA restrictions because these two edits are about incidents around World War I. I'm not sure they are covered by ARBPIA restrictions which I tend to remember are about contemporary events. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I think the concern is that while the ''articles'' aren't ARBPIA per se, the ''edits'' ({{tqq|changing Palestine to Israel}} ) are clearly ARBPIA-motivated, as it were. (Even leaving aside the historical inaccuracy in that Israel didn't exist at the time!) - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I would consider the edits to be within the realm of ] ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Those kinds of transparently false Palestine to Israel or Israel to Palestine edits should result in a block without warning and without any red tape in my view. They know what they are doing. People who edit in the topic area shouldn't have to waste their time on these obvious ] accounts. ] (]) 03:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I guess I didn't make my meaning all that clear. Editors should not post to AN every time they warn a brand new account about a CTOP. It's a waste of everyone's time. ] (]/]) 15:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{re|Voorts}} It's not a brand new account, but presumably you didn't waste any of your time by actually reading my post. ] (]) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I misstated that this was a new account, but an account with five edits that hasn't edited since before you warned them isn't really something that needs an AN thread. I apologize for my tone. ] (]/]) 19:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Now an IP {{IPlinks|2800:A4:C0F1:B700:D17E:5AEF:D26C:A9B}} has been making similar edits, changing Palestine to Israel. ] (]) 21:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Hide this racist edit. ==
	:That's not the reason for todays slowness (I'm not sure what is). We've gotten first place results for a long time. ] ] 18:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			{{hat|1=] - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			{{atop|Different project, nothing for en.wikipedia.org admins to do. OP was pointed in the right direction. --] (]) 11:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			Hide the racist edit summary. It says bad words and it is stereotyping Romani people.
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Uzalutno:Contribuții/178.115.130.246 ] (]) 08:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Yes...just as violetriga said (and I was going to) we've been up on top for at least a year. Something with the servers is going on today. &mdash; ]]]] 18:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			:That's on the Romani Misplaced Pages, we only deal with the English one here. You'll need to raise that with the admins on that project. ]] 08:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	::These are a different kind of links, though; not typical Google results -- has anyone seen those "According to...." links before? --'']'' 18:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			:Please refer to ], if there are no active RMYWP admins available. ] (]) 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Yes introduced maybe 6 mounths ago. Pulls info from a number of places but wikipedia tends to be the most common.] 18:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	::::Same with define: on google, wikipedia is returned as the first result 99% of the time. Shows how much the wiki is trusted eh! ] <sub>(] ])</sub> ] 18:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			{{hab}}
	== User : TheDoctor10 ==		== 96.230.143.43 ==
			{{atop|1=Blocked, and ] is thataway →. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			This user is a frequent vandal on the page ]. I am requesting a block. ] (]) 16:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Blocked. In the future, please use ]. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 16:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	I recieved the following via e-mail from ] :
			::Ah, very sorry. ] (]) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	-------
			{{abot}}
	I've been mistakenly blocked by Ed g2s, please unblock me.
			== Permissions Removal ==
	TheDoctor10
			{{atop|1=Rights...left? - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	-------
			Hello, please remove my rollback and pending changes review permissions. Rollback is redundant because I have global rollback and I do not use the reviewer rights enough to warrant keeping them. Thank you! ] (]) 20:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Done. Thank you. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	I informed him that I am not an administrator and cannot unblock but that I would pass his request along. I do not know the nature of the ban.
			{{abot}}
			== ftools is back! ==
	Thanks - ] 19:08, 11 February 2006 (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)
	:The block is already expired. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			:{{like}} -] (]) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Olympics on ITN ==
			: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)
	At ] I've suggested reusing ], as was done in 2004; however, this would require the help of administrators who are knowledgeable about the Olympics and willing to keep it updated. This, then, is a recruiting call; if you're interested in helping, please comment at ]. Thanks. &mdash; ] | ] 19:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			== Block appeal for ] ==
	== Curps Bot ==
			{{atop
			| status = unblock denied
			| 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)
	This is to get more input on Curps's bot that unilaterally has his block powers and makes use of them to police usernames as well as page moves and other stuff (which curps refuses to elaborate on). His bot is unauthorized and uses blocking powers which is discourged in the strongest terms at ]. I have requested to Curps on his ] that he turn off this bot until this can be clarified. <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 19:34, 11 February 2006 (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:
	:For Curps to switch off the bots just on your request due to unfounded doubts would cause tremendous gross disruption to Misplaced Pages just to make a point. It would be held up in years to come as the perfect example of why process doesn't come before product - ] 20:51, 11 February 2006 (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'm strongly in favor of keeping his block/move bot running as is. It's a useful tool for keeping WoW-style vandalism at a minimum, and it has saved me a ton of work. In 99% of the cases where I'm thinking of doing a {{tl|UsernameBlock}}, I find that Curps has already blocked. In order to do this, he needs certain admin powers. The first alternative that comes to mind would be to let a designated bot account do all of the work, but that requires giving it the necessary admin powers. All of this has been discussed before, you may want to check the archives. --]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 19:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::For what it's worth, the earliest version of this discussion (that I'm aware of) can be found ]. --]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 22:04, 11 February 2006 (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.
	::Just because he hasn't done something utterly stupid and irresponsible yet doesn't mean he should be allowed to get away with doing whatever he wants including running an unauthorized bot that can block editors. <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 19:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			: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.
	:::In other words, ]. Digging through the archives is not, in my opinion, a very pleasant experience, and while I have no qualms about Curp's good faith or excellent contributions, it seems to me that a page describing what exactly the bot does would be in order. (I couldn't find it on his user page, at least) &mdash; <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">]</span><sup style="font-family:serif;">(])</sup> 20:31, 11 February 2006 (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)
	:::: The problem with that is that it would render the bot useless. There are at least a few vandals that ''read'' our discussion pages, and if the inner workings of the bot are given, then they can just go around it. That is the entire reason why he doesn't want to give out the details. Perhaps if he were assured secrecy by only one or two administrators (probably ] and someone else from ], he would give the details. And by the way, BlockBot is the best thing to Misplaced Pages since edit summaries. Don't block it. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 20:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I have done that, I have guaranteed secrecy and his response (on his talk page) was pretty much tough shit, I don't have to tell you anything about my bot which is one of the major reasons why he shouldn't be allowed to run a bot that blocks editors. <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 21:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Here is on my talk page. Others can judge if you have correctly characterized it in the description you gave above. -- ] 02:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
			] (]) 01:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Assume bad faith. As I noted on WP:RFAr, if his bots had done anything bad at all the devs would have had his arse and his bots' arse out of here at truly remarkable speed. You've been trying to raise unfounded doubts about his work at WP:RFAr, and now on this page as well.
			*'''Support unblock without TBANs and with single account restriction.'''] (]) 01:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Do you have ''any basis'' for trying to trash Curps' good name in this manner? What has he ''actually done''? If you can't produce some actual evidence of wrongdoing, perhaps not trashtalking someone would be a good option - ] 20:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::The only things I have said he has done is run a bot with no authorization and no oversight to make use of his blocking ability and he repeatedly has refused to clarify even privately what his bot does. I don't think I need evidence to prove that he's running a bot that he says he's running. <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 21:02, 11 February 2006 (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)
	::::Curp's bots currently make up a critical part of our anti vandalism defences. There is no way they can be removed at this time.] 20:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			:* '''Comment''' "Support as requested" sounds like a canvassed vote, did you mean it in a different way? ] 08:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::We got along fine before the bot we can do so without it and scare tactics are a slippery slope when justifying anything. <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 21:02, 11 February 2006 (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)
	::::::No we didn't. There was a form of vandalism that hit us just bofore the bot came on line that we had no useful responce to.] 21:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			:: 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)
			*'''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 ==
	::::(edit conflict)Agree with David Gerard. If I recall correctly, the matter has been discussed on ] or ] before. In any case, I support the continued use of this bot. It has caught inappropriate user names and page moves with astonishing speed. I stronlgy encourage continued use of this bot in keeping Misplaced Pages clean. Keep up the good work. &mdash; ] ] 20:47, 11 February 2006 (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>
	What do we do if, say, the machine Curp's bot runs on crashes? &mdash; <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">]</span><sup style="font-family:serif;">(])</sup> 20:55, 11 February 2006 (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}}
			== Requesting a range block of 109.172.86.0/24 ==
	:Then we block people by ourselves. Curps's bot is an extremely valuable vandal fighting tool, and I am completely in support of it. ]|] 20:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	:: Well according to Geni, there is "no way" we could do the blocking ourselves. I think that if part of the operations are "critical", then it's fair to point out that a critical part of site operation is a single point of failure that is not under Misplaced Pages's control. --] 21:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::We could probably get away with it for a short time because vandles with the abilty to launch the really nasty attacks would not relise that the bot had gone offline. We do have some server side options that could be used in an emergancy however they are very dissruptive and are emergancy use only.] 21:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			] this range of IP addresses have solely been used to insert nonsensical characters. Another IP range has already been blocked for the same thing (they edited the same way). ]] 10:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Zoe, it's called ]. There's no reason why the 800 or so admins can't do the same job that one bot does. It would just mean that you'd actually have to work to take care of username violations and page move vandals rather than letting a bot do the work. <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 21:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			: Looks like it's web hosting or something like that. Sometimes these kinds of services turn out to be proxies for schools or businesses, especially when there's petty disruption coming from them. There's nobody on this IP range at all, though, so it seems safe to hard block. ] (]) 15:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators ==
			The Arbitration Committee has resolved by ] that:
	:::We don't have 800 active admins. We have 300. At most.] 21:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			{{ivmbox|1=
	It's clear that the cabal's consensus is to let Curps get away with whatever the fuck he wants so be it then. Congratulations yet again reason and sanity have been usurped by wikipoliticking. <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 21:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			The ] are amended by adding the following section:
			<blockquote>
			; 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 ] assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work.
	:Jtkiefer, that's not the way to go about convincing people that Curp's bot should be licensed. Part of the argument is ], I think there is quite a bit an argument against it. Additionally, if page move throttling really is that important, I may want to consider dropping my Annotation project and working on something for that. &mdash; <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">]</span><sup style="font-family:serif;">(])</sup> 21:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			The specific responsibilities of coordinating arbitrators shall include:
	:Jtkiefer, that response is inappropriate and unlikely to convince anyone of your argument's merits. Instead of believing that everyone else is deluded and that you are the only one with reason and sanity, please consider the possibility that your assessment might be mistaken. &mdash; ] ] 21:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			* Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters;
	Um, is there anything wrong with the bot whatsoever? Jtkiefer, it seems to me ''you'' are politicking here, against this bot, to preserve some kind of useless process. If Curps actually does anything wrong, then he won't "get away with it" but, certainly he will until then. Now what's this about "''There's no reason why the 800 or so admins can't do the same job that one bot does''"? That's absurd, I'll give you one good reason: ]. This isn't a playground where we fight vandals, and your suggestion that we spend more time doing so, and less time on the encyclopedia, because of some policy, is just silly. ]·] 21:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			* 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.
	If there's any indication that the vandals are reading these pages, here's what's going on in the block log:
			</blockquote>
	# 15:32, 11 February 2006 Titoxd blocked "] (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ({{tl|usernameblock}})
			}}
	# 15:31, 11 February 2006 Titoxd blocked "] (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ({{tl|usernameblock}})
	# 15:24, 11 February 2006 Titoxd blocked "] (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ({{tl|usernameblock}})
	# 15:21, 11 February 2006 Titoxd blocked "] (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ({{tl|usernameblock}})
	# 15:19, 11 February 2006 Titoxd blocked "] (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ({{tl|usernameblock}})
	# 15:18, 11 February 2006 Titoxd blocked "] (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ({{tl|usernameblock}})
	# 15:18, 11 February 2006 Titoxd blocked "] (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ({{tl|usernameblock}})
	So, there is a considerable reason for not giving out the details of the blocking bot. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 22:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			For the Arbitration Committee, ]&nbsp;] 23:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	===Arbitrary section break===
			: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators}}'''<!-- ] (]) 23:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->
			== Backlog ==
	I would like to point that, when doing potentially controversial actions, it is a good idea to announce you did so on one of the noticeboards, so other people can check and potentially revert. Well, Curps's bot does exactly that: every time it blocks someone for excessive page moves, it announces it immediately on the noticeboard. If the block was a mistake, it's reverted very quickly; I only recall seeing that happen once. --] 21:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			] <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)
			== Requesting review of SPI ==
	*http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Leamme_Alone
			{{Atop|No need to have brought this here.--] (]) 23:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	*http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Jesit
	*http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Torrie
	*http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Tobacco_bean
	*http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Pumpkin_Pants
	*http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Heis
	*http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Hellonwhls
	::All of the above where blocked by the Curps block bot for one or two instances of vandalism. Each of which I just had to unblock. These are not the first set of mistakes (see his ]) and it won't be the last and I find it disgusting that he's getting away with not only violating policy but running a bot that by design ends up biting newbies without oversight and without regard and gets away with it on top of that just because he has the right people supporting him (see the list of folllowers of curps who have signed their above posts). <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 21:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Are you ''sure'' that's the bot? AFAIK, the bot is designed to block mass page moves, and possibly some offensive usernames (Curps always use the highly cryptic block reason "user.." for these; I don't know if it's his bot or a manually activated quick-block script). I don't think the bot is programmed to block for vandalism. --] 21:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::Well if Curps would get off his high horse and actually tell other admins (who by definition are trusted by the community) a little more about the workings of his bot we'd know for sure but since he probably wouldn't even tell Jimbo how his bot worked I can't tell you for sure but considering the pattern it sure looks like it. <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 21:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Um, no, how about you get off your high horse and do some research before flinging accusations. The burden of proof if is on you, not Curps. Also, seeing that you have just found it approprate to unblock penis image vandals that were clearly sockpuppets of the same person, I feel safe saying I wouldn't trust you with the script of my bot either. &mdash; ''''']'' <small>(<span class="plainlinks"></span>)</small>''' <small>02:48, Feb. 12, 2006</small>
	::::Somebody who vandalises an article with "curps is my freind" probably isn't a first-time vandal. And yes, how can you be sure it was the bot and not Curps himself? I do think he needs to use more descriptive block reasons, but other than that, the bot does wonderful work. We all screw up occasionally without scrupulous oversight. ]]]''']''' 21:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I didn't read the vandalism but no matter what it said it's wayyy against blocking policy to block after only 1 or 2 instances of vandalism unless they're making personal or legal threats or doing something of that sort so add misuse if not entirely ignoring blocking policy to my list of issues with the bot. <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 21:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::::And you're sure it's the bot and not Curps himself ''how''? ]]]''']''' 21:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::As I said before I'm not sure and I can't be sure since Curps won't share how his omnipotent bot works but the blocking pattern of blocking editors with one or two instances of vandalism and only a few editors fits very well into what a reasonable bot pattern would be. Bot or not is still a cursory matter though since either way it's a policy violation and it shows the same above the law attitude. <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 22:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			I recently filed an ]; any admin/checkuser eyes would be appreciated. Thank you! ] (] • ]) 22:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Looking closer at them, the last one "Hellonwhls" ("Hell on wheels", obviously) seems to have been manually blocked as a probable sockpuppet of you-know-who. Overriding that indefinite block, as you did, was probably not appropriate. --] 21:51, 11 February 2006 (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)
	::::Since when did when in doubt don't block become when in doubt block. It would have been a simple matter to keep an eye on it especially since it isn't a cut and dry username violation. <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 21:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			{{Abot}}
	:::::We already had that discussion before on the noticeboards. While it would be good to not have to block these accounts, leaving them unblocked meant we had a huge amount of Willy sleeper accounts, which would days later be used for massive page move vandalism. When one was blocked, the vandal simply switched to the next one. Blocking them on creation caused a big drop on that annoying form of vandalism. That, combined with Curps's quick block bot, enabled us to stop fighting fires and gave us more time to do more useful things. For instance, writing a encyclopedia. --] 22:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			== IPBE for AWB account ==
	(post-ec) Jtkiefer, I don't know what you're hoping to accomplish here, but it looks like you're hunting for things against Curps. If you think there's a problem with his bot, I suggest you tone down your rhetoric (asking somebody to "get off his high horse" comes across as needlessly confrontational, imho) and discuss things reasonably. ]]]''']''' 21:53, 11 February 2006 (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 ==
	:The first item on that list {{vandal|Leamme_Alone}} is the North Carolina vandal; the person named in his edit is a real kid who lives in that county, and who he's been harassing for a while. I strongly suggest re-blocking indefinitely. I don't want to wheel-war so I won't do it. ] ] 22:09, 11 February 2006 (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)
	:--Changed my mind; re-blocked indefinitely. This kid has often used his aged accounts for page move vandalism any time he can get them to survive the Curps bot. ] ] 22:36, 11 February 2006 (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) ==
			{{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:
	The attitude issue I'm talking about can be found in the following quote:
			{{talk quote block|Dear Sysops,
	''I realize an automated block bot can be dangerous, but this is an emergency. I will run it under supervision if possible, but will keep on running it even when I'm not here. Please note this is not a request to run such a bot; I am already running it and will continue to do so and am just letting everyone know. The bot is running under my account (admin). I hope no admin is misguided enough to think of blocking me for whatever reason; if so, I will unblock myself. Did I mention that this was an emergency? -- Curps 14:34, 26 August 2005 (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.
			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 ].
	:The above is curps stating that he has already started to run his vandal bot without any authorization and will continue to run it. He even states that he'll violate blocking policy and unblock himself if blocked which I have always come to understand was a huge policy violation. <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 22:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	::I hope that "vandal bot" means "a bot to catch vandals. While I'm ] it does, can you just clarify, Jtkiefer? ] <sup>]</sup> 00:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I don't know if you remember, but we were faced with WoW attacks every other day and had hundreds of page moves to revert back in August. This is an encyclopedia, there's no policy violation if what he's doing is ''good'' and by consensus. Please stop distracting us from that encyclopedia. What are you after here? ]·] 22:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	::What is he after here? So Jtkiefer (and whoever else) has to ] for the bot, but others should about Jtkiefer. I suppose that some devs have checked that bot, and if I understood correctly the ArbCom has some knowledge about its inner self. I also suppose that there are people who would like to know how it works and I can guess that Curps perhaps wants it '''closed source'''. Have you counted the guesses up to here? As for "security through obscurity" I thought that was doomed before the 1990s. And while it can be Curps choice to have it closed source, he could write a page documenting it. <small>]</small> ] 23:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			While I respect Rosguill’s decision to impose a block after the two-year gap, I understand that a block serves to prevent disruption rather than punish. I have learned valuable lessons from this experience, and my contributions over the past two years reflect this growth. In this time, I have created , all without any undisclosed paid editing or COI involvement. Additionally, I have contributed to patrolling, as seen in the ] and ]s, and I have reported several violations on WP:UAA.
	I don't see any evidence that Curps is acting in bad faith and the bot seems to have solved an enormous problem. The page move vandalism that this bot is meant to stop happened before I got very involved with Misplaced Pages, but I would imagine that it would have been a nightmare. His intention to unblock the bot is somewhat strange because if there is a legitimate problem, it should be stopped by whoever spots it first. Perhaps he meant if it was blocked just because it did not have approval. Anyway, it seems to be working to most people's satisfaction. It would be helpful if the bot was explained without giving away any technical secrets. However, I think that the approach taken was too confrontational and withholding information about the bot for security reasons is a legitimate action. Also, I think that it is acceptable to bypass formal approval in an emergency, if it is truly in the best interests of the project, but there has been plenty of time to evaluate the bot since it started running. Most people seem to love it, so getting approval should not be a problem. Giving the bot its own account might be good, unless it would allow vandals to figure out how it works by checking the block pattern. -- ] 23:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			I acknowledge that I was not fully familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies in the past, but I have since taken the time to understand them better. I have been an active and committed user since October 2014, with significant contributions across various Wikimedia projects. I have also served as a sysop on Wikimedia Commons, Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki, and the Maithili and Nepali Wikipedias.
	=== Response ===
			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.
	See ] ():
	:''In general, casual vandals will be warned before being blocked, though '''warnings are not usually given for deliberate vandalism intended to discredit Misplaced Pages''' or serve an activist agenda.'' (emphasis mine)
			Thank you for your consideration. I humbly request your reconsideration and the restoration of the editing privileges on my account on English Misplaced Pages.
	Regarding the accounts you unblocked: {{user|Leamme Alone}}, as someone has already pointed out, was a sockpuppet of the North Carolina vandal. If a user is entitled to X warnings before being blocked, that's X warnings ''per user'', not X warnings per sockpuppet, expecially if he has created hundreds of sockpuppets over many months as this user has. We are certainly entitled to block his sockpuppets on sight.
			Sincerely,
	Regarding {{user|Pumpkin Pants}}, he edited ] to change "Nigeria" to "Niggeria". This matches an earlier vandalism edit to ]. Also, this odd phrase was used before by the username vandal who's been targeting Shanel lately:
			]&nbsp;] 14:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	* 07:18, 10 February 2006 Curps blocked "]
	For more on harassment targeting Shanel, see ]. This was a freshly created throwaway account used solely for the vandalism intended to "discredit Misplaced Pages". Blocking right away is appropriate.
			Having had discussions with the blocking admin, we would like to seek community comments on the unblock request.
	Regarding the accounts:
	* {{user|Heis}}
	* {{user|Tobacco bean}}
	* {{user|Torrie}}
	* {{user|Jesit}}
			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.
	All of these are throwaway accounts used for shock-image vandalism, targetting articles linked to from the main page in many instances. If someone creates a throwaway account and immediately uses it to commit vandalism (especially egregious vandalism like this), well, they've just thrown it away. Unblocking such accounts is just sterile wheel-warring and or at best ].
			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)
	Regarding {{user|Hellonwhls}}, this is suggestive of the usual "on wheels" sleeper account. Such accounts are often created with various spelling variations or misspellings. Various admins other than myself also block "on wheels" usernames on sight. It is possible though that this could be a legitimately created username, which is why the block summary invited the user to contact an admin. On the other hand, you blindly cut-and-pasted the same unblock summary here as for the others , which indicates you didn't even investigate or examine contributions before unblocking.
			*I cannot find the link for "A related meta-wiki discussion". <span>]]</span>  15:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	Regarding the situation on August 26 2005, we had several page move vandalism episodes of increasing severity in the preceding few days, culminating in this: . After that, there were perhaps 7 or 8 more episodes of high-speed pagemove vandalism on that same day, and a few more on following days. The post I made on that day (which you quote above) was intentionally somewhat assertive, since I wanted to forestall the possibility of someone (such as yourself) blocking the bot on ruleslawyering grounds in the face of a genuine emergency. Since those days, things have calmed down a bit.
			**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)
	I did envision that bots are a temporary solution and the only real long-term solution is to upgrade MediaWiki software. However, for whatever reason, no such software solution has been seen yet. So here we are. -- ] 01:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' Make the most of the second chance ] (]) 23:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Unfortunately WoW and hs ilk aren't going away so your bot will be necessary for a long long time. <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 03:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' I had already been kind of watcxhing the discussion on their talk page over the last few days, and agree with an SO unblock. ] ] 23:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	::If you agree with that premise, then why are you either trying to shut down the bot, or get information about it that could potentially make it useless? ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== ] ==
	===MediaWiki software===
			{{atop|1=Snow in the forecast. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:08, 13 January 2025 (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)
	Let's not get Curps wrong, I think he still believes that ]. There may be a related ] feature request, but someone should be working on it. &mdash; <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">]</span><sup style="font-family:serif;">(])</sup> 21:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
			::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 ==
	== Can I view deleted page "Colonel Xu?" ==
			{{atop|1=]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			Dear Administrators,
			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.
	Hello, and thanks in advance for your reply(ies). My classmates created a page on WP called "Colonel Xu." It was mocking our Mandarin teacher. She took it in stride, being the cool person she is. However, they didn't preserve any copies of it, and knowing I was a WP junkie, requested that I help them try to get a copy of it. Could an administrator please let me view it, and then print it out, or to move the "article" to my userspace? I'll be checking here and on my Talk page every couple mins. THanks! -] 22:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Please ask it on ]. --] 22:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Thanks. --] 23:12, 11 February 2006 (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.
	==]==
	SPUI, banned for a few days by the arbitration committee for placing an unsuitable userbox on his user page, placed a copy on his talk page. Reverted and protected. --] 23:25, 11 February 2006 (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.
	:Not that it really matters, but I've changed the tag from {{tl|vprotected}} to {{tl|usertalk-sprotect}}, which I think is more appropriate (except for the fact that it's not semi-protected but fully protected...) Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 00:02, 12 February 2006 (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.
	I adapted that tag to ]. --] 00:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
			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.
	:Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 00:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
			To provide context, here are some of the sources I included:
	== Please protect {{tlp|Current sport|}} ==
			• https://www.nationaldiversityawards.co.uk/awards-2024/nominations/ario-nahavandi/
	The template, {{tlp|Current sport|}}, is on top of numerous articles related to and including the ]. It was recently vandalized with penis photos. I really recommend this get protection, to help avoid such vandalism while the olympics are going on. Thanks. -] (<small>] | ]</small>) 01:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
	*I agree. I am going to protect the template. I will check back here to see if anyone has objected. ]\<sup>]</sup> 02:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
	** Thanks. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Though, willing to hear any objections. -] (<small>] | ]</small>) 02:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
			• 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
	==t-man, and his userpage==
			Thank you for your time and consideration xx
	t-mans user page , the user has been banned by shanel and whilst banned has continued to introduce, at best questionable statments, at worst highly libellous perosnal attack. can an admin please protect his user page for the duration of the block shanel has issued, thanks ] 02:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
			] (]) 23:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Protected; block lengthened. ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> 02:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
			:Administrators cannot override draft declines, and in fact the administrator toolset ]. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 23:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	::thanks please post a small summary here, thanks ] 02:50, 12 February 2006 (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 ==
	==Can ''This'' be explained ?==
			{{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 ].
	Can ''this'' be explained ? Found this while on ''my'' way to this site. This link is:
			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.
	:. Should I run ''this'' by the boss as well, or is this nothing to be concerned about at all ? ] 03:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
			I appreciate your consideration. My best regards, ] (]) 01:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	Someone is trying to find people to nail this site. ] 03:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
			:'''Support.''' ] (]/]) 01:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Support'''. Based on YFNS's activity since the original tban, I don't see any reason to believe that restrictions are necessary going forward. ] (]) 06:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Support'''. Welcome back comrade. ] (]) 06:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Support''' based on their editing activity between TBAN and last year, as well as between the sanctions and now. Good work, and a great example of how this restorative process is ''supposed'' to work. May you inspire other misguided people to a path of restoration. ]&thinsp;] 08:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Snow Support''' ] (]) 14:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Strong support'''. To me YNFS comes across as a very responsible editor and I believe these restrictions are no longer warranted. ] (]) 16:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Support''' I remember the original ban happening due in large part to canvassing on twitter, the fact that any restrictions remained in place thereafter strikes me as a deep miscarriage of justice. ] (]) 23:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			'''Query''' Does your reference to BRD mean that you undertake to follow it in the future? ] (]) 14:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Enthusiastic support''' YFNS is a perfect model of an editor who is an asset to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Support''' A well worded appeal, worth giving another chance. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' This is a convincing and sincere appeal. ] (]) 00:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''', Welcome. ~] ] <sup>「] / ]」</sup> 02:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' as they have convincingly demonstrated change. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' I supported and still support the original restrictions, and the later now appealed restrictions. I think YFNS's case has shown that an editor can come back from the brink successfully and am happy that happened. ] (]) 04:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Copyvio Problem ==
	:Old news. ''Really'' old news. So old I can't say I'm surprised it's coming up again. --] 03:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
			Hey all, I believe that these three diff should be redacted as copy vio's, thanks. There are several sentences which are directly lifted from the sources. Some one more experienced should likely have a look through the revision I restored as well. I didn't spot anything, but I may have missed something.
	::Appreciate the assisstance. Is this ''another'' attack on Misplaced Pages ? ] 03:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::They've been "currently gathering complaints" for ages now, it's nothing to be worried about atm. In the meantime, entertain yourself with . --] (]) 04:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
			] (]) 22:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	::can't we just coutersue them for claiming Jimbo got rejected from the porn business as libel? We all know he did more than fine ;-) (okay, i'm gonna get yelled at now for making fun of ]) ''']''' ]|] 07:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
			:To be clear, I don't think that @] is really at any fault here.
	== ] moved to ] ==
			:] (]) 22:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] please see {{tl|copyvio-revdel}} on how to tag copyvios for attention. ] (]) 08:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Lardlegwarmers block appeal ==
	] has moved the article that was at ] to ] to make way for moving the former "other uses" disambig page to ]. I do not believe this is the best solution as the car the Mini is by far the most common usage of the term (for reference see the dismabig page) and as I have described at ] and ] the article on the car contains more information than just the BMC mini anyway, as it has a seciton (albeit short) on the new mini. I would appreciate it if an amdin could look at reverting the moves to the way it was before. Thanks. --]-<small>]</small> 03:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
			* {{userlinks|Lardlegwarmers}}
	==Mcfly85==
			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)
	Sound familiar? *Sigh* He returned recently and has started creating more sockpuppets to vandalize my user page.
			=== Statement from Lardlegwarmers ===
			I have only been very active editing Misplaced Pages for about one month, even though my account is older. I was blocked for pushing a minority POV in the talk page for Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory, which I understand. For context, this issue wouldn't have even come up at ANI except that there was this very old account making borderline uncivil comments constantly, and I took them to ANI myself and it boomeranged. One thing that I learned from that experience is that Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement, and that I am probably not going to be the one to fix it.<ref>]</ref> Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed; my edits were in good faith and I was really just attempting to talk it out with the other editors who did not agree with me. But I understand that the norm in this space is to walk away if there isn't any uptake of my ideas or take it to dispute resolution instead of continuing to try to convince people. The current ban is for making a comment on an AE thread, not a Covid-19 article. I was on the page for a totally unrelated reason and noticed that a user I recognized from the Covid thread was being discussed. My comment was mostly about user behavior and reflecting on the underlying dispute itself, not Covid-19. Also, on my user page I quoted ] discussing his view on Misplaced Pages's approach to Covid-19 , which I'd assumed was permitted because it's my own user page and it's really a comment about the state of Misplaced Pages as a whole. The admin who blocked me, @], blanked it from my user page. If the community won't let me keep that quote on my user page, then fine, we'll leave it removed, but I wish they would have just asked me to remove it and described why instead of editing my user page. A block for this stuff seems harsh. Thanks.
			{{talk reflist}}
			=== Statement from Tamzin ===
			Excerpting my comment on their talkpage:{{tq2|Usually we only warn someone on their first topic ban violation. However, in your case, the fact that both violations occurred within hours of the ban being imposed, and that they were belligerent rants treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground, made me judge that a short block would more clearly communicate just how far you are from what is considered acceptable conduct. Even if you didn't understand that the ban applied outside articles, you should have understood that the community found your editing about COVID disruptive, which should have been reason enough to not make those edits.}} <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Discussion among uninvolved editors ===
			*This is clearly a topic ban violation - and it came less than a day after it was imposed. Even if assuming in good faith that they didn't know it was a topic ban violation, their unblock request shows not only that they don't understand what they did wrong, but they attempt to justify it with statements such as {{tq|Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed}} which is borderline a personal attack (veiled insult that others weren't being grownups); {{tq|which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement}} which is confirming they still don't understand why they were topic banned nor why they were blocked for violating it; and quoting Larry Sanger's ] promoting comments on their userpage after their topic ban. To summarize, I have no confidence that the user understands what they did wrong, and I would go so far as to say the user attempting to skirt the edges of their topic ban and supporting another user trying to promote fringe theories on Misplaced Pages merits an indefinite community ban. TLDR: '''Oppose unblock''' and ultimately would support indefinite ban due to the flagrant violation, lack of understanding, and no belief that after the 7 days is up they will not go straight back to trying to ]. I won't be the one to propose that, however. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 03:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I don't see how an unblock is possible when Lardlegwarmers clearly still doesn't understand what a broadly construed topic ban means. To be clear, there's no need to ask the "community" whether you can keep your topic ban violation. The only hope for you to be able to obey it is if you are able to decide yourself, especially after you've been told by an admin. While we do try to educate instead of just blocking, the "community" isn't here to help you understand the limits of your topic ban. ] (]) 04:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Should clarify that despite what I said above, I'd weakly oppose extending the topic <del>ban</del> <ins>block</ins> to indefinite at this time. While I'm not hopeful Lardlegwarmers is going to be able to obey it given what they've said, I think it's fine to give them rope after the <del>ban</del> <ins>block</ins> expires and apply normal escalating blocks. Since we're already here, perhaps this will somehow help them understand that yes the community requires you to apply it broadly on anything to do with COVID-19 throughout Misplaced Pages. They should consider this very short rope though and notably the next time they feel they need to ask the community whether they're violating their topic ban when they are, it might be the last time. ] (]) 20:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Sorry mixed up ban and block above twice, now fixed. ] (]) 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose unblock''' as the user looks to have no intention of following Misplaced Pages guidelines with their request. It is only a week and will give a change to think about how to change. ] (]) 04:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose unblock'''. It truly takes some ] to cite a Signpost piece authored by the admin who blocked you to support the proposition that you're being railroaded. '''Weak support for an indef''' because that's what Lardlegwarmers seems to be speedrunning. ] (]/]) 04:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose unblock'''. The topic ban was on ''the topic of COVID-19, broadly construed'', not ''the topic of COVID-19 directly in articlespace''. And the topic ban was violated, not just within less than a day, but ''within three hours'' of it being imposed. On top of that the unblock request could be a case study for ]. I won't call for an indef ], but when the block expires Lardlegwarmers should bear in mind that any further violations of the topic ban will be their last. - ] <sub>]</sub> 10:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''No unblock''' - Basically per Lardlegwarmers: they don't appear to understand why they've been blocked. An indefinite block seems very likely in this editor's future and we certainly should consider cutting out the middle-man and just skipping to it, but I'd like to give them at least some chance here to understand why they were blocked. ] (]) 10:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose unblock''' - While I usually support giving editors ] to demonstrate improvement, this case warrants a longer wait. The user acknowledges pushing a minority POV and failing to disengage per ] norms, but their justification suggests a lack of understanding or acceptance of policies like ], ], and ]. Their off-topic comment in an AE thread, despite knowing the sensitivity of such spaces, and the policy-violating content on their user page, further reflect ongoing disruption. I recommend they take time to reflect and gain a better grasp of Misplaced Pages's collaborative culture before requesting an unblock again. ] • ] ⚽ 11:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose unblock'''. I agree that absent change from this user an indefinite block is likely. For their benefit, if you're the subject of a topic ban, broadly construed, about COVID-19, you need to be editing in an entirely different topic area. Think of something that you're interested in--television shows, football, English gardens, science fiction books? Take a week and think on it. ] ] 11:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose unblock.''' What is there left to say? This conduct feels like appellant's purpose is use Misplaced Pages as a battleground and to soapbox their views rather than to build the encyclopedia-- to remake Misplaced Pages as they think it should be. My feeling is that a week won't be nearly enough. The railroad comment is appallingly full of not understanding that their conduct is not acceptable in a collaborative project. ] (]) 12:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:PS: What Tamzin said in her statement above. ] (]) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*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 ===
	Look at the contributions of these users:
			* 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)
	*{{vandal|Warrierknog}}
			* 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)
	*{{vandal|Koollid}}
			*: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)
	*{{vandal|Blinded_By}}
			* 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)
	*{{vandal|The_last_time_I_saw}}
			::], 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)
	*{{vandal|Compassio}}
			*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)
	*{{vandal|Back2buk}}
	*{{vandal|Teenage_wedding_and}}
	*{{vandal|Rolston910}}
	*{{vandal|Guesswho05}}
	*{{vandal|Piece_10_cough}}
	*{{vandal|BK_Fish}}
	*{{vandal|Nippy432}}
	*{{vandal|Godd}}
			== Usage of 'Notable people' vis-a-vis 'Notable person' in section headers ==
	Does the last edit of each of them look similar or is it just me? Almost all of the users' last edit summary is "I quit" or something like that. Aren't abusive sockpuppets supposed to be blocked? ] ] <sup>]</sup><sup>]</sup> 03:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop
			| result = This is not an administrative issue. ] (]/]) 20:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
			In the course of editing numerous articles, I have come across the header featuring 'notable people' when there is only one person and have therefore modified the grammar.
	He just created another account: {{vandal|Maklocel}}. ] ] <sup>]</sup><sup>]</sup> 03:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Looks like Curps blocked them all. Do you want me or someone else familiar with the scenario to reopen a RfAr? --] (]) 06:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
			I recently had another editor come behind me and revert one such edit on the grounds that things have always been done this way, regardless of the number of notables for a given locale, which makes little sense to me. Is this really policy? ] (]) 16:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	==I'll be sued in Trenton, New Jersey?!==
			: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 ==
	Honestly, I don't know what's happened, other than I was auto-blocked and banned for two days. The user ] suggested I get an official account after noting I'd made good edits for a while under my anonymous IP of ], so I created ]. Now I don't know if it was a previously banned account or what happened, but after leaving a messaqge on my old talk page and going to my new I get the messsage that I'm blocked until the 13th and "I'll be sued in Trenton, New Jersey". Now, I do seem to be able to edit and not be read-only now (though I haven't done anything yet) but can anyone explain what the heck just happened?!? ] 04:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
			{{Atop|I'm going to do the OP a favor and close this with no action against them. Essentially, the OP's misbehavior was pointed out by Acalamari and the OP is trying to present it as Acalamri's misbehavior. If another administrator thinks sanctions against the OP are warranted, that's up to them.--] (]) 23:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	: Basically, what happened is that your nickname was too similar to one of an infamous banned user, ], which used to utter those words, "I'll sue you in a court of law in Trenton, New Jersey!". One administrator blocked you, and another one unblocked you. Everything should be all right now. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 04:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Thanks for the clarification. I had a feeling that might of been what it was.] 04:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
			] is abusing his moderator powers in order to post unconstructive comments on talk pages, specifically when we were talking about if we should delete the US 2028 election or not, he said "that Drumpf supporters want there to be no more elections so they can remain in power forever doesn't mean we adhere to their delusions by deleting articles here". This is clearly unconstructive, and treating the talk page as a forum. I didn't know he was a moderator when I was removing his comment, and now he left all of these messages on my page and is saying I'm the real vandal here. ] (]) 22:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	==]==
	This user was indefinitely blocked by Jtkiefer a little over a month ago. OceanSplash recently contacted me via e-mail and asked to have his block lifted. We discussed some of his problematic behavior, and he agreed to a sort of informal "mentoring" arrangement whereby I would try to coach him should I see signs of that behavior resuming. I asked Jtkiefer for his thoughts on this, and he said he had no objections to my unblocking OceanSplash so long as I tried to help him avoid the sort of behavior that led to his block. I'm going to give it a crack, and we'll see how it goes. ] 06:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
	:As Babajobu has summarized above I have no issues with this but as I have told him, I have no qualms about reblocking if OceanSplash continues his previous behavior though hopefully OceanSplash will take advantage of having someone to mentor him. <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 06:12, 12 February 2006 (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.
	{{user|Userboxes}}
			:* 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)
	This "user" was created by ] as a place to basically ] those userbox templates which have been put forward for deletion, either as ] or ] (). This is an end run around deletion process. Please block the user indefinitely and delete its sub-pages. ] has been trolling around userboxen lately and probably deserves at least a warning for this new disruption. -- ] ] 10:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
			{{Abot}}
	*This is simply more harassment from Netoholic. ] is a policy proposal that attempts to resolve some of the userbox issues by moving them from template space into user space. I recently discussed the possibility of opening a RFAr on Netoholic with another user, and this is clearly an attempt at retaliation. Netoholic spends most of his time hassling other users and revert-warring over templates, and very little actually contributing to the encyclopedia. He also routinely ] of other users, with the above "trolling" comment being just the latest example. In fact, I am attempting to find a compromise to avoid this absurd, interminable war over userspace content. <TT>] <SMALL>(] • ])</SMALL></TT> 10:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
	** I deleted the subpages, which were all clones of T1-speedied templates or templates that still exist. I don't doubt Crotalus horridus' good faith belief that he's doing nothing wrong here, but this kind of recreation is not right. Putting a template into user-space for the purpose of transclusion doesn't exempt it from the requirement of not being inflammatory and divisive. --] 10:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
	***T1 applies to ''templates'' and since these are in userspace they are not templates, any more than if they had been <code>subst:</code>'ed into a page. Although I don't use controversial userboxes myself (I have only twelve, none of which express political/religious opinions) I'm tired of seeing good editors getting pushed around in this fashion. No compromise is good enough for the anti-userbox faction, only outright capitulation. I see no reason why contributors on a ''volunteer'' project should have to put up with this level of ]. <TT>] <SMALL>(] • ])</SMALL></TT> 10:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::: You have the ] and create a more social encyclopedia project; you also have the ]. Jimbo has said what sorts of things he'd like to avoid on user pages, and ] has been clarified to address all pages intended for transclusion. -- ] ] 11:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::: Erm, templates is templates. They're templates because of their well, templatyness, not because they happen to be in space xyz: . Else I could just make a new <s>pseudo...</s>... wait... let's not give people ideas. ] 11:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I'm about >< this fucking close to quitting the project entirely. I deal with enough control freaks and PHBs in real life - I don't need to deal with them on my free time as well. For months, I have tried to remain civil even under extreme pressure. For months, I have attempted to contribute as much worthwhile content to the encyclopedia as I can. And my reward is an utter, contemptuous dismissal of my views and my attempts at reasonable compromise by the self-appointed "defenders" of Misplaced Pages. They argue that userboxes are divisive - well, I don't recall any such divisiveness before they started deleting them. THIS IS A ''VOLUNTEER'' PROJECT. You need to treat people with respect if you want them to keep contributing. <TT>] <SMALL>(] • ])</SMALL></TT> 11:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::While 'userifying' templates has generally been allowed in the past I agree that there are other factors involved in this case. Normally people object that an article or template is not notable or general/use enough... and therefor that it should be userified. In this case however, the objection is not that the template is not for general use, but rather that it is 'disruptive'. Like the 'war on drugs' that argument will probably go on forever, but the point is that moving such templates to user space in this case does not eliminate the objection. Mind you, I think the anti-userbox crusade has done more damage to the project than little rectangles with words and pictures ever could have. Just commenting on the difference from other userified templates. --] <big><sub>]</sub></big> <sup>]</sup> 11:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 06:45, 17 January 2025

Notices of interest to administrators

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Open tasks

Centralized discussion

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Noticeboard archives

Administrators' (archives, search)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
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
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

XFD backlog

V	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Total
CfD	0	0	3	29	32
TfD	0	0	0	4	4
MfD	0	0	0	10	10
FfD	0	0	5	18	23
RfD	0	0	3	54	57
AfD	0	0	0	16	16

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

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)

• Oppose, I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Completely support an unblock; see my comment here when his IP was blocked in April. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see clear evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like this may well be on notable competitions, but with content like On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club., and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the most recent en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• Currently oppose; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ Lindsay 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Ahri Boy: Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "Next as working for magazines he also contributed to book"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  See . Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
• Come on – it's been nearly seven years since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think saying that I will never use multiple accounts anymore and that he wants to make constructive content would indicate that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. Ahri Boy (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  And he admits that he was too focused on quantity, rather than quality, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on mass-creating non-notable stubs. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to start over. Frank Anchor 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. KatoKungLee (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fram and PMC. —Compassionate727  18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Question: Is SvG the same person as Slowking4? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by Dirk Beetstra. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • No. Spicy (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose basically per JoelleJay, particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get WP:AUTOPATROLLED without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). FOARP (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since WP:NSPORT was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.
  Support. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• 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)

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)
  • Thank you. Yaris678 (talk) 15:01, 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)

• Warn both to drop the stick, otherwise, no action at this point. FOARP (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hands FOARP two trouts You want to hand them out, or me? Buffs (talk) 16:32, 9 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 )

• 11:10 (UTC), 25 December 2024: Uwappa replaces {{Body roundness index}} with a substantially changed new version
• 13:39, 25 December 2024: 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."
• 13:55, 25 December 2024: JMF opens Template talk:Body roundness index#Proposed version 4 is a step too far, reverted for further discussion at template talk page (and leaves notifications at the talk pages of the articles that invoke the template).
• 14:08, 25 December 2024: Uwappa responds minimally at template talk page.
• 14:27, 25 December 2024: Uwappa counter-reverts to their new version of the template, no edit summary.
• 14:39, 25 December 2024 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"
• 14:45, 25 December 2024: Uwappa counter-reverts the template again, no edit summary.
• 14:45, 25 December 2024: at User talk:Uwappa#Bold, revert, discuss, JMF advises Uwappa of the BRD convention.
• 17:38, 25 December 2024: Zefr contributes to BRD debate.
• 17:53, 25 December 2024: At Uwappa's talk page, JMF notifies Uwappa of edit-warring using {{uw-editwar}} with edit summary "I advise strongly that you self-revert immediately, otherwise I shall have no choice but to escalate."
• 19:50, 25 December 2024 At Waist-to-height ratio, 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.)
• 20:23, 25 December 2024 At their talk page, Uwappa rejects the request to self-revert and invites escalation. Edit summary: "go for it".

• 16:19, 26 December 2024 user:Zefr reverts the counter-reversion of the template to re-establish sqa

• 09:57, 27 December 2024 Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template.
• 09:59, 27 December 2024 Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also User_talk:Uwappa#Edit_warring for escalation in progress.".
• 11:05, 27 December 2024 JMF reverts to sqa again, with edit summary " rv to consensus version, pending BRD discussion. That is now also a WP:3RR violation." My 3RR challenge was not valid as reversion was outside the 24-hour window.
• 11:26, 27 December 2024 At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing.
• 13:04, 27 December 2024 At their talk page, Uwappa alleges WP:NPA violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit.

---

• 10:51, 29 December 2024 At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI.
• 14:17, 29 December 2024 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. --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)

• 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 revert 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. Black Kite (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Putting aside the possible legal threat, if Uwappa's business legal department is involved it seems likely to be a cause of WP:PAID or at least a WP:COI which really should have been declared which doesn't seem to have happened. This also means Uwappa shouldn't be editing the article directly. Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  It’s hard to see a paid or COI element to the behaviour at {{Body roundness index}}. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 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. Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  I expect it’s just empty talk to get an upper hand in the dispute. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 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. Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Black_Kite, how do you know where I am? Are you spying on me, disclosing personal information?

  • Anybody in the room who can answer my 3 questions?
  • 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 my reasons for being late to this party?
  • Did anybody read User_talk:Uwappa#Bold,_revert,_discuss and User_talk:Uwappa#Notice_of_reference_to_ANI?
  • Did anybody spot any incompleteness in the accusations?
  • Anybody interested in my to answers to the accusations?

  Uwappa (talk) 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 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)

• 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. Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 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.

• Uwappa (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• 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.

• This was closed, but...Uwappa's reply to their block was explictly a legal threat. Suggest revoking TPA. @Black Kite: - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  • And another doubling down on the legal threat. I've revoked TPA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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.

Non-EC editor editing ARBPIA, broadly construed.

Sinai and Palestine campaign semi-protected until the 23rd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

This is intended as a "heads-up", asking for admin eyes, and letting admins know what I have done. I noticed edits by OnuJones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to 57th Infantry Regiment (Ottoman Empire) and Sinai and Palestine campaign, removing mentions of Palestine or changing Palestine to Israel. I have undone the edits. I have placed welcome/warning templates on their usertalk page, as advised when I asked recently on AN about a similar situation. The account in question was created on 4 December 2020, made two edits on that day, and then nothing until the three edits on the 7th January this year that caught my eye. I shall forthwith add {{subst:AN-notice}}~~~~ to their usertalk page. DuncanHill (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this really needs admin attention. Your CTOP notice suffices. If they continue making those kinds of edits, you can go to AE or ANI. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I might have to reread the ARBPIA restrictions because these two edits are about incidents around World War I. I'm not sure they are covered by ARBPIA restrictions which I tend to remember are about contemporary events. Liz 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the concern is that while the articles aren't ARBPIA per se, the edits (changing Palestine to Israel ) are clearly ARBPIA-motivated, as it were. (Even leaving aside the historical inaccuracy in that Israel didn't exist at the time!) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I would consider the edits to be within the realm of WP:ARBPIA broadly construed. TarnishedPath 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Those kinds of transparently false Palestine to Israel or Israel to Palestine edits should result in a block without warning and without any red tape in my view. They know what they are doing. People who edit in the topic area shouldn't have to waste their time on these obvious WP:NOTHERE accounts. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess I didn't make my meaning all that clear. Editors should not post to AN every time they warn a brand new account about a CTOP. It's a waste of everyone's time. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Voorts: It's not a brand new account, but presumably you didn't waste any of your time by actually reading my post. DuncanHill (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I misstated that this was a new account, but an account with five edits that hasn't edited since before you warned them isn't really something that needs an AN thread. I apologize for my tone. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Now an IP 2800:A4:C0F1:B700:D17E:5AEF:D26C:A9B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making similar edits, changing Palestine to Israel. DuncanHill (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Hide this racist edit.

WP:DENY - The Bushranger One ping only 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Different project, nothing for en.wikipedia.org admins to do. OP was pointed in the right direction. --Yamla (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Hide the racist edit summary. It says bad words and it is stereotyping Romani people. https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Uzalutno:Contribuții/178.115.130.246 200.80.186.184 (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC) That's on the Romani Misplaced Pages, we only deal with the English one here. You'll need to raise that with the admins on that project. WaggersTALK 08:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Please refer to m:SRM, if there are no active RMYWP admins available. Ahri Boy (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

96.230.143.43

Blocked, and WP:AIV is thataway →. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

This user is a frequent vandal on the page Devils Tower. I am requesting a block. Drdr150 (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. In the future, please use WP:AIV. Jauerback/_dude. 16:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, very sorry. Drdr150 (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Permissions Removal

Rights...left? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

Hello, please remove my rollback and pending changes review permissions. Rollback is redundant because I have global rollback and I do not use the reviewer rights enough to warrant keeping them. Thank you! Ternera (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:08, 9 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! JJP_Master (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. JJP_Master (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 unblock without TBANs and with single account restriction.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 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. Nxcrypto Message 01:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment "Support as requested" sounds like a canvassed vote, did you mean it in a different way? Black Kite (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  You need to re-check. Here, 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 WP:AGF. Nxcrypto Message 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. Black Kite (talk) 15:25, 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. JJP_Master (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.

Requesting a range block of 109.172.86.0/24

Special:Contributions/109.172.86.0/24 this range of IP addresses have solely been used to insert nonsensical characters. Another IP range has already been blocked for the same thing (they edited the same way). jolielover♥talk 10:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks like it's web hosting or something like that. Sometimes these kinds of services turn out to be proxies for schools or businesses, especially when there's petty disruption coming from them. There's nobody on this IP range at all, though, so it seems safe to hard block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Dear Sysops,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

• Lardlegwarmers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Statement from Lardlegwarmers

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

References

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

Statement from Tamzin

Excerpting my comment on their talkpage:

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

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

Discussion among uninvolved editors

• This is clearly a topic ban violation - and it came less than a day after it was imposed. Even if assuming in good faith that they didn't know it was a topic ban violation, their unblock request shows not only that they don't understand what they did wrong, but they attempt to justify it with statements such as Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed which is borderline a personal attack (veiled insult that others weren't being grownups); which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement which is confirming they still don't understand why they were topic banned nor why they were blocked for violating it; and quoting Larry Sanger's fringe theory promoting comments on their userpage after their topic ban. To summarize, I have no confidence that the user understands what they did wrong, and I would go so far as to say the user attempting to skirt the edges of their topic ban and supporting another user trying to promote fringe theories on Misplaced Pages merits an indefinite community ban. TLDR: Oppose unblock and ultimately would support indefinite ban due to the flagrant violation, lack of understanding, and no belief that after the 7 days is up they will not go straight back to trying to right what they percieve as a great wrong. I won't be the one to propose that, however. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• I don't see how an unblock is possible when Lardlegwarmers clearly still doesn't understand what a broadly construed topic ban means. To be clear, there's no need to ask the "community" whether you can keep your topic ban violation. The only hope for you to be able to obey it is if you are able to decide yourself, especially after you've been told by an admin. While we do try to educate instead of just blocking, the "community" isn't here to help you understand the limits of your topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Should clarify that despite what I said above, I'd weakly oppose extending the topic ban block to indefinite at this time. While I'm not hopeful Lardlegwarmers is going to be able to obey it given what they've said, I think it's fine to give them rope after the ban block expires and apply normal escalating blocks. Since we're already here, perhaps this will somehow help them understand that yes the community requires you to apply it broadly on anything to do with COVID-19 throughout Misplaced Pages. They should consider this very short rope though and notably the next time they feel they need to ask the community whether they're violating their topic ban when they are, it might be the last time. Nil Einne (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry mixed up ban and block above twice, now fixed. Nil Einne (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock as the user looks to have no intention of following Misplaced Pages guidelines with their request. It is only a week and will give a change to think about how to change. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. It truly takes some chutzpah to cite a Signpost piece authored by the admin who blocked you to support the proposition that you're being railroaded. Weak support for an indef because that's what Lardlegwarmers seems to be speedrunning. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. The topic ban was on the topic of COVID-19, broadly construed, not the topic of COVID-19 directly in articlespace. And the topic ban was violated, not just within less than a day, but within three hours of it being imposed. On top of that the unblock request could be a case study for WP:NOTTHEM. I won't call for an indef yet, but when the block expires Lardlegwarmers should bear in mind that any further violations of the topic ban will be their last. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• No unblock - Basically per Lardlegwarmers: they don't appear to understand why they've been blocked. An indefinite block seems very likely in this editor's future and we certainly should consider cutting out the middle-man and just skipping to it, but I'd like to give them at least some chance here to understand why they were blocked. FOARP (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - While I usually support giving editors WP:ROPE to demonstrate improvement, this case warrants a longer wait. The user acknowledges pushing a minority POV and failing to disengage per WP:DISPUTE norms, but their justification suggests a lack of understanding or acceptance of policies like WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NOTHERE. Their off-topic comment in an AE thread, despite knowing the sensitivity of such spaces, and the policy-violating content on their user page, further reflect ongoing disruption. I recommend they take time to reflect and gain a better grasp of Misplaced Pages's collaborative culture before requesting an unblock again. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 11:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. I agree that absent change from this user an indefinite block is likely. For their benefit, if you're the subject of a topic ban, broadly construed, about COVID-19, you need to be editing in an entirely different topic area. Think of something that you're interested in--television shows, football, English gardens, science fiction books? Take a week and think on it. Mackensen (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. What is there left to say? This conduct feels like appellant's purpose is use Misplaced Pages as a battleground and to soapbox their views rather than to build the encyclopedia-- to remake Misplaced Pages as they think it should be. My feeling is that a week won't be nearly enough. The railroad comment is appallingly full of not understanding that their conduct is not acceptable in a collaborative project. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  PS: What Tamzin said in her statement above. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• An account that exists only to push a particular POV across several articles is topic banned, violates that topic ban immediately, and posts a battlegroundy unblock request that thoroughly misses the point. Whoever closes this should be considering indef, not an unblock. — Rhododendrites \\ 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock this specific response Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement is indicative of their viewpoints and why they're not ready to contribute. They continue, my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed. These demonstrate that they still do not get it, and rather project their self-perspective is that they are actually a victim of people who are abusing the rules against them. . I proffer that this is going to be a consistent problem until they acknowledge that they were violating policy. Zero indication that they know how to positively contribute, just perhaps a vague inference that they'll avoid getting in trouble -- because -- we'll I'm not entirely sure they've communicated what they will do differently, but rather simply say that a block for this stuff seems harsh. TiggerJay (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Notwithstanding the harsh situation I presented above, to be clear I oppose indef for now. A new user should have the opportunity to overcome early (while significant) setbacks, which is what TBANs are designed to encourage. I am encouraged by things like YFNS corrective behavior in a prior AN discussion, and can only be hopeful and AGF that might apply to LLW here. We need more passionate, subject matter experts, as contributors to this project, but they absolutely must contribute positively and following established PGs. TiggerJay (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock and support an indef. I am pretty confident in saying that this is where we will be heading after this block ends. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, clear violations of the topic ban. Don't oppose indef, but I'd like to at least give him the chance to figure out exactly what we expect going forward. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support block, oppose unblock, oppose indef - this is a topic-banned newbie's first violation, in the heat of the moment after the restriction was imposed. Tamzin's block was the appropriate response. The unblock request is wholly inadequate, but jumping straight to indef for this sort of violation is a pretty extreme overreach. If they go back to violating their sanction after this block expires, then let's talk community ban, but they should be given the opportunity to edit constructively while respecting the restriction. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 16:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, oppose indef...however... I am sympathetic to their point of view and their general "right" (we don't really have rights here on WP) to post their opinion on a subject, even one as contentious as COVID-19. I think the blanking of the user page is a step too far. We shouldn't be in the business of deleting negative opinions about Misplaced Pages; while the statement was in reference to COVID-19, it doesn't mention it within the claim and is more a critique of Misplaced Pages at large and mass media than its relation to COVID. I would let the statement on their user page stand/restore it. Larry Sanger's statement is not a fringe theory, it is a reasonable opinion. There were loads of statements/claims about COVID/its origin/mandates/treatment/vaccines that, despite their widespread implementations and presentation as "the science", later turned out to be misleading or untested conjecture (examples: no studies on masking effectiveness with a large population vs the coronavirus, 6 foot spacing, lying to the American public about wearing masks because health care professionals needed them more, lab leak theory, military connections to the Wuhan Institute, US funding of WI, etc). HOWEVER, civil discourse is essential. That means that discussions about COVID were fraught with battlegrounds and bludgeoning. As such, we have additional restrictions for COVID discussions and other contentious topics and LLW needs to follow them. LLW did not do so and has shown a consistent flaunting of these restrictions and a weeklong block is a reasonable start. In summary, the quote isn't unreasonable to leave on their user page (give them that latitude), but a weeklong block for the other behavior should stand. Buffs (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  They added two comments to their userpage. Both were critical of Misplaced Pages. One was also critical of Anthony Fauci and other aspects of the US government's COVID response. I removed the latter. It doesn't matter whether Sanger's opinion is fringe or not; what matters is that he was talking about COVID. I would be quite the hypocrite to remove something from someone's userpage just for criticizing Misplaced Pages, as I have a fair bit of that on my own userpage. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  There's some pretty big overlap there in criticism of Fauci and how it is handled on Misplaced Pages. Again, I don't feel THAT is a significant violation of COVID editing restrictions (beyond the fact that they did it despite such an editing restriction). Anyone can completely skip over it if they wish. @Tamzin: playing devil's advocate for a moment, what if I published the same thing on my user page? Would it be ok? Would it be ok if I posted it on LLW's user page (as long as LLW was ok with it, of course)? I realize we're getting in the weeds of a "what-if..." but if so, what's the substantive difference between me putting it on a user page and LLW doing the same? Buffs (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  If you posted it to your userpage, it would be fine (although not that constructive), because you are not topic-banned from COVID. If you posted it to their userpage, that would be WP:PROXYING for a banned editor, since I'd struggle to believe you have an independent reason to think that particular quote belongs on that particular page. If you really want to fight the removal from the userpage, feel free to create a subsection here, but I stand by the removal. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not fighting the removal per se. Just wondering where the boundaries are and if it's wise to have such a boundary. Buffs (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  The boundary is WP:TBAN. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 19:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Buffs: In the realm of hypothetical I would presume that if that quote had been on LLW user page for a long time, in a sea of content, pre-existing AN, then it might even still be up today. However, on the other hand, to post that after the TBAN was imposed is nothing other than what can be seen as abject defiance to the ban. But beyond that, it simply violates plain language of the ban, as it applies to all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, so I proffer that Tamzin is clearly in the right here. To your charged statement about if you were to post the same thing to your user page, prior to your statement here and presuming you were not under a TBAN, it would not be questioned one iota. However, as a response to this discussion, it could be construed (but not technically violating) the principles of WP:PROXYING and I would caution against it. Moreover, you reinstating it on LLW talk page would be a far closer in the proximity of violating PROXYING. TiggerJay (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  The fact that the comment only came after the topic ban is key here. I'm fairly sure I've seen several cases where there's something on an editor's user page which is covered by a topic ban but which no one has said or done anything about because it was there from before the topic ban. In fact I'm fairly sure I even remember a case where someone asked specifically if they could modify or remove something on their user page which related to their talk page which was technically under the topic ban (probably gensex). I think this was allowed especially since it related to their personal life rather than some comment on something, although they were told just this once is best. There might have even been a case where an editor wanted to do some more editing or formatting of something under their topic ban and was either denied or told only this once. IIRC, there was also an editor who was happy to be able to finally change someone on their userpage covered by their topic ban once it was lifted. A topic ban is a topic ban. I'd note that if someone makes an extremely constructive edit to an article that is not covered by WP:BANEX we still treat this as a topic ban violation, although it's something much more beneficial for the project than an editor being able to repost random ramblings about Misplaced Pages they want to share. Nil Einne (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock, oppose indef - The topic ban violation was clear cut. Let's hope Lardlegwarmers will read a bit about how to avoid topic ban violations, or else indef block is not too far for them. Lorstaking (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, extend block indefinitely - Lardle should try to demonstrate good behavior on another wiki for six months before asking for a SO. Let's hope that this user should handle contentious topics carefully in the future. Ahri Boy (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock but no reason to indef, a block has already been imposed. If the user continues to violate the TBAN, than a longer block might be warranted. JayCubby 02:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments from involved editors

• Going to open a new subsection here since I've made comments to Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory two weeks ago. I wish I could say I was surprised that this ended in tears but that would be untrue (though I did have some hopes the comment a month ago indicating they were aware pro-fringe POV-pushing was sactionable was a signal they were intending to modify their behaviour). As bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez points out, making thinly veiled attacks is not exactly the type of thing looked favourably upon in an unblock request. Nor is making polemical statements on one's user page, whether within the scope of the ban or not, likely to convince the community of one's inclination and ability to be a productive editor. Lardlegwarmers, if you do really want to return to editing, especially if you want to appeal your topic ban in 6 months or a year, I would strongly advise reading Misplaced Pages:Guide to appealing blocks and following the advice there, especially WP:NOTTHEM. Complaining about Hob's conduct won't help you here, because the block (and it's a rather short one) and ban are about you, not Hob. Given your comment that apparently two wrongs make a right, I had hoped that you were already also considering your own behaviour, but I would like to make it very clear: taking the role of one of the "wrongs" to address someone else's "borderline uncivil" behaviour is not itself considered acceptable behaviour. Whether Hob crosses the line is on them, but what you do is entirely on you. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• As I was involved in the discussion to topic ban LLW I think I count as an involved editor. With that said I would discourage an early lifting of this block, which seems appropriate considering that LLW's response to the topic ban was to immediately violate the topic ban. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Also, perhaps LLW wasn't aware of this, but people who aren't uninvolved administrators aren't generally supposed to put comments into the "results" section of an AE filing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• I was there.. Three thousand ye-- No. More like one, two days ago. I seriously believe Lard Leg Warmers is one of two situations: 1: WP:CIR and unable to understand the concepts of medical science as if they were a Facebook mother invested in "essential oils" and "holistic medicine" rather than trusting medical and scientific experts; 2: WP:NOTHERE and simply f**king with us for no good reason and leading us around, and around, and around, and around, and around the bend because they get a rise out of it. Either way, my advice: don't get led around the bend, advise indef block for either WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE. BarntToust 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

BarntToust, those kinds of personal assumptions about their character are unnecessary to this discussion. Instead of speculation on who they are elsewhere, let's just focus on their behavior on Misplaced Pages. Liz 06:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Lardlegwarmers' statement clearly shows that they have learned little from the sanction. They should demonstrate such before there is any lifting. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Reporting Administrator Abuse

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

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

---

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

So there's two things here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Okay, I've looked into this. And...surprise surprise, TopVat19sEver was the one who origially removed Aclamari's !vote while the AfD was still open . Yes, about a day after the AfD was closed, Aclamari reverted this removal , which is technically "editing a closed AfD" but I would say they were entirely within their rights to revert a bad removal. And now, suddenly, today, two months later, as their first edit after having done that improper removal, TopVat19sEver goes back to the AfD and removes Aclamari's !vote again , which Aclamari - entirely rightfully - reverted , and then TopVat19sEver comes here to cry "admin abuse", when no administrative abilities were used at all in this whole mess. Could Aclamari have used more moderate language in their initial !vote? Yeah maybe, but it was no violation at all, and the only thing needed here is a WP:BOOMERANG or at least a {{trout}} for TopVat19sEver. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards