Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 06:48, 1 June 2006 view sourceSuperDeng (talk | contribs)1,937 edits →Filling in information gaps: In the story← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 21:03, 17 January 2025 view source Premeditated Chaos (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators127,883 edits →Appealing April 4 2024, indefinite WP:CUP ban and indefinite 1-nomination GAN limit: are we serious right now
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
	__NEWSECTIONLINK__
			|algo = old(7d)
	__TOC__
			|counter = 368
	== Tasks ==
			|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
	<!-- Please add new sections to the bottom, not here. -->
			|maxarchivesize = 700K
	<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;">
			|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	The following ''']''' require the attention of one or more editors.
			|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	<br>
			|minthreadsleft = 0
	''], ] and ], ]''
			}}{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude><!--S
	</div>
			{{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
			}}
			--><!--
			----------------------------------------------------------
	= General =
	<!-- Please add new sections to the bottom, not here. -->		New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
			----------------------------------------------------------
			--><noinclude>
	== Wiktionary user ==
			==Open tasks==
	The ] (apparently corresponding to ] here) was indefinitely blocked this year on the English Wiktionary for '''massive, systemic copyright violations.''' His primary sources were ''Webster's third new international dictionary, unabridged'', by Merriam-Webster, Inc. and ''The Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised)'' (using either the on-line edition or a CD-ROM version - the specific version remains unclear for a portion of his entries.)
			<noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}}
			{{Administrators' noticeboard archives}}
	The main Wiktionary discussion can be found here: ]. In his own defense, he relied on bizarre personal attacks, personal threats and repetitious flagrant lies (perhaps in the hope that repeating a certain lie over and over again would make it somehow become truth.)
			{{Clear}}
			{{Admin tasks}}
	For over a month now, he has used '''many''' sockpuppets on the English Wiktionary, confirmed by checkuser(!) request on ]. <small>Only the most recent batch of sockpuppets is listed on the meta page.</small> He has become ] single most assiduous vandal, recently prompting an automated '''block of some 6,000+ IP addresses''' used by the ].
			__TOC__
			</noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove-->
	His signature vandalism patterns alternate between massive rudimentary copyright violations, and bombarding Wiktionary with massive quantites of unattested vulgar terminology.
	His copyright-vandalism today on the English Wiktionary (via a new sockpuppet that he created some time ago, in preparation) was first traced to the Misplaced Pages entry for ], where has been steadily, incrementally adding content. It is apparent to me, that he is using a 'bot to upload material here on Misplaced Pages just as he used to on Wiktionary, as several tell-tale signs are in each of his entries. It is my personal theory that he is using 'bot technology to split apart his edits, so that no single edit triggers a VandalBot "copyright" warning on the anti-vandalism channels.
	I hereby request assistance from '''''all''''' Misplaced Pages sysops in chasing down this prolific individual's copyright violations (here on Misplaced Pages, as well as on Wiktionary - as many entries on Wiktionary still have not been cleaned adequately.) I am somewhat unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages policies regarding copyright violation. But I cannot imagine that such systemic, wholesale copying is condoned here.
	--] 07:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC) (Wiktionary sysop; please leave messages on my talk page ].)
	:Here is a bit of advice to anyone who reads this: check carefully everything Connel MacKenzie says. He has been known to exaggerate greatly at times. This is a very complex, personal dispute between him and I. Unfortunately, I do not possess the knowledge to use "bots". (And, what does this have to do with Misplaced Pages?) I don't know what you mean by "vandalism," either. I've had some ''content'' disputes with you. I admit I moved some material I wrote here to ''Wiktionary,'' all of which you apparently deleted on sight. The autoblocker blocked my IP for a short time, so I was able to get a new user name (something suggested to me by Tawker in a public discussion). I created about 5 vulgar entries on ''Wiktionary'' which Connel MacKenzie deleted on sight (even though ''Wiktionary'' is not censored--supposedly--and they all had citations). So, that's hardly the "massive quantites" you're describing. Really, this is not relevant to Misplaced Pages at all. The reason I remain blocked is very complex but can be boiled down to three factors: (1) personal attacks, (2) evading my block, and (3) alleged copyright violation. Now, Connel MacKenzie is going through everything I ever created on Wiktionary (I made about ) and reverting or deleting it on the unproven assumption that it's all copyvio material. Connel MacKenzie is a very bitter person. He's had more disputes on Wiktionary than any other user. Now he's the person who banned all of those accounts and he's the only one still complaining about me. The fact he is even bringing up such a matter here shows even greater malice on his part, in my opinion. If he were editing on Misplaced Pages, he would have been banned a while ago. However, there's no real formal dispute resolution process on Wiktionary, so he can just continue acting the way he does and no one can do anything about it.--] 10:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::Thank you Primetime! I could not have ''asked'' for a better demonstration of your immediate tactics of 1) resorting to invalid personal attacks, and 2) bold, flagrant lies. --] 01:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	::I find this dispute worrisome because it may have affected Wikpedia administration. I recently nominated "]" for AfD, due chiefly for its apparent violation of ] . ] argued eloquently, effectively, and somewhat duplicitously (as I've said to him) against its transwikification to Wiktionary. ] had said that Wiktionary editors were intolerant, and would not accept the material. This report describes additional aspects to the matter. I don't know if the claim by Connel MacKenzie has merit or not, but Wiktionary is a sister project and we should work in a coordinated fashion. -] 11:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Please note that Primetime's indefinite block on Wiktionary was approved after a decision made by the community. It was not even issued by Connel MacKenzie . Now Connel is indeed a very active contributor and sysop on Wiktionary, probably among our best (if there's such a thing as "the best" on a wiki), who's not afraid of discussion, some arguments in which he is a party indeed evolving into what one might arguably call a "dispute". That is, however, of no relevance here, and has more to do with the argumentative nature of the English Wiktionary. Primetime, though, has never conformed to the rules that apply to Wiktionary, and he and his host of sockpuppets have been banned from Wiktionary '''by the community''', for the reasons given above by Connel. The majority of his former contributions have either been deleted (by a variety of sysops, not just Connel), or rephrased in order to eliminate the copyright violations originally entered by Primetime. New admissions from his part, once they have been identified as being Primetime's, are being deleted on sight (by a variety of sysops, not just Connel or me) due to his long-standing tradition of '''proven''' copyright violations. ] 18:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC) (Wiktionary sysop).
	::::First, there was a discussion where the editors participating came upon agreement that my most-recent creations, created on three nights in March and January would be deleted. (See ]). Further, my most-recent contributions were already trying to be deleted or had already been deleted when some discovered that they were from me. Others no one ever found out were from me were deleted as well. Further, those didn't look anything like the single-phrase definitions they were complaining about for copyvios. When Connel MacKenzie did a checkuser on some accounts, he immediately deleted the remainder. He never did a checkuser on the accounts he blocked last night, though. Here's an explanation of why they were already trying to delete them:<p>Some editors have interpreted Wiktionary's ] as meaning that a single reliable source is enough to prove a word's usage. Others, however, say that only three quotations will suffice, despite the fact that the page states that "Usage in a well-known work" qualifies as proof. These same editors claim that other dictionaries do not count. To many Misplaced Pages users accustomed to citing disputed assertions with a single source, having to give three sources is upsetting and unwelcoming. Many entries have been deleted because they had only one or two sources.<p>Knowing the anarchic atmosphere of Wiktionary and the propensity of certain administrators to use these unusually-high standards to delete offensive terms, I created six entries with three quotes per sense and with full source information for each quote. (See ].) Then a user named Jonathan Webley nominated each of them for deletion saying "I can't find these terms anywhere else". Shortly afterward, Connel MacKenzie chimed in saying "This series of anonymous submissions seems intentionally disruptive, and pointlessly inflammatory. '''Delete all.''' These are certainly no more than the sum of their parts (each submission) with a clear intent to enter as many forms as can be dredged up, and to bypass the comparatively neutral, explanatory entry at ]." Then, another administrator deleted them and protected the pages. His assertion that they were the sum of their parts is an example of an exaggeration by MacKenzie as "Blue-eyed grass (genus ''Sisyrinchium''), especially California blue-eyed grass, S. bellum" was not the sum of the phrase "nigger baby". Another example is this: ]. I had three quotes and a dictionary reference for that one. Here's another one: ]. Editors there have a tendency to delete terms they don't like on sight (See that had a reference to a slang dictionary, but was deleted anyway the first time. When I recreated it, he nominated it for verification, then deleted it again when he found out it was from me.) As for "give me fin on the soul side" I had two quotes and a dictionary citation. They deleted it anyway, but I had it saved on my hard drive, so I recreated it. Then, they said two quotes and a dictionary references weren't enough, so I added more, for '''3 quotes''' and '''5 citations.''' Connel still wanted to delete it anyway, which shows his deceptive and bitter nature.<p>As everyone can tell, Vildicranius is good friends with Connel MacKenzie--even though Vildicranius is pretty new. However, Connel MacKenzie has been known to harass other users. On the Beer Parlour (their equivalent of the Village Pump) he had at least three discussion threads raised against him by Ncik: ], ] even though I had been there only since November. He went after Ncik, who he chased away apparently, Eclecticology, then me. I'm sure there were others, though.<p>In conlcusion, I'm a financial donor to Wikimedia, so if I believed that something would harm our wikis, I wouldn't do it. On Misplaced Pages, I fight vandalism (I have over 830 pages on my watchlist) and try to be civil. I've worked countless hours, and have on Misplaced Pages under this user name as well as 366 under others. I tend to use '''Show preview''' and focus on articles, so the tally doesn't tell much, either. However, on Wiktionary, it's harder to get along. Many Misplaced Pages policies, such as the ] and ] are not policies on Wiktionary. To some users from Misplaced Pages, this makes the site seem like it is ], and makes many administrator decisions seem arbitrary, as well. Everyone knows each other, so you either become good friends or ''really bad'' enemies.--] 20:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Interestingly, that last bit and sound quite alike. And your palaver about being a financial donor is also . ], Primetime. ] 22:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Absolutely. I've said it before, and I need to say it again. Everything I just said is all true. Everyone should read what I just wrote. As for my donation, go here: --I listed my user name in the comment column.--] 22:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Let's cut through a lot of noise: Primetime, do you deny that on Wiktionary you copied defintions from existing dictionaries?
	:A quick look through your contributions here (at least ones highlighted on your user page) raise red flags, too. Take ], which you created with:
	::''(Born Whilton, Northants., Dec. 22, 1785; Died Versailles, Feb. 19, 1859). English organ builder. The son of a local ], he first learnt his father's trade. Against family opinion he was apprenticed while still in his youth to the organ builder James Davis and later joined in partnership with Hugh Russell...''
	:We have the idiosyncratic, non-Misplaced Pages style of beginning, the fully-formed sentences, and, most peculiarly for an American contributor, the British usage of "learnt" -- which you changed in subsequent edits over the next hour. My guess is Britannica, but I have a friend who owns a copy, so I"ve asked him to check. --] | ] 20:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Sounds good. You can also search the introductions for each entry for free online. As you can see here: <nowiki><http://www.britannica.com/search?query=John+Abbey&ct=></nowiki>, there is no entry. As for formatting, I hate Misplaced Pages formatting because it is not in keeping with style recommendations of writers. For example, above, I did not give the link as because I think it looks unintuitive and doesn't tell the reader where they're going.--] 20:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::''I hate Misplaced Pages formatting because it is not in keeping with style recommendations of writers.''' Really? What "style recommendations of writers" are you referring to? What possible applicability do these "style recommendations of writers" have for THIS project? And what about these "style recommendations of writers" gives you an exemption from the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style? --] | ] 23:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::This is another debate, but I tend to follow styling guidelines of style manuals like ''Merriam-Webster's Manual for Writer's and Editors'' as well as Random-House's style guide. I also imitate for experimentation purposes several innovations, like enlarging the headword a point or two. I have had several disagreements and have explained myself in detail on why I don't always follow Misplaced Pages guidelines. Examples include pronunciation aids,<sup></sup> as well as links.<sup></sup>--] 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Can you clarify where the article came from? Is it all your own original writing or is copied from another source? -] 23:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::To repeat, let's cut through a lot of noise: Primetime, do you deny that on Wiktionary you copied definitions from existing dictionaries? Can you affirm that the text I quoted above is all your own? What was the source of your information? --] | ] 23:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::::It is not copied from anywhere. I wrote most of my contributions. Many were written as school reports. Others are from the 1911 edition of the ''Encyclopaedia Britannica''. Some are reports I wrote for my classes at school.--] 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::This article, ] , also appears to be copied from another source. If it isn't then it is a severe violation of ] as it includes extensive literary criticism. -] 23:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	Now that's strange: that list of articles on on ]'s page, which listed the articles he says he was principal contributer to? The one I browsed checking for copying? Primetime has suddenly removed them . Why would that be? --] | ] 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I'm tired of you guys going through each of my contributions and picking them apart. I don't have time for that.--] 00:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	Man, I'm slow: that list I mentioned? One of the entries is for the '']'' -- and the article includes an external link to a site which provides short versions of some of the articles. Looking up ]...Hmm, do these look familiar?
	:'''''Reinhard Johannes Sorge''' (January 29, 1892-July 20, 1916) is considered one of the earliest ] dramatists in Germany. Although his death on the battlefield in World War I put an abrupt end to an all-too-brief six-year period of intensive literary productivity, Sorge, who was only twenty-four years old at the time of his death, achieved recognition as one of Germany's foremost religious playwrights and poets, one whose poetic mission was inspired by his fervent quest for God and by an ecstatic mystical faith. Sorge's protagonists are either projections of his own self into a dramatic character who combines the role of the writer as leader and healer with that of the prophet and seeker of God's truth, or personal interpretations of key figures in the history of Christianity such as King David, Saint Francis of Assisi, and Martin Luther. None of his plays was performed during his lifetime. '' (from
	:''Reinhard Johannes Sorge is considered one of the earliest expressionist dramatists in Germany. Although his death on the battlefield in World War I put an abrupt end to an all-too-brief six-year period of intensive literary productivity, Sorge, who was only twenty-four years old at the time of his death, achieved recognition as one of Germany's foremost religious playwrights and poets, one whose poetic mission was inspired by his fervent quest for God and by an ecstatic mystical faith. Sorge's protagonists are either projections of his own self into a dramatic character who combines the role of the writer as leader and healer with that of the prophet and seeker of God's truth, or personal interpretations of key figures in the history of Christianity such as King David, Saint Francis of Assisi, and Martin Luther. None of his plays was performed during his lifetime.'' From the
	Busted. --] | ] 00:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	::OK. I admit that it's from the ''DLB''. That doesn't mean that everything I've ever written is a copyvio, though. Most of the articles I've written aren't even about writers.--] 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Another quick check: ] ( versus )...do I need to continue? Your long-winded rationale is pure misdirection, and while it's, I'm sure, literally true that not EVERYTHING you've ever written is stolen, it's enough to presume it's true unless you provide evidence to the contrary. --] | ] 00:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	::STOP! WHAT DO YOU MEAN? ARE YOU PROPOSING THE DELETION OF EVERYTHING I'VE EVER WRITTEN BECAUSE OF THOSE TWO ENTRIES??? WHAT PROOF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO PROVE THAT THEY'RE '''NOT''' FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE! WHY ARE YOU GOING AFTER ME SO HARD?--] 00:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Those first two entries are what I found sitting at my desk, from my computer, after only a few minutes work and without breaking a sweat. Imagine what I could do if I went down to the local university library and actually search in their hard-copy of ''Britannica'', ''Grove's'', ''DLB'', ''Current Biography'', etc. --] | ] 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	::A message on my talk page: ''...Also, why are you doing this? You know that Misplaced Pages isn't liable for copyright violations that it isn't aware are occurring? There's absolutely no reason to be doing this!'' This is perhaps the most pathetic rationale for copyright abuse I've seen in a long time -- but more to the point, we ''are'' aware now. You've been busted: deal with it. --] | ] 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	*Throw ] ( versus on the list. Man, this may take a co-ordinated effort to root out. --] | ] 01:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	===Block of Primetime===
	I have blocked Primetime per the above developments, and the obvious rejection of any wrongdoing from him. Currently set to indef, but if there are objections, please someone take the initiative to unblock. This is only a precautionary measure from stopping him from creating any further articles for now. If there are no objections, then it'd be a community indef block. ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> at 00:58 ] <small>(])</small>
	:I would like to remind you that ] has now dozens of ''known'' sockpuppets on the English Wiktionary. He is very adept at finding open proxies. He is also very adept at finding the newest "tor" exit points. Again, I request assistance from ''all'' available Misplaced Pages sysops now, to 1) verify whatever portion of his edits you need to, are copyright violations and 2) keep a very sharp eye out for new sockpuppets.
	:Despite everything he has said in the past six months or so, I do not believe his stated motives. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you must, but I think he is being paid to insert copyright violations into Wikimedia projects. I cannot comprehend any other reason why he would have pursued his attacks on the English Wiktionary, for months after being blocked. For example, ] is still being actively vandalized. It obviously is not some desire to propogate "truth." It is instead, a very disturbing case. --] 01:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Given his insistence of innocence until '''proven''' to have violated copyright I have to agree that this user has forfeited all right to ]. Insertion of fragments to 'build up' a copyvio in pieces shows foreknowledge that they are not allowed and a deliberate effort to evade detection. He needs to provide an explanation for ''why'' he was deliberately sneaking in copyrighted material and list every instance of doing so under all accounts before we should even ''consider'' unblocking him. I'm usually the one saying 'blocks are bad and cause more problems than they solve', but '''this guy''' needs to be blocked indefinitely and his contributions sanitized. If in doubt assume it is a copyvio and remove or rewrite it. --] 13:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	::: Given the extent of his damage, has anyone in Misplaced Pages requested a blanket Checkuser on his IP address, for his Misplaced Pages activities? Looking at policy #6 from ] it looks like such a check is permitted. But only for a couple days more. --] 23:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	FYI, a number of sock puppets of Primetime have been identifed and blocked. {{user|JakeT55}}, {{user|Britannica fan}}, {{user|Gmills22}}, {{user|Gtregf}}, and {{user|America's Sweetheart}}. -] 07:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
	:These seem to have been a panicked reaction to having some of his suspected plagiarism being deleted, with the sockpuppets used to try to add back the probable copyvios.
	:I say "probable" copyvios, but I'm 95% certain they are, even absent hard evidence. For details on the frustrating saga, check his ]. At this point, confirming the other plagiarism is more an intellectual exercise than a necessity, as far as I'm concerned. --] | ] 08:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
	===The article ]===
	By sheer coincidence, I looked at this article about a week ago. I grew suspicious at the very atypical tone of the piece, and so I checked the history. What I found was something atypical of copyvios, namely a long series of edits to a section made by a registered user with a userpage, so I shrugged it off. In light of this, however, I've Google-tested some pieces, but found no hits; could anyone perhaps check a copy of ''EB'' and/or other likely reference works to see if it's stolen from there? &mdash;] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 02:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I left a list (compiled by going through a list from his own user page) of likely copyvios on his ], with a request that he account for them. Let's see if his repentence is serious. --] | ] 07:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Compare histories of ] and ]. Also those of ], ] and ]. They have multiple Primetime or Primetime sockpuppet edits. There are probably more cross-project parallels. ] 10:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	::I've received e-mail from Primetime, and it's apparent that he doesn't have the slightest clue what he's done wrong. Until he does, I strongly urge not unblocking him. --] | ] 10:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::That's perhaps a reason why he keeps doing it. However, I think he's cleverer than that. At Wiktionary, he has tricked various users into believing he was completely innocent, prior to his unmasking and the consequent indefinite block. ] 10:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I have M-W Third on hold at my local library again, and will pick it up tomorrow afternoon. --] 07:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
	:: It seems to be from the OED. The 20 volume set can't be checked out, but the next time I'm there I'll confirm that (halfway down the page) does in fact match the start of . --] 03:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC) <small>edited</small>
	:: By the way, it looks like this will be archived/deleted soon? Tracking down 1,700 entries is probably going to take quite a while. Are topics on the archive pages considered "active" or should this be moved somewhere else? --] 03:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::], the bot that archives this page, reports the date of the oldest response when it archives sections, so I think it will ignore this section as long as you keep posting here. But if you want to keep track of the reverting of Primetime's copyvios, it'd be better to make a subpage of your user page for that purpose. ]. 04:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::: I guess my question is now, who on Misplaced Pages (I'm not a sysop here) is going to start the effort of combing through all his entries, to indicate which have already been deleted/cleaned up? --] 01:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Been there, done that: admins {{Admin|Michael_Snow}} and {{Admin|Will_Beback}} have have already whacked the most obvious offenders. See ] for a blow-by-blow account. --] | ] 02:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
	::The OED was the source for ]. --] 08:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	===Update===
	{{User|Primetime}} has been indefinitely blocked by Jimbo Wales hisownself (see ). Note also that Primetime has resorted to sockpuppets to add back what's been deleted (see ]) and has gone admin-shopping (see ) seeking to reverse deletions of his additions. --] | ] 05:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I see the category here on Misplaced Pages is redlinked. Today's latest English Wiktionary "Primetime" sockpuppet: ] (.) I hope Misplaced Pages is better at staying on top of these than we are at Wiktionary. --] 04:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Just a name change - I've fixed it now. Thakns for the heads up. -] 05:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Instantnood==
	===Instantnood--a case for a temporary ban from Misplaced Pages under his General Probation?===
	{{vandal|Instantnood}} has been a frequent client of the Arbitration Committee and the administrators who voluntarily enforce their remedies:
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	Unfortunately the scope of the specific remedies in his cases do not yet seem to match the scale and inventiveness of his disruption. Typically he will choose a dozen or so articles, edit war on them over some detail of nomenclature, get banned and move on to another set of articles where he'll edit war on the same point.
	This absorbs an appreciable amount of administrator time and it can be rather demoralizing to realise, a couple of weeks later, that one has only succeeded in moving the venue of the disruption. It has also become all but impossible to track the articles from which Instantnood has been banned as a result of remedies in those of his arbitration cases that reached completion (2 and 3).
	A General Probation applies in Instantnood's case. I propose to use it in the hope of convincing Instantnood that he cannot continue in this way.
	The probation reads as follows:
	: ''Instantnood is placed on general probation indefinitely. Any three administrators may, for good cause, ban him from the site. All bans to be logged at ].''
	I open this to general discussion. My own thoughts are that a two week ban from Misplaced Pages might serve to convince Instantnood, a certified Wikipediholic, that he cannot continue to edit war indefinitely. But I'm not set on this. Perhaps there is a better way of handling this. --] 01:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	By the way, as this is an arbitration-related proposal and I happen to be an Arbitration Committee clerk, I think I should point out that unless I sign an edit here "For the arbitration committee" or something similar, I am ''not'' acting as a clerk or on the instructions of the Committee. This is just me, a Wikipedian with a mop and bucket, trying to work out how to keep Misplaced Pages running. --] 01:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	* I'm not sure that there's a better way to handle it. I will say that I would support a two-week ban on Instantnood, but I agree that if there is a better way to handle it, we should do it. I'm just not sure what. ] (]) 01:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' - Stop wasting administrators' time. Instantnood is clearly just gaming the system. Being able to move to a new set of articles when the disruption gets to be too much on previous articles to violate his probation is absurd. --] 01:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' makes three - blocking for two weeks presently. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 16:55, May 17, 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- diff=53708845&oldid=53708282 -->
	;my non-admin comment as his foil.
	:I've said before I don't like the idea of a permanent ban. He's been banned for two weeks before without any change and immediately resumed the same behavior - so I'm not convinced it would change if done again. The page bans work, sort of, but are becoming too numerous to track. And he still filibusters on the talk pages. There really does need to be some behavioral tweaks to his sanctions.
	:I proposed before the idea that he be prohibited from doing the same revert twice. So if he makes a change, and someone reverts it, he should be allowed one revert (with a talk page note), and then be forced to drop it. It would force him to seek other editors to form consensus.
	:Otherwise, the deal with moving the same edit war to different articles has to have some force behind it. If there is a style change, (eg from today: parentheses, flag images, or the spelling of Macao) that he's known to obsess over it should be said to him in some authorative way: "Someone else needs to make these changes if you feel they need to be made. Don't make this same edit in a different article."
	:I also worry that a general, permanent ban would result in sock puppetry. In a previous ban of a week or so, it was so important to vote in a poll somewhere that he created a sock to do it. ] 02:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	::''I proposed before the idea that he be prohibited from doing the same revert twice. So if he makes a change, and someone reverts it, he should be allowed one revert (with a talk page note), and then be forced to drop it.'' Not likely to be effective for determined edit warriors. We can propose all sorts of "soft" limitations and if they continue to be ignored, what'll be the last available resort, other than the block button? '''Support''' long-term block, perhaps not indefinite, but something like 6 months to 1 year. This is a textbook case of edit warring. ]. 02:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	::''I also worry that a general, permanent ban would result in sock puppetry.'' He won't be the first, or the last, banned user to resort to sockpuppetry. They'll be blocked as they come. ]. 02:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	Actually the idea of a limitation on reverts (a revert parole) sounds pretty good. I wonder if it would be a good idea to put the idea of a revert parole remedy in this case to the Commmittee.
	Examples of revert paroles in other cases:
	* ]: "TDC is hereby limited to 1 content revert per article per day and must discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page for one year. He may be briefly blocked for up to a week for violations. After 5 such blocks the maximum block time increases to a year."
	* ]: "Lou franklin 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."
	* ]: "Leyasu is placed on standard revert parole. He is hereby limited to a maximum of one content revert per page per day for one year. Each revert must be explicitly marked as such."
	A revert parole can only be imposed by the Arbitration Committee, but any arbitrator can propose a motion in a previous case. If on discussion this emerges as a possibility, it should be easy to persuade the arbitrators to consider such a remedy. --] 02:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	===Discussion of whether Instantnood's conduct is disruptive===
	: ''I have moved this to its own separate section for reasons given below. --] 17:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)''
	Tony, I have seen no evidence to support this. Could you supply diffs? I checked at random 7 of his edits of 16 May. Six were fine (one was beyond my technical ability). A theme of his editing is applying accurately the differences between ], ], ] and ] in relation to "Chinese territories". As I said on 7 May I had checked his edits on ], ], and ] (some of the articles I believe he has been unfairly banned from). His edits endeavoring to use correctly the various terms for "country" were fine and no one has said they were not. I doubt the issue will be resolved until it is acknowledged that his use of the terms is well informed.] 03:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	:''His edits endeavoring to use correctly the various terms for "country" were fine and no one has said they were not.'' Flatly untrue, as a quick glance at the edit histories and summaries would show. Take a look (especially at ), and see if you'd like to amend that statement. --] | ] 04:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Thanks Calton, the link you provided gives ''Misplaced Pages does not recognize the action specified by the URL.''. Yes I am happy to rephrase: ''no one has satisfactorily demonstrated his use of various terms for "country" is inaccurate.'' If other wikipedians could take the time to check this we would be moving forward. Mere gainsaying doesn't help - we need to analyse particular edits. ] 04:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::Perhaps you missed the point of his ArbCom restrictions. Hint: "Correcting Instantnood"? Not one of them. Suggesting "accuracy" has a thing to do with it is just as mistaken as your claim that no one objected to his edits. And given your track record on ], I can see why you're misunderstanding consensus or collaborative editing. --] | ] 08:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::The links works for me -- in both senses. After you've gone to ], reviewed the history, and noted the repeated removals of Macau and Hong Kong from under the heading "China, People's Republic of", perhaps you'll explain how this falls under the themes you identify. ] 05:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Even if the statement "Hong Kong is &lt;Whatever Instantnood defines it is&gt;" is etched in stone by the hand of Almighty God, that will still not excuse the fact that he is edit warring to insist on the placement of The Truth. Edit warring over ''anything'' is Bad. Period. ]. 05:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Thanks Guys, my comments are about whether he uses the terms correctly. I think we as a community owe him a judgement on this. I say he uses them correctly. No one has posted a diff showing and arguing an incorrect usage.] 05:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::We do not owe any edit warriors a "judgement" for whether their preferred version is correct. The question we are to look at, which all your replies have neatly sidestepped so far, is not whether he is reverting to the "correct" version (whatever that may mean), but ''Has Instantnood been disruptive in spite of specific remedies imposed in his prior Arbcom cases?'' And to that question (which is the only question that matters here) the answer has to be an emphematic '''yes''', necessitating the invocation of the general remedy. ]. 05:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::I'm happy to rephrase: ''I think a good resolution of the issue depends on a judgement by the community that he has used the terms correctly.'' I have to disagree with you Kimchi - on the evidence I have examined in detail, and I restrict myself to that alone, his edits have been correct. If we avoid the meaning of correct why are we trying to create an encyclopedia? If someone could post a diff where he was incorrect I'd be happy to look at it. I make no comment on edit warring except to say I disagree again - it is not the only question that matters here. We do the project a disservice if we don't examine carefully what appears to be the root of the problem - his usage of terms like state, nation, country, nation state, sovereign nation, sovereign state, etc. and his objection to others who use the terms loosely or inaccurately. ] 06:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::: Correct information can be added by people other than Instantnood, and through ways more polite than that which he has used to date. Since you insist on dragging the "correctness factor" in, I will comment no more on this. ]. 06:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	The revert restriction has a lot of attraction, since excessive, often-trivial reversion is a large proportion of the problem -- such as a stub tag being reverted back to a redirect ''to the same template'' (the mind boggles). The "filibustering" can be vexing, but less out and out disruptive. Rather than throw this back straight at the ArbCom, I think there would be some merit in sounding IN out to see if he'd be prepared to agree to ''voluntarily'' restrict his revert activity in the manner described, as a means of addressing people's reasonable concerns as expressed here and elsewhere. ] 04:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	I agree with ]. I've not formed a good impression of Instantnood, based on his frequent vexatious posts to ] - ], for example. And I'm not a big fan of people who get obsessive about the difference between a state and a country (Instantnood's hobby-horse), or the status of the "traditional English counties", or the "correct" name for the ]. It seems to me that half the problems on Misplaced Pages are caused by nationalists who won't let things go. Having said that, Instantnood is not an outright troll - I think he's getting worked up to a ridiculous extent over trivia, but so are some of the people who are opposing him. He does seem to make some good changes and additions to articles. I'm pessimistic about the effect of asking him to voluntarily curb his aggressiveness, but it's worth a try. I don't think the time is right yet for a long ban, but I'd support a short (week or two) ban as a shot across the bows. --] (]) 06:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I am not an Admin, and I just strayed over here following a Talk page comment on Alai's Talk, but for what its worth: Where are the diffs? I find it amazing that an Admin can come on here and just make serious, sweeping allegations about a User without a single example of their alleged disruptive behaviour. And even more amazing that other Admins (I assume that you are Admins) just pile in with more 100% opinion and 0% evidence.
	:I know very little about Instantnood, although I do recognise the name, in fact I feel certain that I have seen it on hundreds of edits, but I must say that it has not stuck in my mind, which I can only assume means that I have never had a problem with the guy. Given that he is allegedly a big "traditional counties" fan then I find this remarkable, because I have had to deal with several such trolls, but Instantnood ain't one of them.
	:In my few visits to this notice board I have seen this trend before: Admins firing a massive broadside at Users without a shred of evidence. This is thoroughly unsatisfactory: please remedy the situation. --] 07:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	:: Please read the arbitration cases at the links below, with particular attention to the findings of fact, the remedies, the enforcement provisions and (above all) the logs of blocks and bans. See also numerous recent complaints about Instantnood's ongoing disruption at ].
	::* ]
	::* ]
	:: --] 16:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	::To repeat what I wrote above, take a quick glance at the edit histories and summaries, especially at ), and see if you'd like to amend that statement.
	::''Given that he is allegedly a big "traditional counties" fan..'' He's not, as far I know: that was merely an example of a type of intransigent edit warrior, perhaps one you already know about.
	::''I can only assume means that I have never had a problem with the guy'' Taking specifics and applying them generally is not sound logic. --] | ] 08:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	I don't think we should be fighting the arbitration case again. There are ongoing complaints about Instantnood's edits, and it isn't as if his actions, where valid, couldn't be performed by someone else. The problem is that his ''behavior'' is disruptive. That is a given. The question is how to deal with it. --] 16:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	: To this end, I am inserting a new section head before Macready's "Tony, I have seen no evidence to support this." Should there be doubt that Instantnood's behavior is problematic, then the cases should be appealed to the Arbitration Committee or Jimbo Wales. It is in general the job of administrators to ''enforce'' remedies, not to discuss their appropriateness. --] 17:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	''<small>Moved below 2 comments from previous section. ]. 03:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)</small>''
	Tony, could you provide a couple of diffs where Instantnood has been disruptive? Thanks. ] 02:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
	: Please refer to the copious details provided in the arbitration cases detailing Instantnood's disruptive behavior. --] 03:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
	::I assume he means edits that "violate" his probation, not the ones that led to it being imposed. Though the examples cited to date seem pertinent enough to me, and highly similar to the earlier AC'd behaviour; I'm not clear what more McC is looking for. ] 03:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::A fight. --] | ] 04:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
	The arbitration cases detail, in the records of blocks and bans, behavior by Instantnood that was disruptive ''after'' each of the two cases that ran to completion. I assume that Macready hadn't known to look there, and so suggested that he do so. --] 04:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Ah, the block-ban-log, yes. I was forgetting they were on the same page, though it's a tad confusing to refer to them as "the cases", given that the cases per se are long since closed. ] 04:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
	Tony, my previous request has been moved. Could you supply ''recent''(perhaps 13-16 May) diffs you feel are disruptive, so that the community can examine the request for a temporary ban. Thanks] 04:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
	: As I suggested to Mais Oui, look on ], specifically . --] 05:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
	By the way, this was ''not'' a request for a temporary community ban. It was a community discussion concerning a temporary ban to be passed under the terms of Instantnood's General Probation. As such, it had passed the "three administrators" threshold by 1655 UTC yesterday, and Phil Sandifer implemented the ban. --] 05:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
	I agree that a revert parole would be the way to deal with Instantnood's revert warring, better than simply blocking him. Meanwhile, ]'s anti-social behavior and extensive edit warring needs to be dealt with, since there are multiple sides to the problem. --] 10:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I haven't looked at that users' contribs, but I've asked him to modify his userpage, as likely to add fuel to the fire. (It's practically a declaration of revert-war, and an unduly personalised one to boot.) But Instantnood is a distinct case, in that his arbcom ruling expressly puts him in the "last chance saloon" (or temporarily evicted from it, given the above), and we won't be at that point with other users until other steps are taken first. If you'd be willing to approach him with regard to a voluntary revert limitation with a view to avoiding future such agro, you'd be doing us all a favour (himself included). ] 18:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
	I have again spent a good deal of time on this and have tracked down the following diffs from about 16 May (they weren’t diffs in the 16 May report) .
	I didn’t understand the first, but the remainder are examples of Instantnood’s endeavors to use correctly various terms for the assemblage "country, state, nation". I think the issue will be better handled if it is acknowledged that his use of the terms is well informed.
	My research also uncovered this going back to February 2005. Instantnood’s arguments are persuasive. ] 12:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
	:To repeat: Perhaps you missed the point of his ArbCom restrictions. Hint: "Correcting Instantnood"? Not one of them. Suggesting "accuracy" has a thing to do with it is just as mistaken as your claim that no one objected to his edits. And given your track record on ], I can see why you're misunderstanding consensus or collaborative editing. --] | ] 02:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Calton, ad hominem attacks don't advance the discussion here. Which edit on Animal Rights (apart from the one error I have acknowledged) did you have a problem with? Please reply civilly on my talkpage if wish.] 07:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::That's nice. And Mccready, did you know that ] in ] was transported to its current location by the largest landslide ever discovered, approximately 50 million years ago? Which is a statement as completely relevant here as your blather about "ad homs". To repeat, you ''do'' understand the point of Instantnood's ArbCom restrictions, right? You ''do'' understand that "correct usage" has nothing to do with that, right? You ''do'' understand that unilateral declarations of "correctness" do ''not'' trump collaborative editing, right? You ''do'' understand that the issue is Instanood's '''conduct''', right? You ''do'' understand that your claim that "no one objected to his edits" is flatly wrong, right?
	:::''Which edit on Animal Rights ... did you have a problem with?'' "You"? Way to reframe a question. I refer, of course, to your constantly reverted -- by more than one editor -- rewrite of the intro. --] | ] 08:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
	This isn't about whether his use of terms is correct. It's whether his conduct on the wiki continues to disrupt. --] 16:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
	:If his edits are correct I would say that reverting them is the disruption. I would say his conduct doesn't amount to disruption. It amounts to trying to correct misuse of the terms. ] 07:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
	::"If..." A multitude of sins is covered by that simple word. --] | ] 08:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
	::This appears to bear so little resemblance to problematic edits, and general pattern of behaviour, being discussed as to be strongly suggestive of deliberately missing the point. ] 15:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I just came to notice this discussion following a link on a talk page.
	:Instantnood's actions are no doubt distruptive for me, for example, he insisted on some styling (e.g. comma vs bracket) issues, which others find it incorrect. Like in , , other editors are against his edits, yet he never give up reverting them to his own version. And on the image of Hong Kong, the old HK Image, which is in png format, ] is rendered redundant by ]. Though Instantnood still try to reinstate the old flag (like in ] ), which was retired, in various articles, citing something incorrect about the new flag which he himself couldn't tell what that is. These are just few of his recent examples of causing disruptions in Misplaced Pages. His continuous disruptive actions is requiring a few editors to constant monitor his edits (sort the construtive ones from the disruptive ones) and fix them by reverting those pages.] 11:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
	If it is the reverts that are desruptive, while the content of my edits are useful ones, then what we actually have to figure out is why these edits keep being reverted by a few editors, namely user:Alanmak, user:Winhunter and user:SchmuckyTheCat. User:Jiang has already pointed ''part'' of the key problem in his comment above (10:56, May 18). What I have been facing is that the other party I am facing do not bother to discuss, and even if they discuss, they don't provide evidence to justify their position. If they do not actively edit the articles (and categories and templates, same below) themselves to realise their point of view, there wouldn't be anything necessary to be reverted. </p><p>Another thing that is disappointing is that user:SchmuckyTheCat has requested for administrators' action against me at WP:AE for a few times. Yet everytime he filed a request, he provides only one-side evidence, and administrators act only based on what one of the two sides have filed. Such mechanism is far from satisfactory.</p><p>Last be not least, user:Phil Sandifer, who cast the third vote without signing and subsequently blocked me ( 16:56, May 17), was previously user:Snowspinner, was user:SchmuckyTheCat's advocate in the case he and I were involved. Would she/he be a suitable person to have do this, given his impartialness and neutrality over this matter cannot be ensure? &mdash; ]] 20:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Rouge Admin==
	Has anyone seen the ? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 09:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small><!-- -->
	:"Jimbo Wales - mostly just wanders around :)" My God, it's ''exactly like real life''. Excellent! No highscore chart though? --]<sup>]</sup> 19:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
	::There ought to be a ] version of this. Oh wait... --<span style="font-family:monospace">&nbsp;] </span>] 19:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
	I've always wondered about this: if we have "rouge" admins, do we also have foundation admins? Eyeliner admins? Eye shadow admins? Mascara admins? <span class="small">'''*ducks under barrage of rotten tomatoes*'''</span> ;) <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 21:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
	:The Foundation admins are sysops at http://wikimediafoundation.org. — ] (]) (]) 13:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
	::I knew '''someone''' was going to mention that... ;) <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 14:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
	We should use this to train new admins. ''']''' ]|] 21:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
	Hmm, no stewards in the game. :] ]. 13:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
	For what it's worth I underwent my rouge training in Nethack, having Ascended ... five or six different classes, I kind of lost track. --] 14:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Wow, bringing back the old times, I had v 1. something of nethack as a game on my first computer--an 8086 with a 20mb hard drive. The later versions never seemed to carry the same luster. A simple hex editor and you had all the hit points, etc you wanted! Still not enough to win the game, but I'm not sure if that makes me more or less of a loser. :) I'll have to try the rouge game. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	== I've caused a problem at ] ==
	To make a long story short, I think I forgot to include "noinclude" when nominating ] for speedy deletion. It's been deleted, so I would have guessed that the user pages would no longer be listed as candidates for speedy deletion and that the problem would now be moot. There are still 4 user pages up for deletion, though (oddly enough, ], who has the said template transcluded, is ''not'' up for deletion). I've tried a variety of refreshes and purges, but nothing has worked. ] 05:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	: I'm not an admin, but null edits (via the ]) seemed to work. --]]]] 06:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Thanks. I thought the need for null edits went away when they fixed some problem or problems recently, but I guess not. ] 06:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::It appears to depend on exactly what kind of null edit is needed. A change to the category on a template that is transcluded will repopulate the category very quickly. I've noticed however that if something is deleted with the category still intact, the article will continue to show up in the category for a while (forever? I haven't gone back to look) and may need a null edit if its a concern. ] 11:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::That would explain a few other, unrelated, things that I've been wondering about. Thanks! ] 23:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::As far as I know null edits should never be necessary, however the time required for such problems to fix themselves varies depending on the length of the job queue, see ]. ] ] 05:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::This was not a job queue issue; the job queue had been empty for a long time. ] 05:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Recent page move to ]==
	There was a recent page move that was put into effect from ] to the above page. The result was that the edit history of the above page was wiped out - which was a mistake. The page move should have been a simple redirect, but the admin who put it in didn't read the discussion page carefully. As a result, 4 months worth of edit histories were wiped out, and a previously protected page (]) was replaced with a mock-up that was thrown together on the redirect page ]. I'm requesting that the edit history of the Yogiraj page be restored so that the full record of 4 months worth of edit history not be lost. ] 14:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	:] is being a bit misleading here. The consensus (4-1) was specifically for a page move, with only himself calling for a redirect, as can be seen at ]. There are, I believe, no objections to merging the page histories, provided that the intent is not to resurrect old disputed content. However, a look at ] might be in order before determining whether restoration of the old edit history would be a wise idea. Most of the complaints in this RfC involve ]'s attempts to subvert consensus and moderation through edit warring involving this specific article. &mdash;] 18:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	I'm glad that we agree that merging histories is in order. Hanuman Das - I have a copy on my harddrive of the old Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath page. If I wanted to, I could have restored it any time I want to. I'm asking for the edit history to be restored for record, not so I can start messing with the content. This is not about you or me or edit warring. And it was 3:2 not 4:1 on the simple redirect. And the 3 was you and the other "2" usernames that you used to sockpuppet around with. To all admins: By all means - please take a look at the requests for comment page - that way everybody on wikipedia will see how much of an idiotic rivalry this is. ] 07:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Christian views of Hanukkah==
	Hi guys, I would very much appreciate it if someone went over my closing of ]. This has gone to something of an argumentative Deletion Review and I would welcome some experienced eyes having a look. I am fairly sure that I made the right decision but, rather unsurprisingly, some people are very upset with the result and are highjacking the review to this end. I do not wish to appear to be vote chasing, but the existence of the process implies that I have made a pretty major error of judgement, something I take very seriously, and I would like some neutral eyes to evaluate it. Thanks for reading. ] 20:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	*Looks like you called it right to me. The article lacked sources and looked mainly like original research. It was not clear that there was a viable topic. The AfD itself had a consensus to delete. ] 05:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Could someone take a look at this article? Is this "license" Misplaced Pages-compatible? If it is, should it? —'']'' 02:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	:As I understand it, images should either (A) be under a free license, or (B) meet the fair use rules. These images are probably neither, since the permission in question (if it indeed has been given at all) sounds suspiciously like a "for Misplaced Pages only" or "for educational use only" type of permission. ] ] 06:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Looking at the actual permission ] it is definitely not broad enough for these to be considered free images. ] ] 06:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	The man told me we could use them if we included a disclaimer of sorts.
	We did that so what's the problem then?
	] <small>''Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona'' </small> 12:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	== 68.4.58.77 + ] ==
	{{IPvandal|68.4.58.77}} and {{vandal|1028}}
	, , . I don't know what to call this, vandalism? crap? Reverted all three times, user is up to test4 (one warning was made for three vandalisms on my talk) but I figured I'd leave it here to see if an admin wants to do more. User was already blocked for vandalism, now he's doing the same thing again (some people just don't have the capacity to learn from one's mistakes).
	Thanks, — <font colour="navy"><b>]] <sup>(])</sup></b></font> 06:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I think an indef block for 1028. I see endless vandalism warnings. --] <sup>]</sup> 07:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	::If nobody gets back to me, I think I'll just do it. Agreed? --] <sup>]</sup> 21:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Totally. This user has been harassing ] for a long time, too. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll get rid of the ''user'' merely by blocking this particular account, but at least it's a gesture. ] | ] 21:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC).
	::::I think the IP might get hit in an autoblock if I block the account since I suspect they are the same person... I'd like someone else to support this before I go and do it. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	: After I have no problem with an indef block of 1028 and a healthy block for the IP. ] 01:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	If I make one more vandalistic edit, then block me indefinitely, but if I don't make one ever again, don't block me. ] 03:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Community bans ==
	===Introduction===
	Following discussion on the mailing list - someone mentioned that community bans are going to become more common as the number of editors increases, and the arbitration committee is less able to deal with a volume of cases. The current situation is that any admin can community-ban a user, and the user's only comeback is to appeal to the arbitration committee. There's currently a bit of minor wheel-warring going on over one user who I'm satisfied ought to be banned, but others obviously disagree (I'm not the banning admin, but I have a low tolerance for people who are only here to push a particularly strong point of view). Might it be useful to have a formal process for community banning along the lines of ]? A page for admins to list users they wish to community-ban, the agreement of another two admins required before the ban, and possibly a lightweight review process along the lines of ] rather than having to go straight to the arbitration committee? There clearly are users here whose presence is intolerable, and who need to be got rid of quickly, but there needs to be slightly more transparency and fair process than there is at the moment. --] (]) 08:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I think that makes sense. Currently seems to be no clear definition of what IS a community ban, how does it happen, how does it get labelled as such. See ] and my as of yet unanswered question there. --] 08:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	:It would probably be better than the present system, in which admins ban the editor themselves or ask people on this page what they think before or after banning. We may need a screening process to prevent abusive nominations for banishment, though. -- ] 10:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Oh, heck yes. I'm getting very wary of the community bans. N.b. what's going on is community ''ban,'' not community ''block,'' and the distinction between the two is eroding faster than the world's beaches. I remember the Lir and Michael days, when it took the most monumental, tectonic motion to impose an actual ''ban.'' Now, it seems like we're getting free with the "indefinite block" button. It's not that I can point to one or another, although I think Secret London is right that an IP must ''never'' be blocked indefinitely, since no one knows who's going to own the IP in 3 months. I'm not sure this is the place to draft and work out the procedure, however, as its readership is already pre-selected to the grumpy and the injured. More light is needed, I think. ] 13:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	===Admin-only discussion page, Arbitration Committee===
	:I was thinking of having only admins able to add nominations - if the page was permanently protected, that would do it. Other users wanting to nominate someone would only have to persuade an admin of their case. An appeals process ought to be open to all (apart from the community-banned user, of course - but if the grounds for banning are that the community's lost patience with a disruptive user, an absence of any third party support would just show the community ban was justified). --] (]) 10:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	Increasing the size of ArbCom did not solve the workload issue, and community bans will work only in the cases were there is agreement. Perhaps the solution is to create more than one ArbCom committee, to spread the workload. Rather than turn ArbCom into a court of last appeal and have ad hoc community bannings to take over the workload, I'd rather have several committees that are capable of handling the caseload (see ]). We have plenty of people willing to do the work, and we don't need 12 ArbCom members ruling on every single case. ] ] 10:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	===Ad-hoc committee of three===
	: The problem at the moment is that from the perspective of the banned user, one admin is able to ban them, and they have no comeback beyond a lengthy and bureaucratic ArbCom case. The admin may be someone they have had long-term involvement with - if someone's doing a lot of edit-warring, there may be dozens of admins reverting, warning and protecting pages. What I'm proposing is that effectively an ad-hoc committee of three admins bans them, and there is some form of lightweight appeals process so if they have anyone willing to speak up for them, the ban can be reviewed and altered if that's necessary. Most of these bans ought to be uncontroversial - three admins to ban, a week for review, and I really think that in most cases people will get the message and ArbCom won't be involved. --] (]) 10:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Having some sort of way for the community to test whether a community ban has consensus is a good idea. Right now we just have the comments of those who choose to chat on the notice boards, those comments are limited in number and may not really reflect what the (admin) community as a whole thinks. That is one reason why having even one admin who thinks a ban was incorrect should be taken seriously as proof that consensus does not exist. If that one admin is in the wrong, the onus must be on the community to prove that consensus is really there, despite his objection. ] ] 20:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	===The current system and Wheel warring===
	:In the past there have apparently been some mass community motions to ban someone, but nowadays some admin usually does so long before that could happen. Currently 'community bans' are when there is no admin willing to unblock someone. If admins disagree then only the ArbCom can make such an action permanent. Personally I think that's a reasonable structure. --] 10:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::CBD is correct. We only have a community ban if no admin is willing to reverse someone else's block. With 900 admins, a dedicated troll can get hs ban overturned by someone. The problem with this structure is that it promotes the accusation of wheel warring. The admin that removes the ban will be jumped on by those who imposed the ban, and the third admin who puts the ban back again will also be accused of wheel warring. Perhaps we should say that reducing a ban (from indefinite to something less) is acceptable as long as enough time remains on the ban for the community to discuss it before the ban expires. But in the end, I would prefer a system that does not lead inevitably to the accusations of wheel warring, which the current system has the potential to do. ] ] 11:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	::The problem with that is that if admin A thinks a community ban is in order, and admin B doesn't and unblocks, that's wheel-warring. And there's something like that going on right now with a user who is making a lot of noise on the mailing list. If we have a firm agreement that if admin B unblocks, that's OK and it's the end of the community ban, fair enough - but that's not the procedure at the moment, and that's not what's happening. Also, even if admin B unblocks, admin C will be along in a while to decide that another community ban is in order, because these users are not generally ones who change their behaviour. I think we need a firm and fair process to decide that the ban genuinely has community support, and that it should stick. --] (]) 11:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::The general idea of "community bans" is that they are outside process. One problem is that we are mixing up several different processes. Some poeple such a WoW have a genunine community ban. In other cases none of the ~100 admins who actualy deal with this kind of blocking really want to do the unblock. In yet more cases it is simply a missnamed IAR block.] 20:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	removed trolling
	===Wikien-L===
	Historically, wrongfully banned users have appealed to the WikiEN-L listserv over indefinite blocks hoping to get a consensus of admins in favor of reducing or lifting their ban. It's not a "one admin bans you, you have to appeal to Arbcom" type of issue. — ] ] 17:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	:This is what I don't get. My understanding is that you don't need a consensus to remove a community ban; you need consensus to ''make'' one. The ] says:
	:*"The Misplaced Pages community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself. Some editors are so odious that not one of the 915 administrators on Misplaced Pages would ever want to unblock them."
	:This gives me the impression that community bans occur when not a single administrator objects to an indefinite block. Apparently, that is more controversial in practice than the policy page indicates. --] ] 18:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Yeah, it's messy. Just like any other consensus-based decision on Misplaced Pages, it's less a matter of no one objecting and more a matter of no one wanting to stick their neck out to actually unblock, hence the "not one of the 915 administrators would ever want to unblock them". — ] ] 18:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::I can think of at least one example where an administrator did stick his neck out and unblock the "community banned" user, only to find himself accused of wheel warring and the block re-applied. I wonder how many community bans would be enacted not because the editing user is that odious, but because admins don't want to involve themselves in a block war. --] ] 18:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::I thought a block/edit/wheel war could by definition only happen if someone reverts an action at least twice. So if admin A blocks and B unblocks, that's one revert, not a war. If A reblocks, maybe it's a war if you count A's reblock as a second revert. If C reblocks and B re-unblocks, that also might be war. If C reblocks and D unblocks, not a war, etc. ] (]) 21:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::That's precisely my view. As I've just said on the mailing list, I actually think community bans should be used more frequently than they currently are, but I'm not keen on controversial community bans leading to wars between admins. As I say above, if we're going to have clear agreement that unblocking a community-banned user is OK, and that the original banning admin should accept that decision without reapplying the ban, that would be another way to deal with it. --] (]) 18:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	Ryan Delaney says, "apparently, this is more controversial in practice than the policy page indicates." I don't think that's true. We indefinitely block dozens of users a day (sometimes hundreds) because of extreme vandalism, legal threats, persistent copyright violations, etc., without objection from anyone. The percentage of these blocks that are controversial is miniscule, and any change in policy should reflect that. I'll concede we may need to change the way we deal with users who have some good edits but are very difficult, but that shouldn't make us unnecessarily change the way we deal with pure trolls. ] 18:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	===Motions to overturn to go to the Arbitration committee===
	The problem with community ban proposals is that currently even a single administrator can dig his heels in and repeatedly unblock. This has happened a few times. In instances where there is a very strong consensus to ban a problem user, I propose that the dissenting administrator, or any other party, must use a lightweight procedure to overturn the ban. A proposal to overturn should be made on ], and if four arbitrators agree to the proposal then the community ban is overturned. Unblocking against general consensus of administrators on the wiki is of course an abuse of administrator powers, so there would be a strong incentive to administrators to follow this route.
	The procedure still favors unbanning by only requiring four arbitrators to agree with the motion to overturn. If the ban is overturned, the case may still optionally be taken to arbitration. --] 19:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	*It's a bit misleading to say that your procedure is "lightweight" and favors unbanning because it only takes 4 arbitrators to overturn. Arbitrators are not morons, not a single one is going to overturn a case against a legitimate troll (which is as it should be). It amuses me that you would require 4 arbitrators to undo a blocking action that was endorsed by 4 to 8 admins on WP:ANI (many announced community bans only get limited discussion). We must not presume that consensus for a community ban has been reached just because there was not a lot of discussion.
	*Your plan also seems to call for Arbitrators to routinely make final decisions without ever conducting a case. That would essentially change the whole Arbitration process. Instead of imposing sanctions as they do now, you would have ArbCom merely be the reviewers of sanctions imposed by others.
	*Community decisions should be decided by the community, and ArbCom decisions should be decided by ArbCom. Trying to mix the two as you have is not a good idea. If there must be a review of a community decision because there are admins with opposing views, then have some sort of admin consensus proving procedure, to make clear whether consensus exists. Or else, go to ArbCom through the proper procedure, with a properly formed case. ] ] 19:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	Any individual admin can claim that a user is banned by the community. To make it so easy for the user to be blocked, then so difficult for the block to be reversed, is a Bad Idea(tm). I would rather see the bureaucratic resistance flowing in the other direction. --] ] 02:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Non-Admin Closing AfDs?==
	I am concerned that ] is closing AfDs without being an Admin. Contribs: --] (]) 12:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Where the outcome is uncontroversial, and does not involve deletion, non-admins are welcome (encouraged!) to close AfDs. Flicking through the constibutions this seems to be what Mostly Rainy is doing. If there are specific closures that go against this principle please provide examples. ] 12:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Ok - I didn't know that was allowed. No prob. thanks. --] (]) 12:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Try it yourself sometime ;-) ] 18:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::He/she does not appear, though, to have placed the AfD result notices on the talk pages of the respective articles; I'll try to get them all but someone should check to ensure I've not missed any. ] 21:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	More details on this procedure can be found at ]. ]] | ] 19:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	I too closed a fair number of Afd discussions before I became admin. It certainly helped reduce all of the things I needed to learn once I got the new shiny buttons. --] 01:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	Me too, I closed AfDs as a non-admin when they were still called VfD, and before they said that non-admins can only close unambiguous votes. Back then, the only limit non-admins had was that we couldn't close Delete votes (for obvious reasons). I closed a lot of "No consensus" votes, but I'm sure if non-admins did those now, they'd get a bit of a talking-to. Ah, ]. --] ] 04:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	{{Ipvandal|69.250.94.172}} If you look at these you can see a pattern of vandalism, and trollish taunting. I would like to see a short block to alert this user that leaving stupid statements about an AfD is not tolerated. ] ] 01:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	: User was not warned, I've pointed the user to ] and ], if the user continues then a block might be warranted. ] 01:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	I can assure you that I hate to type this message, but it looks like the discussion over at ] is rapidly spinning out of control. I sent a message to one of the more flame-happy participants and reminded his of ], but I have a feeling that will have only limited impact. One of the participants also reported that the subject of the article in question (a radio host) reported on the condition of the AFD on his radio show and encouraged listeners to join in the "vote". Needless to say, I see this AFD becoming a large vandalism target very soon. I'm going to keep my eye on it, but there's really only so much one person can do, (especially a non-admin), so if others (especially you admins) wanted to keep an eye on things too, it would be helpful. TIA --] 01:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] and ] ==
	I have just blocked ] indefinitely for creating ] (also blocked indefinitely) to continue violations of ] and ]. See and both users' contribs for evidence, and feel free to review. <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 01:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	:It's rather unusal to block an IP indefinitely. Is there an urgency to do so? I'm not familiar with the history of that account, but it mentions something about vandalism experiments or whatnot from a known user? Anyway, I am a bit uncomfortable with the block, but I don't see any urgency to unblock it at the moment...we can say, wait 24-48 hours and do the unblocking, and temporarily let the indefinite block stand while some discussion takes place. Does this sound good? --] 01:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	::The IP was just blocked for a week, so I think a month is in order as the person just continued where he left of. But I agree, the IP could move to another user in the future, so indef block seems not right. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 01:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::I considered that when making the block; however, I've mentioned to others that "indefinite" and "permanent" are not synonymous, and I'll act the fool for the moment and remind those who already know this fact (sorry...). :) <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 01:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::Sure, and based on his behaviour, I do not mind the indef block, I was more thinking ahead towards others in the future that could get that IP-number. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 02:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::Hey, no worries :-) I did a reblocking for a month. Actually, I am contemplating the unusal step of protecting the talk page as well. It seems that the IP has an inclination for attracting attention for the purposes of disruption. What do others think? --] 02:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Not yet, please. <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 02:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Okay, well, we'll leave things at that then. Oh! I missed the note that the account was aslo blocked indefinitely. That's a good call I think. --] 02:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	Thanks primarily to , ] also has been indef-blocked as yet another sock, and all user talk pages have been vprotected per ] and ]. This editor is right about one thing: we can't stop him forever, nor do we need to&mdash;only until he grows up. :) <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 22:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ]'s blocking of ] ==
	''A.K.A. ]''
	*He reverted ] cited edits to ]
	*He blocked him for reverting only twice on the same article
	*He expressed double standards for Boris, a Serb editor, and Dr. Gonzo, a Croat editor, who never cites sources
	ChrisO is obviously wikistalking Boris. Whenever Boris makes an edit, ChrisO is always there to revert it, no matter what he writes. He has blocked him once for reverting the KLA article twice and Prishtina once, which Boris tolerated, but this has gone too far. ChrisO is abusing his admin power: He blocked for 2 reverts, not implementing the 3RR, and breaking the rules of Misplaced Pages himself. All in all, Boris really deserves to be unblocked.
	- ]
	:According to the block log, Bormalagurski was blocked for making personal attacks, not for what he was editing in or out. ChrisO did not cite 1RR for the block. About the wikistalking, Boris' style of editing is quite, err, flamboyant, judging by the volume of exchanges left on his pages and also on that of many Croatian users, as well as the high influx of new nationalist Serbian editors who seem to have amazing technical skill, have lead him to garner attention in a ] manner which would lead to all of his edits being scrutinized to a much higher degree than other users, due to his previous history. ''']''' | ] 02:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Boris has not personally attacked ChrisO, he was mad at him, wrote in capital letters, and expressed his opinion that ChrisO doesn't like Serbs, which is probably true, considering the double standards he has for Serbs and Croats. (That's not a personal attack). Even though he wrote "personal attacks" there was no personal attack made, and the block is absolutely unfair. So Chris' main reason for blocking Boris is because of his claim hating Serbs. This was just his opinion. And if he is blocked for expressing his opinion, then the claims must be true. - ]
	:::Well the ] is pretty strict, and I'm not sure, but this may be seen as somewhat threatening ("You'll get yours").''']''' | ] 02:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::Well, I'm sure it's strict, but please read the entire sentence: ''I know you hate me because I'm a Serb, but one day, you'll get yours, and will be blocked for extremist nationalism on Misplaced Pages.'' Boris was simply saying that because of the "extremist nationalism", ChrisO will get punished by Misplaced Pages law, not by Boris himself. That's what you'll get yours" means. - ]
	::::: I agree with Krytan, Boris did not make personal attacks, rather ChrisO actions and comments towards him and other Serb Wikipedians provoked to ask whether he truly hated Serbs. Afterwards, ChrisO blocked Boris for incivilty and personal attacks. Boris made no such statements, but asked a question that has been on the minds of many Serb users, (ie. Do you hate us for being Serb?). ChrisO was provoked by this, and then blocked Boris. Boris is not guilty of anything. ChrisO should put his admin priviledges to better use then to block people who prove him to be a ], especially if he wishes to remain an admin. ] 21:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	was worth a block. The behaviour in general is poor. Actions like look like an account that has an agenda beyond building a free, reusable encyclopedia and may be interfering with others' attempts to do so. No real basis for complaint about ChrisO here. ] 21:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Of course not.. I mean, an ordinary user going against an administrator... How could I have a chance... This is not about rules, this is about opinion... I said "making you cry", if thats a personal insult, then you guys get insulted very easily. Aldo, Francis really knows nothing about Montenegrin language and he even admitted it on the article talk page... Well, enjoy your benevalent dictatorship, my dear sweet administrators (don't take this as an insult) --] ] ] ] 04:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Apologies for the delay in replying - I've only just learned of this discussion, as the original poster apparently didn't feel any obligation to notify me about it. Bormalagurski has been an active participant in a series of edit wars on articles relating to the former Yugoslavia, which have seen just about every example of editorial abuse - edit warring, 3RR violations, sockpuppets, the use of open proxies, impersonation of other users etc. I stepped in to intervene in ] and ], two particularly badly affected articles. At the time that I blocked him for 24 hours, Bormalagurski had:
	:* ;
	:* had been
	:* had which accused another user of "decapitation, extermination, torture" and had been removed by ] as a gross personal attack;
	:* in response to my instruction that he needed to follow ] and ], had , which was a copyvio, blatant plagiarism and an example of ].
	:And that's not counting many other instances of ignoring basic editing policies, pushing POVs and edit-warring and move-warring. In other words, he was lucky just to have received a 24 hour block. I strongly encourage other admins to keep an eye on this user's contributions, as he is a fairly extreme POV-pusher (sample edit summary: "for my beloved country Srbija ;-)" ). Needless to say, this isn't about being anti-Serb, it's about being anti-bad editing; unfortunately Bormalagurski has lately been a poster child for bad editing.
	:It's also unfortunate that his misconduct has been excused and abetted by other users, apparently in the mistaken belief that his bad editing is excusable if he's on the "right side." Bad editing is bad editing whoever does it. I'll continue to tackle it wherever it arises, regardless of the nationality of the editor(s) concerned - just like any other administrator would. -- ] 19:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	::And no, he does not stop there. For more please refer to the I prepared today. It is now clear why ] was trying to play the advocate in this discussion page. ] 00:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	The anonymous user is a sockpuppet of ] (see , , ). The user should currently be for 24 hours for 3RR on ]. However 85.91.128.141 is the block, please block the IP address. ] 02:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	:It appears this one's already being dealt with, for the moment. <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 15:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] vandalism ==
	Can an administrator please protect the ] page from IPs and inexperienced users? I am having difficulty controlling continued vandalism without disobeying the 3RR. Thank you. &mdash; ]</small>`]`]</small> 02:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	:You need not worry about the 3RR if you are removing vandalism :-) Keep up the good work! --] 02:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Request Formal Vote Oversight ==
	Back in the various flamewars on ], SlimVirgin oversaw a binding formal vote for that devisive renaming controversy. Currently, whether Misplaced Pages articles are 'ebook, eBook, or e-book', while not as devisive, are fundamentally costing producivity pending an outcome. Guidelines, Policy, are singularly unhelpful. We've been progressing slowly and ], but it would be good to have this made into a binding vote as it is clear our world itself (See 2.) is unsettled on this issue. But we have an encyclopedia to write. I've ]. All we need is meet guidlines under YOUR(?) guidance. Can you lend a hand? Best regards, // <B>]</B><font color="green">]</font> 03:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	:] might be helpful. -''']</font>'''<sup>]</font></sup> ] 04:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Please block ]==
	Please block the user ].
	This user's only contribution is to repeatedly revert the content of the ] article from a well referenced version to a poor quality version with little detail. I have posted several escalating vandalism warnings on the user's talk page, however Middle East Editor has not bothered to edit a user page so the warnings are unlikely to be noticed. There have been several attempts to improve and expand the Alireza Jafarzadeh article in the past, each thwarted by revisions from Middle East Editor. The article is protected against anonymous editors, but still vulnerable to this serial pest. The line has to be drawn somewhere. --] 11:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Content dispute, edits are extremely sporadic (he edited on the 22nd and 24th, and that 1 edit per two days was the most frequently he's ever edited), no reason to take administrative action. Just revert him. --]<sup>]</sup> 22:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	== New Category for all to use ==
	One of the things that I've lamented since I got to Misplaced Pages is that "Requested Articles" and "Requests for expansion" are off in a corner and not altogether well maintained. I got an idea the other day, though: Given that categories are really easy to see, really easy to search, and really well indexed, and amazingly easy to depopulate and populate, why not use those? Furthermore, there is no project page needed. '''Therefore''' I have created ]. A lot of us keep lists of articles we want to write or articles that we mean to get around to researching. Sometimes we want those to be private and don't want people to sneak in and "steal" our topics. Most of the time, though, we don't care ''who'' writes the article: we just want someone with an interest to do it. In the latter case, all you need to do is apply the category tag to the redlink list that you've put in your user talk space, and then folks'll be able to see what they can do to help. I'm not a programmer, and I stink at category manipulation, but if we can subcat this appropriately (Red list:Literature: Poetry: 17th century), it would be even more useful. This will work, if we use it. ] 12:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Lost history of ] in move to ] ==
	Apparently it was recently deleted with move done by copy-and-pasting. Please restore the history. --] 13:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	:It can't be restored because pages can't be moved within Category namespace. I'll copy and paste the page history onto the talk page at the new location: this is the best we can do, and it's the same as for the transwiki process. -- ]<font color="green">]</font>] ] 13:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] continues vandalism the day after block expired ==
	I have reported this user (]) multiple times under all his sock puppets (see ] and ]). After showing no reaction to warnings on his talk pages, he was finally blocked for a week on ] and continued to vandalise the exact same pages as before the day his block expired. I for my part am sick and tired of reverting his changes every other day, and I think admins would do me, the other editors and this website a favor by blocking him permanently. --] 14:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Comments on a talk page appear to have been altered to change their meaning ==
	Hi. It looks like some comments I left on ] may have been edited by another user in an attempt to change their intended meaning. Is there a warning template I can leave that would be appropriate for this? If this is not the right venue for this question, please do point me in the right direction and I would be happy to go elsewhere (or nowhere). --] 14:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Actually, Davins111 altered them. I have now restored them and warned them against changing warnings left on their page. ] 14:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	:: I see now. Thank you. --] 14:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	== User IP 38.100.80.101 ==
	<!-- 00:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC) -->
	Began harrassment with insults and foul language in Persian on May 23 at 20:44 UTC IP number {{IPvandal|38.100.80.101}}
	This was on the Kurdish People Discussion page.
	{{unsigned|68.100.160.15}}
	== Platypus ==
	Could an admin please take a look at this article and the abuse going on by several new accounts. I have reverted and warned with no affect. Also, one of the accounts ] has now turned to vandalizing my talk page with vandalim. Thanks. --] 15:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	:On my way (I am not an admin however), but I have a look. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 16:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Blocked indefinitely. Along with sockpuppets. See block log. — FireFox (<small>] ] ]</small>) 16:07, 25 May '06
	This is part of the stately set of ] socks that also attacked ] and ]. ] 21:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Backlog at ] ==
	Could someone look into the names at ] and approve those who qualify? I've been waiting patiently. (I have at least 3128 edits, if numbers are a big deal.) Thanks. --] 16:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	:All listed have been added. ] 17:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Donating ==
	I owed 50 euro to another Wiki user, but he refused to take the money; instead he asked me to donate them to Wiki. This I did, but I received no receipt of my donation. I need a receipt to show the user in question that I donated the money. The only notification I have is when I log onto my PayPal account, but he can't verify that info. I could take a screenshot, but that's not a good method. Is there a way to verify this info? The "Thank You" page said the following: "An email receipt will be sent to you shortly. Please print this out for your records." I received no such email; not on my Wiki account email and not on my Paypal account email. I also emailed donation@wikipedia.org, but I got no reply from them. Grr, what is this? It looks so amateurish! --] 16:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	: Contact the Foundation for any financial concerns. English Misplaced Pages doesn't do money. --] 06:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Your description is of a problem is with Paypal who has claimed to transfer funds to a third party who does not acknowledge receipt of the funds. ] 12:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:If it helps, I donated to the Foundation last year and got a card from them in the snail mail at the end of the year, so they apparently kept the info on file. You could ask for a receipt from the Foundation. They are a 501c3 nonprofit and probably have a way to generate one, and since a 50 Euro donation is involved, it's not that burdensome a request. I suggest leaving a message for Danny. ] (]) 21:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Description of deleted image ==
	An anon is claiming on my talkpage that the image ] "had source info and qualified as public domain", and is hinting that "OrphanBot's deletion of it" constitutes vandalism. OrphanBot's logs indicate that the image was tagged as "no license", so could someone check to see if the image description page had a plausable claim that the image was in the public domain? Thanks. --] 19:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	:<nowiki>image from atlantasundaypaper.com
	{{no license|month=May|day=3|year=2006}}
	Removed from the following pages:
	#]
	--] 07:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)</nowiki> ] 19:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Just to clarify, there was never any other information in the image description page history. ] 19:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Thanks. --] 20:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	Along the same lines, could someone temporarily undelete the image description page for ]? It appears that OrphanBot made a mistake when tagging it, and the history will let me figure out what the bug is. (The deletion was not a mistake: the image was licensed under a no-commercial-use Creative Commons license). --] 22:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Two revisions restored. ] 22:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Found and fixed two bugs related to this. One would cause OrphanBot to tag something as "no info" if a Creative Commons license was selected in the license dropdown, and a license tag was entered at the end of the upload summary. The other would cause OrphanBot to ''not'' tag an image if it only had a license tag that takes one or more parameters (such as {{tl|fairusein}}). --] 22:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Redeleted. ] 22:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	==] backlog==
	There's currently 85 talk pages in this category. I blocked a user earlier today, he appealed using {{tl|unblock}} but given this backlog it's likely that his block will expire on its own before someone looks at it. I've unblocked a token few but I'm going to bed now. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	The trouble with clearing the backlog is that I dealt with two (denied a stupid request, listed an open proxy who claimed to have been closed on ]), and then the next two I looked at were shared IPs that had been blocked for long periods of time and claimed collateral damage... while my instinct is to unblock, I don't like to do it without discussing with the blocking admin, and I don't have the time to do that right now. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Turns out that someone edited <nowiki>{{sharedip}}</nowiki> to included the unblock template. I rolled that back so you should see a lot less in the category now. .:.].:. <sup>]</sup> 23:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	There are real-time reports of each use of the {{tl|unblock}} template in the #vandalism-en-wp IRC channel, as well as #vcn-unblock, if any admins who use IRC would like to keep track. The main problem is, vandals tend to continue using the template, even when multiple admins have refused to unblock, and it grows to a point that you begin ignoring the reports. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 03:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	* The other problems is that people don't remove the template once reviewed. So users remain in the cateogry. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 06:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	*I'll try to have a look at them when I'm free (i.e. about 30 mins)... ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> at 06:35 ] <small>(])</small>
	**Cleared up to P, not including IP addresses. ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> at 07:26 ] <small>(])</small>
	Accounts are cleared, apart from a couple where I'm waiting on input from the blocking admin (Tormender and Wellstone, so don't bother with those). Just the 24 IP addresses to go now. --]<sup>]</sup> 11:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	Backlog cleared, thanks everyone. --]<sup>]</sup> 14:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Page move request==
	Can someone move ] to ] (which is currently a redirect). Thanks ] 02:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Done. :) <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 03:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:: ] springs to mind --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 12:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Not to me it doesn't. If it's an uncontroversial move over a redirect - and the admin checks the page and talk first - why make the user go through that bureaucracy? Of course we have the right to say "it's controversial, go over there" or indeed not answer at all, but this kind of boring stuff is actually what we're here for. --] 13:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::I concur; that's why I went ahead and did it, because it was uncontroversial and followed the convention anyway. :) <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 13:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Thanks! ] 14:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Was there any particular reason for deleting the resulting redirect? Normally these are left alone, in case somebody wants to link to them again. — ]] 16:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::If there was, I can't recall... I've restored it, thanks for catching that. :) <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 16:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	== what if... ==
	What would happen if the communism vandal decided to create a new account, and started using vandal proof to revert vandalism for several months without exerting efffort, then used this history of vandalism fighting to run for adminship, then finally revealed his true ''wic''ked nature after it was too late, and went on a vandalism spree deleting every single image on wikipedia and replacing them with the hammer and sickle? could anything be done to stop this?--] 02:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:'''<nowiki>*</nowiki>cough*]*cough*''' <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 14:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:He would be blocked and desysopped within minutes, and the vandalism quickly repaired. The usefull work he had done in the prior months to become an admin would by far outweigh the work we'd have to do to undo the vandalism. ] 02:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Troll alert. This user previously posted the following suggestion to Village Pump:
	::"''I've noticed that approximatly 99.9999% of wikipedia vandalism, by ip users seems to come from the same ip range'',
	::::''NetRange: 1.0.0.0 - 255.255.255.255''
	::''I suggest that if it were blocked, nearly all vandalism could be ceased indefintly.''"
	::] 14:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Well, it's a "troll" with a sense of humor... <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 14:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::They seem to have a history of vandalizing this page , . . ] 14:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Actually the entire edit history seems to be suspicious , , . ] 14:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	My IP is 127.0.0.1. I dare all the hackers out there to run a DoS attack on me. Come on, I double dare ya! --] ] 14:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC) <small>Okay, old threat, I know.</small>
	== New system log ==
	Anyone know what is up with the new ? ] <sup>]</sup> 02:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	: It has to do with the new ] page, which is currently being developed. () ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 02:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Lyrics & Copyright ==
	Are song lyrics copyrighted? I ask because a ] added the lyrics to ]. (I haven't recently checked his other contribs yet). I do know of how many sites that have song lyric listings out there (which caused me to question if it is so), but I also know that just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's legal, therefore I thought I would ask before reverting. Thanks a bunch! ]<font color="green">]</font><sup>( <nowiki>|</nowiki> ] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ] )</sup> 02:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:The vast majority of song lyrics cannot be posted on Misplaced Pages, because they are not compatible with the ]. Even those that ''are'' compatible, which for the most part means in the public domain, would belong at our sister project ]. And if you are unsure if something is in the public domain, ''please'' do not assume it is, because it most likely isn't.--] 02:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Thanks for the info! I'll remember that in the future --]<font color="green">]</font><sup>( <nowiki>|</nowiki> ] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ] )</sup> 03:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::You can quote any copyrighted text as long as you do it sparingly, that falls under "fair use". ] 12:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Terryeo==
	For harassment involving citation of an external website dedicated to the harassment of Wikipedians , {{vandal|Terryeo}} has been blocked by me for the maximum of one week permitted under his personal attack parole . I think that in this case a considerable extension of the blocking period is merited.
	Thoughts? --] 03:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Support...block all time wasting trolls.--] 04:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	::If there is a sufficient pattern of editing the talk pages disruptively too, suggest asking Arbcom to modify the article ban to include talk pages. ] 11:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::I think it's worth noting that ''all'' that Terryeo is now doing is arguing with other editors on the talk pages of Scientology-related articles, having been banned from editing the actual articles. He has shown no interest in editing anywhere else in Misplaced Pages. I'm not advocating any particular course of action here, but I have to ask the question: what are we gaining from his continued participation in this project? -- ] 18:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Can I get as many admins as possible to add this to their WL? We have a situation where a bunch of IP users are trying to add a "Finale Rundown", which is not on any of the other Idol articles. Plus it's very ripe to vandalism right now anyway. Thank you. --]<sup>]</sup> 08:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Changes in semi-protection templates ==
	It would be nice to have more participation in the ongoing discussion at ]. The template has been rewritten a few times in the last few days but there isn't a strong consensus on a particular version. Some editors want to make it primarily or exclusively a talk page template. ] 12:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	A troll (]) keeps changing "blink-182 was" to "blink-182 is" on the ] article. "blink-182 was" is correct because the band has been "indefinite hiatus" since early ] and months later on a news article, the singer (]) said that he hasn't spoken to the rest of the members since then. I've tried discussing this on the article's ], but no one replied yet. After I keep changing back "blink-182 is" to "blink-182 was", the troll later keeps changing it back "blink-182 was" to "blink-182 is" back as well. So, please ban the troll as soon as possible and thanks for anything you could provide. ] 13:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I've left a note on the user's talk page. Meantime, I need to remind you of tho things: calling someone a "troll" over a content dispute violates Wikipolicy against ]; and, Merriam-Webster defines hiatus as "an interruption in time or continuity", suggesting a temporary state. I personally would be inclined to use "is" until band members announce they're done. <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 14:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	===Update and request for input===
	This edit war continues and I'd like some input. The reporting user above (]) and a second user (]) appear to be tag-teaming in an effort to push the POV (see ). Each user an attempt to find a compromise that removes the "was/is" argument from the equation. I highly suspect these users know each other (at the very least)&mdash;one IP resolves to the South San Francisco Bay Area, the other to a North Bay company that serves the South Bay, and they revert nearly in turn, likely to avoid ]. ] ], if nothing else, show nearly identical interests. See also my ]. <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 19:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:. <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 01:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	== school threat ==
	Can I get some admins to weigh in on speedy deleted article ] by {{user|Satancheese}} describing a school shooting today. Possible personal attack article, possible threat. In particular, do we inform the school? - ]] 14:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I know it's different in the US, but the chance of an English schoolkid getting his hands on "an SMG, 2 AK-47s and a Spaz Shotgun" is between none and bugger-all. I'll give the kid a warning but personally, I wouldn't inform the school. Kids are always writing nonsense like this, it's more sad than just when someone rats on them and gets them suspended or expelled. --]<sup>]</sup> 15:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Also, I've blocked the creator, ] per ]: "Names of religious figures such as "God," "Jehovah," "Buddha," or "Allah", which may offend other people's beliefs". --]<sup>]</sup> 15:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Alright, thanks for your input. There was an actual plot recently by schoolkids in the town next to the one in which I grew up and I take this and responsibility to rat quite seriously (as a person, if not as an admin), but the English school bit had given me pause. I am leaving it be. - ]] 15:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::I really hope I don't feel like a fool tomorrow, but if someone was planning a shooting, they wouldn't post it on wikipedia. Most likely someone who doesn't like the supposed perpetrator put it up to stir up trouble. This is nothing more than the high-tech equivalent of writing on the bathroom wall. I think Sam's actions were appropriate and proportionate. --] 16:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Vandalism to ] ==
	I have indefinitely blocked {{vandal|Great Young Jake Remington}}, {{vandal|Raging Lavas}}, and {{vandal|Ligas Teacher}}, who all added the {{tl|delete}} tag to ], and have no other edits. Great Young Jake Remington left an edit summary of "Still here, and I won" . Vandal may return with more socks. --]]] <sup>]</sup> 14:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:It's the ], bragging that he has a new IP range (63.19.128.0/17 no longer blocks him). If anyone has ideas on how to deal with this pest, I'm all ears. ] ] 14:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	::I have been trying to help, but this one is a bit much. I think one of y'all is going to have to figure out how to shut it down. ] 15:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::<nowiki>*</nowiki>sigh* The page is protected... again... <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 15:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::Question...is there a way of protecting it from new users? Perhaps leaving it open to editing from users with a longer history might work. If you just did that, my apologies. ] 15:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::I just put in a request for checkuser () since range blocks are the best way to stop him. Thanks everyone. ] ] 15:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::And remember: any username containing "Jake Remington" or something resembling that should be blocked without prejudice. 19:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	The contents of this user's userpage concern me. The misattributed quotes, composed of attacks on politicians, Jews, etc. - it's inappropriate contents for an encyclopedia. Perhaps it should be deleted? - <b>]</b><small> ]/]/]</small> 17:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I've cleared out the trolling and deleted one edit with a threat as a summary.''']'''<sup>]</sup> 18:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Jew==
	Can someone please make sure the right thing happens at ]? ] 19:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Cite.php broken? ==
	Seems like cite.php and the references tags are not working. Here is an example from ]:
	# <nowiki>^ (])</nowiki>
	# <nowiki>^ (])</nowiki>
	# <nowiki>^ a b (])</nowiki>
	# <nowiki> (], pp. 23-28)</nowiki>
	Note that, this is a common problem to all of the pages that use the cite.php style references.
	--] 20:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I just did a null edit on ] which has ~80 cite.php refs and it's fine. ] does indeed look to be broken though... ?? --] 20:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Check out ] as well. I should elaborate that references pointing to {{tl|Harv}} style notations are not showing up. --] 21:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::It's certainly not ''all'' articles using <code>cite.php</code>; ]'s references are working fine. I agree; perhaps it is somehow related to {{tl|Harv}}. — ] ] 21:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::Yeah, it is something wrong with {{Tl|Harv}}; in fact, it looks like there is an error with the {{Tl|wikilink}}. '']''&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 22:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Actually, it has nothing at all to do with cite.php, take a look at the {{wikilink|1=WP:LEAD|2=lead}} of ], which also shows the same thing. Not sure what's wrong though.. the last time this template was edited was a lot earlier this May, ] was last editing in April; there are no recent changes to explain why it isn't working. '']''&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 22:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	That leaves me perplexed. I'm more than 100% sure that the articles which use {{tl|Harv}} style listing for references worked fine with cite.php, right until a day or two ago. The articles I mentioned are all FA's, and the Tagore article was on the main page on May 7. I think something broke with Harv style notations/references because only articles with that style seem to be affected. See also, ]. That too had Harv style references and showing the same garvled refs. --] 23:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I think: <code><nowiki>|<nowiki>#</nowiki></nowiki><nowiki>CITEREF{{{1|}}}{{{2|}}}{{{3|}}}{{{4|}}}{{{5|}}}</nowiki></code> is generating the problems, for example: {{wikilink|Bangladesh#History|this link}} works, but {{wikilink|Bangladesh<nowiki>#</nowiki>History|this}} doesn't. But I have no clue why, since it was working before. '']''&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 01:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	:: It might be related to . ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 01:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Yep, that would explain it. The <nowiki><nowiki></nowiki> tag has to be removed from {{Tl|Harv}} then. '']''&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 01:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::: than I thought it would be- (I hope) it now works. '']''&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 02:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Major collateral damage ==
	Major collateral damage... ]. Could someone in the know about this case please handle this? ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> at 02:14 ] <small>(])</small>
	:I think we got 'em all now. Thanks! ] ] 02:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	If ]'s page isn't a problem, then the username is. '''<font color="Red">]</font><font color="Green">]</font> <font color="Red">]</font>''' 03:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	* 02:13, 27 May 2006 Kungfuadam blocked "Blatant Funny Bunny Sockpuppet (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (vandalism)
	--] ] 07:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Sockpupet vandalism, acting strangely like squidward proxy, on Today's FA==
	I don't know excatly what is happening here, but if you look on , 5 or 6 users with very few contributions, most likely sockpupuets, have made the exact same vandalizing edit, with the exact same edit summary. They blank the page, and then put a vandalzing pic on. This is just like the squidward bot. I'm not sure if this is another vandalism progarm staring up, but whatever it is, admins need to take a look. ] 03:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	:It's a well known vandal, and it's coming from the semi-static 172 AOL range. All we can do is watch, revert, and block, and we've been doing just that for the last several hours. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 05:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	:: And when the heck will we finally only allow AOL users to edit when logged in? Wondering and waiting for years, ] 06:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	::: In this case not sure it would help, some of the users I looked at had been created a couple of weeks ago. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 10:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	:As I understand it, they're playing with the block system to make things work better, but I don't know that it would solve this problem. However, the AOL vandals have been out tonight in force; I've had to unblock collateral damage on WBardwin 5 times so far. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 07:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	There is currently a poll running at ] (or at least, it's about to start). May I be so bold as to suggest to admins that we monitor the poll, then start enforcing what is decided? We ''all'' have better things to do than worry about things like the naming conventions of U.S. State routes. The amount of effort wasted on this topic ''should'' have been expended on the article content itself. - ] 07:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	== 65.184.17.216 ==
	This user is making some rather strange allegations. On their talk page they claim that ]s IP resolves to ] .
	On ] they claim that they are in a "in a circle with Jimbo" and can't be blocked . Later on the same page they make some wild claims in the first paragragh. I assume the user they are referring to is Gwernol .
	The on ] they say that he will be removed as admin . ] ] 08:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	: Yes, I've noticed this user making some unlikely claims - of being an admin who can't be bothered to log in, of knowing the IP addresses of people who have logged in, and so forth. ] 19:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	== June 6 ==
	According to my (1+ edits) marking tool for the new user log, for users around May 3rd and below, 90% have absolutely no edits. I wonder if this is some sort of sleeper attack. I am considering blocking inactive sleepers. Maybe I'll make a bot that dumps them into a list on a subpage of mine.''']'''<sup>]</sup> 09:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	: Quite possibly. However, a lot of legitimate people register long before they start editing, and I don't know how you'd be able to tell them apart... ] 09:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	::They could always request an unblock. Hmmm....perhaps I'll focus on even older accounts, and maybe the names might also gives some clues to be sure.''']'''<sup>]</sup> 09:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Actually, I noticed that the very recent newbiews and the ones who could easily edit semiprotect pages have about the same percent (73-78) chance of having edited anything. It seems like either they may an account and get started or just sit there, by and large.''']'''<sup>]</sup> 09:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Does the tool count deleted edits? On new pages, very little of the obvious nonsense comes from ''established'' users, so... --] | ] 09:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	I was under the impression that most (the vast majority, really) of registered usernames go unused. --] - '']'' - ] 09:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Unused for editing =/= unused. There's a lot that are created just to log in and avoid IP messages... ] | ] | 10:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Indeed, we even ]. I'm sure many accounts also exist so the user can select their own preferences (like a choice of skin, for example). --] (]) 10:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Will it really matter if they are blocked yet never edit, they can always request to reactivate it. I don't know.''']'''<sup>]</sup> 19:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	See the related discussion at ]. ] 11:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	== A new speedy template ==
	I added one (]) for non-notable webcomics (because there are way too many nn wecomicds on AfD). Please add it to the CSD page. Thank you. ] 16:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	: There is no CSD criterion for webcomics. The template should therefore be deleted. ] (]) 17:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Yeah, you come up with the criterion and propose it, ''then'' make the template to make it easier once articles are regularly being deleted under it.--] 17:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Oh, and given this, I've deleted the templat. Anyone who wishes to comment and/or criticise this action is welcome to do so here, on my talk page, via email, IRC, smoke signals, or whatever form of communication they prefer.--] 17:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::Hmm, do we need a speedy deletion template to place on inappropriate speedy deletion templates? ] 17:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::No, because that would just lead to edit warring over if it should be used on CSD T1 and T2. --] 20:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	{{vandal|Nikitchenko}} has taken to attacking other editors, in some cases using the Hivemind site, which is expressly designed for harassment of Misplaced Pages editors. After a brief block by {{admin|MarkGallagher}} he has come back and started editing abusively, including three quotations of the hivemind site, which he describes as a site that "works towards exposing abusive WIkipedians, specifically admins and arbitrators" .
	I've blocked him for forty-eight hours for this repeated harassment. In view of his appalling behavior, I recommend that we block him indefinitely. --] 19:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Can I suggest we move this conversation to ]? Purely because I got there first :-). --]<sup>]</sup> 19:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	:: Yes, please do so. I'll make any further comments on that page. --]
	== V.I. Request ==
	<!-- 00:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC) -->
	Good evening! I´m sorry - really! I won´t do this again - can you delete my domain from this intervention against vandalism please - contact me! If it´s possible: cybermasterxxl@uboot.com {{unsigned|84.146.236.98}}
	==Image protection==
	Would another administrator with the technical capabilities to save a .svg image upload ] and then protect it? The flag is on the main page right now and should once uploaded and protected, should be tagged with {{tl|c-uploaded}}. Right now, only the image page has been protected, but because it the image is from Commons and has not been uploaded onto Misplaced Pages, any changes in Commons would be reflected here, leaving the image up for vandalism. Because my computer can't support saving .svg files, I've temporarily uploaded the flag in a .png file format, protected it, and changed it for the time being. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 21:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	:] needs the same thing; I've changed the image to a .png version until this can be done. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 00:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	Hello, all: I've written up ], a proposal similar to semi-protection that would effectively limit sleeper accounts used to vandalize articles linked from the Main Page. I know that I've written a lot, and at first glance, the proposal may seem daunting. However, I truly believe that this would immensely improve Misplaced Pages and implore you to read it through and offer your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 22:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	== {{user2|Bpeppers}} ==
	User has an inappropriate username (as ] was personally deleted by Jimbo), but that's not why I'm here. For the most part, the user has only added content to ], then removed all content claiming "IT VIOLATES SCHOOL POLICY". Dunno what I should do about it, so I brought it up here. --]<font color="green">]</font>] <sup>(] | ] | ])</sup> 23:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Indefinitely blocked per ] ''']''' (]) <em><strong>]</strong></em> 20:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	::also a reincarnation of a known communism sock--] 23:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Mailing list for unblock requests?==
	Currently a lot of requests for unblocking (both from people hit as collateral damage form other blocks and people blocked for cause) come in to info-en, the regular mailing list, and to random admins' email addresses. This is not really an ideal situation. The mailing list just isn't the place anymore; posts from users who aren't subscribed get stuck in moderation, and admins who are happy to do blocking and unblocking but don't care about hundred-post licensing debates don't subscribe to it. The info-en address has limited staff, and isn't meant for this sort of request, and a random admin may or may not be around to answer.
	Is there any support for an admin "hotline" list, publicly accessible, to be linked from the block message, where blocked users can go to complain and get a pool of interested admins to answer?
	Note that this is not meant for users to be able to "shop around" for an admin to unblock! Just that a lot of users are pretty clueless when they find themselves blocked, especially if they're on a shared or dynamic IP; anyone blocked for cause should have the blocking admin consulted as usual. Is there support for this? Anything you'd change about the idea before implementing? ] ] 00:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	: Love it! ] 00:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	: Go for it! --] 00:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	: Great, non admin here but reader of a now and then very busy wikien-1. ] ] 00:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	: An excellent idea. --] (]) 00:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	: This will be helpful. I've recently been watching the ], which had grown very long until cleared out. It isn't a very effective way of notifying disinterested admins that a user requests an unblock. A dedicated mailing list is much better. -] 00:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Part of the problem with ] is it gets loaded down with old requests. Is there a way separate out fresh requests (maybe do a subcategory by date)? ] ] 02:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	::: Well if more admins looked at it and dealt with them in a timely fashion it wouldn't be a problem. I'm not sure I like the idea that we look at te new ones and assume all the old ones are done and dusted so Ignore them. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 08:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	: Very nice idea. .:.].:. <sup>]</sup> 01:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	: Definitely, please. ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> at 01:28 ] <small>(])</small>
	:Mentioned before, but worth mentioning again; there is an IRC bot that reports these as they happen, and if watched, it can result in a near instantaneous action. I caught at least 5 autoblocks for WBardwin via it last night. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to add it to one of the other channels, such as #wikipedia-en-admins? <span style="font-family: Verdana">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 09:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I certainly don't subscribe to that cess pool called a maling list, so I only rarely know of these unblock requests after I've braved the archive. I have had people I've blocked contact me via email, and have attempted to communicate with all of them, even having unblocked some after discussion. Another method for blocked users to appeal would be very useful. ]|] 19:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Non-stop e-mail==
	I've been getting non-stop e-mail from Misplaced Pages/media telling me that an IP address is requesting that my e-mail address get changed. Could the IP just get blocked so I don't have to get these e-mails anymore, or does that matter? In the e-mail, it says I could just ignore it if it wasn't me and continue using my password, but it's just getting ridiculous now. ]] 01:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Suggest that you temporarily disable Misplaced Pages email. ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> at 01:49 ] <small>(])</small>
	::Ugh.. might as well. ]] 01:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	:This happened to me a little while back. A Bugzilla entry was filed and apparently there is now support for throttling of password requests implemented in mediawiki (although not yet live on Misplaced Pages). See . &mdash;] 11:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Transhumanism article==
	I'm proposing to apply at least semi-protection to this article when it is the day's featured article in a few days time.
	It is being subjected not just to childish vandalism but to . As this is an attempt by someone (someone who purports to be the transhumanist writer Simon Young) to quite deliberately sabotage the article, I don't feel too much compunction about imposing blocks if I see it happen again, without going through the routine of multiple warnings, or being too concerned that I am in a position of content dispute. Anyone have a problem with any of this? If so (or even if not), would anyone else like to watch the article and take an interest in the vandalism problem? ] 02:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Metamagician, no, please don't protect the article on Main Page day. Don't worry about somebody watching it, the Main Page article always is widely watched. It's especially valuable to have it editable by anons, not so much perhaps for article improvement (childish vandalism is indeed likely to outweigh good contributions) as because it's something that can draw in new editors to Misplaced Pages. ("Yes, you ''can'' edit even this article!") Obvious vandalism is easy to revert. Your known saboteur, 86.133.14.127 can and should be blocked at the first sign of sabotage on that day, if they have a reasonably stable IP. Feel free to warn or appeal to him/her about it right now.
	:If you and the other ] editors feel strongly about protecting it, please take the issue to the ]. Or, since Raul is apparently at the beach right now, I have a notion he recently wrote a page in his userspace laying out why the FA of the day is not to be protected. I can't find any link to it, though. Anybody know where it is? ] | ] 09:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC).
	::]. ] 10:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Thanks! ] | ] 11:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC).
	::::Okay, thanks for your wisdom. ] 00:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	I'd like to have some more eyes at the Drawball article. It's full of useless unencyclopedic unsourced subtrivia, and any attempts to remove it are reverted by anons, who come to "dick-wag" their online group's latest escapade. Please see:
	*]
	*]
	Contributions to the article as well as on the talk page would be welcomed. The list of logos and tags absolutely reminds me of the worst of the rubbish that was on the ]. If this constant rubbishness continues, I'd really like some semi-protection on it, but that's for later. I really cannot be bothered to police this article myself. - ]]] 02:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	== AfD listing ==
	I need a few admins to double check a recent addition I've made to the AfD listings at ]. It was a list of several articles, so it seemed better to condense them down into one page for voting — atypical, I know, but probably wiser. I'm still working on adding AfD notices to all of the pages listed, but in the meantime, would someone look this over and see that it's checking out all right (or advise a better way to do this)? Thanks. <b>]<sup>]</sup></b> 05:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] and ]==
	I just blocked SuperDeng for extreme disruption and for continuing his WikiStalking of ]. I blocked Kurt for continuing to put misinformation into articles and for refusing to come to an agreement with Deng. This has been going on for 2 months now. We've tried every method possible to stop this. Both users have been blocked. A RfC was opened earlier this month. That didn't do it. If you look at , almost all are reverts of Kurt. This is less than 2 weeks after he was blocked for 8 (yes 8) reverts in 2 hours on the ] page. Has Kurt acted poorly as well? Yes. But we cannot and should not let users do what Deng is doing. It pretty much defines disruption. But I myself am tired of watching this farce continue. And as I said, this didn't just start. If you look through SuperDeng's contribs, I believe that over 80 of them (and probably more) are reverts of Kurt. I don't care what someone has done on here. That's uncalled for. We need to somehow get these 2 to talk this out in email or some other method. --]<sup>]</sup> 14:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	===Filling in information gaps===
	This matter has been discussed before on the incident board as can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive90#SuperDeng.27s_and_Kurt_Leyman.27s_revert_wars (] 17:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC))
	Also the RFC was made by me Super Deng against kurt it can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kurt_Leyman (] 17:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC))
	Now to the matter at hand as can be seen in both matters the RFC and the IncidentArchive, the facts are simple kurt alters sourced figures with numbers that he pulls out of thin air, I then revert it to the sourced numbers. It is as simple as that. Anyone who wants to know more just click on the 2 links.] 17:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC))
	another matter here if importance is that in this text it can be proven that and admin was wrong, --> so this means the world must end. This is wrong ''for 8 (yes 8) reverts in 2 hours on the ] page.'' '''And I can prove it''' if someone requests it. The admin confuses reverts with fixing typos and the adding of references neither which are reverts. It is not a revert to add a references, it is not a revert to fix typos. Also this matter is extremly complex and anyone who wants to do so must atleast sacrifice many houers to look into what has actually been going on, on the stalin page.(] 17:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC))
	Now what one must keep in mind is that the person {{User|Ultramarine}} is a very intressting person he does not revert completely to avoid the 3rr rule so he removes information here and there and adds tags to disrupt the page and he is the one who I had been editing with on the stalin page. (] 17:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC))
	:There is no excuse for reverting a single user 40 times in 3 hours. None. Zero. Zilch. There are better ways to deal with people. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	::And have not better ways been tried? Also if a person would add ''penis breast sex more penis'' then removeing that would be no problem, and if that person would add it in many articles then removeing it in many articles would also be no problem. The matter at hand is that what Kurt does is much harder to spot then ''Big penis ooh yeah''. He alters numbers of things that existed some 60 years ago, for example he changes the number of guns a ship had. Now if he were to write ''penis big boobies ooh yeah'' anyone could see that that was wrong. But removeing a few numbers from an article or altering them, is a diffrent story. Who would know that the info is wrong. It is like changeing the birthday of some not so famous singer who would know? If someone were to add ''Big boobs i love them'' to some long forgoten singer then anyone could see that that is wrong but changeing the birthday from august 15 to june 12 is a different matter. Also kurt mass vandalizes many articles therefore there needs to be many reverts and he then re vandalizes the same articles again and again creating even more reverts. ''Big penis suck it hard'' can be seen by anyone as wrong but altering figures in a long forgotten battle cant be seen by anyone and only a few would ever know that it was wrong. That is why it is critical to fight Kurt for every inch so that he can not spread misinformation and create vast amounts of false and incorrect information. (] 06:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC))
	== ] ==
	Yet another imposter of ] made by ].'''<font color="DarkRed">]</font><font color="Green">]</font> <font color="DarkRed">]</font>''' 15:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	:You can report these sorts of things on ], but check the blocklog first; that particular one was blocked more than 24 hours before you reported it. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 23:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] again ==
	I've raised this before, and the situation is, if anything, getting worse. Another editor has now approached me for advice on what to do about {{vandal|Eiorgiomugini}}. His English is pretty bad, but he insists that this shouldn't stop him from removing {{tl|copyedit}} tags from articles without doing the work, and that sums up his general attitude. he's come from another Misplaced Pages (probably the Chinese one), and has started editing a range of articles with no concern for other editors, rarely deigning to explain his edits. He's used misleading edit summaries (such as when he tried insisting on removing three external links on the basis that they were dead; none of them was, and he later admitted that he'd been unable to access just one of them), and is currently insisting on removing information from ] without any explanation.
	Could another admin try to talk to him? He ''seemed'' to be paying a little more attention to my explanations, but perhaps that was just illusory. --] (]) 20:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Talk Page for ] redirected ==
	A user has redirected ] to ]. Would someone undo this, so that discussion on the article can take place? --] 23:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	:: Hmm... my watchlist shows someone else editing the talk page. The redirect seems to be only happening to me. --] 23:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	:: Issue seems resolved this AM. Thanks! --] 11:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Username is likely a violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on appropriate usernames.--] <sup>]</sup> 01:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Actually, I had to stop laughing at the name long enough to indef-block the account as vandalism-only (hates someone named Josh Cooper, apparently). Frankly, I thought the name was hilarious... <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 01:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Now, that's a good one! ''']''']|<sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 18:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Strange Glitch? ==
	I was just moving ] to ]. However, for some reason, on the , when I clicked on the original page link, I am directed to . Does anyone know what happened? ]]] 03:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	:It happened again with , so it seems as though this will be happening with all moves. ]]] 03:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	::There's something wrong with the template being used to display those links. A recent change in MediaWiki behaviour concerning variables in URIs (or some other techie mumbo-jumbo) means that poorly-hacked-together templates using $1 and such will now literally point to $1, instead of the variable value they were supposed to. Or something. Alternatively, you could listen to someone who knows what they're talking about here. ] (]) 03:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Brion fixed this bug, so that it pointed to the correct place, but had to de-fix it because it caused more problems elsewhere. Somewhere in the recent history of Mediawiki:Pagemovetext is a version that works, I'll see if I can find it. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 03:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Okay, I've set it back to a version that works, with the singular problem that you will be redirected to the new page, and have to click the little "redirected from" line. That's the way it was until we fixed it ages ago, and will have to be that way until they find a fix to the bug. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 03:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Alright; thanks. It seems like the problem no longer exists. ]]] 03:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::For a while the link back to the page would be in non-formatted wiki markup with a : after the "]'''<sup>]</sup> 04:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	It looks like ] has been created as a sockpuppet to vote in RFAs, or something like that. In any case, the name bears a striking resemblance to ], and should probably be blocked as inappropriate. --] 04:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	:He has been blocked indefinately by ]. --<font size="1">]&nbsp;<sup>]&middot;]</sup></font> 05:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	This user has been reverting my good edits to golf tournament pages for no good reason whatsoever. Someone made a bunch of cookie-cutter pages on PGA Tournaments and pasted info about how many golfers play, cuts and what the winner shall recieve. I feel that this is info better suited for a para (that I wrote) on the main PGA Tour page. I removed the info (if you look at my edits, you'll see the redundancies) from pages, but DGX keeps reverting it. I tried to revert it back on a few pages, but DGX is stubborn and reverts it back. I don't want to fall victim to 3RR, but I feel that DGX should be forced to revert the good edits that i made back on to each page. I have done good, yet this thing is stubborn and wants to ruin the quality of wikipedia. ] 06:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	::I want to ruin the quality of Misplaced Pages? . ]] 06:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Yes. ] 06:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::Did you even notice what you did in that edit? You removed it from categories. Thats the reason I keep reverting that article. And your removing the merging template at the top. ]] 06:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::: Why don't you quit stalking me and revert all your edits (which can be considered vandalism) to the versions that I have done? ] 06:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	::I'm not stalking you. If you didn't want any trouble with me, you shouldn't have vandalized my userpage. As to the reverts, I don't think I'll be doing that. I said it before, it doesn't hurt to have that information on the page, so theres no reason to remove it. Claiming that it "takes up space" is no reason to remove it. ]] 06:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	Booshakla, I don't see DGX's edits as "stalking" by any means, and isn't going to help your credibility any. This is a content dispute which should be discussed on the article's talk page at ] — I don't see a single post there relating to the proposed merge, and this discussion belongs there. Keep cool on the reverts, getting a 3RR block isn't going to help either of you. <b>]<sup>]</sup></b> 06:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	::: Do you know anything about golf? Probably not. It hurts the quality of wikipedia to have repeated info on pages. I would like to have someone else consensus on this issue. I put a paragraph on the PGA Tour's page that explains the structure and eliminates the need for this copied info on the tournament's pages. I demand that you revert my good edits back. You are a vandal, and you are a drain on wikipedia's resources. If you don't know anything about golf, you have no right to revert those edits. I will stop my editing as it is not worth my valuable time and resources to be editing. I hope that an administrator will bring proper action against the vandalism of DGX. And I did not vandalize his user page, please look at my edits and understand my purpose, and please get an expert on golf to clarify my rightful actions. ] 06:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Booshakla, please use an article talk page to discuss this content dispute. The Admin noticeboard is not a place for content disputes, it is mainly for user conduct/controversy.''']''' | ] 06:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Two editors have been vandalizing ] by removing two articles that include the term "apartheid" in their title from the diamgiguation list. ] and ]. They are doing this for POV reasons since they do not like either term, not because disambiguation is unnecessary. Could an admin please restore these terms to the article (I've used up my 3RR) and possibly consider tempbanning one or both of the culprits for POV vandalism?] 06:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	: Homey, you are attempting to hijack WP and enlist other editors for your one-dimensional political agenda. I thought of giving you some slack, but maybe I should reconsider and indeed report you - for your own good. ←] <sup>]</sup> 06:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	I think editors can look at ] and decide for themselves whether you and your partner's edits are justified or wildly out of control POV vandalism. ] 06:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	: Shhh, don't tell anyone, we (with partners) are running a secret Zionist conspiracy ring in here. ←] <sup>]</sup> 06:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Damnit Humus, how many times do I have to tell you not to let the secret out!- ] | ] 06:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	Homey is trying to introduce pov into a disambiguation page, and even worse he is being really pushy about it. He is also trying to invent false criteria for included tags to an article where the tag clearly belongs.- ] | ] 06:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	What follows are the allegedly POV sentences which Moshe and Humus keep removing:
	*"] is a term used by some critics of Israel's policies towards the Palestinians."
	*"The ] is a term used by the same critics to describe the Israeli West Bank barrier being built to seperate Israel from the West Bank."
	My two interlocutors have been unable to put forward a coherent explanation of how the above two sentences are POV as they are simply statements of fact. The fact is they don't like the terms "Israeli apartheid" and "apartheid wall" - they actually have no issue with the sentences in which they are used above. ] 06:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	Its not just the sentences in of themselves, it is the fact that you are trying to add those sentences to a disambiguation page. Your only arguments for their inclusions is :"Hey guys, I'm just disambiguating", or "None of your arguments make any sense". It is obvious that to you our arguments are irrelevant.- ] | ] 06:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	"Its not just the sentences in of themselves"
	So what is it about the sentences then? Which of the statements is incorrect?
	"it is the fact that you are trying to add those sentences to a disambiguation page."
	I'm trying to list articles that mention the word apartheid in their title to a page disambiguating the term apartheid. What, exactly, is your objection?
	"It is obvious that to you our arguments are irrelevant"
	That much, at least, is true. Have you considered that perhaps you've failed to make any relevant arguments?] 06:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	Have you considerd perhaps our arguments are relavent? Did you consider this before we made them?- ] | ] 07:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	Yes, I did. I considered them and found them wanting and have asked you followup questions which you've been unable to answer except with abuse. ] 07:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	: Homey, your question were answered at talk. There is no reason (other than to disseminate propaganda) to cross-post them all over WP. ←] <sup>]</sup> 07:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	Some simple questions:
	*]
	*]
	1) Is ] a disambiguation page, intended to differentiate articles associated with the same title/word, in this case "apartheid? Yes or no?
	2) Do the two articles in question have "apartheid" as part of their official titles (that is, they're not redirects)? Yes or no?
	3) Are the two articles legitimate articles? Yes or no?
	So if the answer to the above questions are all "yes", what POSSIBLE justification is there for excluding the two articles from the diambig page? Try to answer without resorting to the coy "we're part of the Zionist conspiracy ha ha" nonsense: it's an intellectually dishonest cop-out intended to make your opponents look like conspiracy nuts. --] | ] 07:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	: Mixing slanderous allegations and encyclopedic terms is wrong. There is no reason to duplicate the discussion, the proper place is ]. ←] <sup>]</sup> 08:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Simple questions, simple answers, so enough handwaving: so? --] | ] 08:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::I do not believe your condescending attitude contributes to the resolution of this dispute. Adequate reasons have been provided both here and on the talk page for its removal.- ] | ] 08:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::I do not believe your empty handwaving, irrelevancies, and inability to answer simple questions demonstrates the slightest bit of intellectual honesty. And you have some strange new meaning of the word "adequate" I wasn't previously aware of. --] | ] 23:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	I haven't seen them - no one else has either (except for your partner). They must be invisible. ] 17:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	Wow funny stuff, and very mature I might add.- ] | ] 18:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Closure of Requested Move ==
	Could an Admin please review the Requested move at ] and close if deemed appropriate. --] 09:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Done (though not by me)... too lazy to check the log... ''']''']|<sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 18:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	== legal threat ==
	] 10:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Blocked a week as I'm unsure if it's static or dynamic. If it's dynamic please reduce the block. ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> at 10:46 ] <small>(])</small>
	:It's belongs to ] Nottingham ''']''' (]) <em><strong>]</strong></em> 16:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	::The people at NTL ''do'' respond to abuse concerns, although they are '''''extremely''''' slow about it. ]|] 17:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Sockpuppets ==
	Hi, I'm here to report a confirmed sockpuppet, (sorry if this isn't the right place) with evidence and denial from the puppeteer. Anyway, ] has been trying to remove all connections in Pokémon articles to a informative website on the subject, named Serebii.net, and replace it with his own website, Pokémon Galaxy.
	First he tried to remove the template that links to Serebii manually, then from the template that produces references in all the Pokémon articles and replace it with his own website, Pokémon Galaxy. Pokémon Galaxy is not at present even finished, but it seems to be pushing it.
			== Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request ==
	User:Iloveminun nominated ] for deletion ], voting twice for ''delete'', despite nominating the template himself.
	As well as trying to make new rules about speedying.
			The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}:
	PokemonFan was then used vote in the TfD after Iloveminun got told to stop voting delete. PokemonFan also vandalised the user page of the admin taking part in the vote who wouldn't delete it for him.
			{{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 ].
	Iloveminun then tried to assert his innocence, and and was advised to get a check user between himself and the three potential sockpuppets, something which he didn't do.
			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 ].}}
	Iloveminun also tried to remove all the references to the sock puppetry. Examples of this are and.
			] (]) 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 ==
	I did get a Check User (you can find it ]). I had originally thought that Iloveminun had another two sockpuppets, ] and ], which turned out to be sockpuppets of each other. Po132 isn't active so I see no point of bringing it up until anything occurs which requires it. Anyway, I requested a check user and ] came to the result as follows -
			I have not come across a situation like ] before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it.
	{{Confirmed}} as follows:
			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.
	*{{user|Po132}} and {{user|Minun132}} are the same person.
	*{{user|PokemonFan}} appears uninvolved in the above, but is the same person as {{user|Iloveminun}}. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 02:11, 29 May 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.
			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.
	Iloveminun made a last hope of trying to allowing the closure of the TfD to stop the accusations, .
			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?
	Iloveminun has lied, tried to push the removal of Serebii, for his own site, broke TfD regulations and used sockpuppetry to try and delete the template. Regards, ]<font color="#009933">]</font>] <sup>]</sup> 14:53, 29 May 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'd be lying if I said SPP wasn't one of the best resources for Pokémon. Reading this, it sounds like a bad faith nomination. I'll read it more. ''']''' (]) <em><strong>]</strong></em> 14:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
			] (]) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Further evidence at ]. It has some stuff about Po132 and Minun132 being connected Iloveminun, so just ignore that. ]<font color="#009933">]</font>] <sup>]</sup> 14:59, 29 May 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)
	::If I have any say in it, (since I partially helped HighwayCello through this), I think Iloveminun shouldn't be blocked, just his sockpuppet, PokemonFan. Iloveminun's outright lie is strickly against ]. ]] 15:05, 29 May 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)
	:::OK, I've looked through the evidence. PokemonFan has been blocked indefinitely. Iloveminun's second vote and PokemonFan's vote have been stricken. I've also warned Ilm. Thanks, ''']''' (]) <em><strong>]</strong></em> 16:12, 29 May 2006 (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)
	== ] ==
			:I've updated the archive bot on that talk age to act on 1 month old threads. Should get rid of half of the ones on there when it runs next and the rest will follow soon enough. I've always thought 6 months was way too long of a default archive policy. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Yeah, I've always felt 90 days is sufficient for default archival purposes. If no one has contributed to a discussion in three months, it's a dead discussion. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			== 43.249.196.179 (again) ==
	Somehow ] got vandalised, and then protected. Could someone have a look at it? ] | ''']''' | ''']''' | 15:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	:most likely because of the vandalism: . ''']''']|<sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 18:51, 29 May 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)
	Revert, don't protect. That page is intended to be editable. You know, the whole "YOU can edit THIS page RIGHT NOW" thing? ''']''' | ] 23:53, 29 May 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)
	:I know, but I never protected it. It was protected at December 22, 2005. ''']''']|<sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 11:40, 30 May 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)
	== Assistance Needed ==
			: 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 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 ] ==
	I'm new to Misplaced Pages. After my first edit last night, I got a message on my talk page that said, "Im gonna bite your balls off and eat them" it was from someone named RadioKirk. I left a message for him asking hime to stop and he responded, "I'm gonna eat your poop." Now he is threating to block me (can he do this?). What should I do? ] 15:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	:''cough''troll alert''cough''. Perhaps you should stop vandalizing pages and attacking other users. Also you'll note that RadioKirk has never once edited your talk page, so please don't implicate him in something he didn't do. From the looks of it, the other wikipedians in question acted apropriately in response to your ]. --] 15:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I've blocked the IP for 24 hours. He already had a {{tl|test4}} today. --]<sup>]</sup> 15:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Aw, man, here I was thinking I'd picked up my own personal troll, and it turns out the person also had problems with , and . Well, shit, I guess I have to try harder... ;) <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 16:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
			@] and to a lesser extent @] have been bickering in the talk page for a while now, and the reply chains are so long that they go off my phone's screen. DEB in particular has been noticeably passive aggressive in their comments, such as at me, at AWF, and at ]. Is this actionable? ] (]) 01:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	The same thing happenned to me on my other account. I think he has some way of covering it up. Contact me on my talk page so we can discuss getting this guy reported. ] 21:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Ooh, cool, now I have two; of course, the whole thing is blown apart when any admin (who can see every edit deleted by any other admin) looks and sees nothing. Then again, maybe I'm the self-deprecating (defecating?) ]... ;) <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 00:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			:This looks to me like it's covered by ]. ] ] 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Deleting from page history ==
			: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)
	I am an admin here and am in a situation where I need to remove personal information from a user talk page's history, at the request of the original editor. This is a legitimate request and I can go into more detail if you wish to know. How can I remove this personal information (in this case, an email address) from the edit history? Simply changing the address to "''blanked email address''" or similar would be fine. Just removing it from the current revision of the page is not sufficient in this case. --] 19:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Delete the page, then restore the versions without the personal information. ''']''' (]) <em><strong>]</strong></em> 20:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
			:Agreed. An admin got involved and simply continued off-topic discussion. ] (]) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	Contact a user with ] permissions, who can remove the revision direct. ''']''' | ] 23:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
			*'''Warn both to drop the stick''', otherwise, no action at this point. ] (]) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:'''''Hands ] two ]''''' You want to hand them out, or me? ] (]) 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Topic ban appeal ==
	I'll do it - i want to test the new oversight permission thing. ] | ] 23:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop
	*D'oh, I'm so stupid for forgetting about Oversight. ''']''' (]) <em><strong>]</strong></em> 16:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			| 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)
	== Many Speedy Deletions of talk pages ==
			: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)
	Someone has just nominated ''many'' talk pages for speedy deletion. However, I don't believe that some of them qualify. CSD G8 says, "Talk pages of pages that do not exist, unless they contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere." Plenty of the pages seemed to have such discussion, but are gone now. Would it be possible to review the most recent deletions to see if this has happened? ] 22:02, 29 May 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 give examples? There has in the last 20 minutes been a bout of pagemove vandalism and associated repairs, which resulted in many deletions. ] 22:03, 29 May 2006 (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)
	::I think I had put ] on ]. ] 22:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
			::::Found it. ]. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Someone seems to be going through the list of talk pages and, if there is no associated article, nominating it for deletion without considering the text of G8. ] 22:06, 29 May 2006 (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)
	:::That usually just refers to the ancient method of VfD, when the votes were carried out on talk pages rather than Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion subpages. ] <small>]</small> 22:07, 29 May 2006 (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)
	::OK, not what I assumed! The deleted text was: 'I'm writing to say why you shouldn't delete this page. David Wright IS a notable person from Wagga Wagga and should be added to the list on the Wagga Wagga page. Whilst David hasn't achieved the fame of michael slater, or the notoriety of Wayne Carey as people from wagga in your list, David was a great member of the Wagga wagga community and did a number of things worthy of earning a page in your great website. I understand that David wasn't a celebrity but he was a great guy who's story deserved to be told. please don't delete it. Peter Dale, former lord mayor of wagga wagga and W.W.H.S. Alumni member'.
			* '''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)
	::While this might technically be deletion discussion it could also be couneted as nonsense, trolling, and other things. ] 22:10, 29 May 2006 (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.
	:::OK, so that sort of deletion discussion is out, but what about intelligent discussion from ''after'' the talk page voting era? ] 22:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
			*: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)
	::::IF it basically duplicates an AfD, then I'd say delete. If the discussion was intelligent but there was no AfD, then I'd tend to keeping. If it was clear CSD then it's unlikely IMV that the talk page discussion would add much. If there are specific instances you're worried about then feel free to list them at ] for more detailed review. ] 22:18, 29 May 2006 (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)
	:::::There's no way to tell, since they've been deleted! I guess (assuming good faith) they were all justified. ] 22:28, 29 May 2006 (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)
	::::::Admins can still view the content of deleted pages ;-). I've just checked about a dozen. It seems that a user had been on a talk-page clearing spree and legitimately added a lot of <nowiki>{{db-talk}}</nowiki> flags, which someone clearing out CSD then deleted. ] 22:46, 29 May 2006 (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)
	:::::::That's good to hear. I just came across ], which redirects to ] from ]. Is that an example of one that should be kept? ] 22:55, 29 May 2006 (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)
	::::::::Yes, in that case, the talk page should be kept. I restored it and moved over the VfD redirect, since it's where it was before and it's easier to find there. --] 00:26, 30 May 2006 (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)
	:::From my experience that's the standard defense when an article is flagged as nn-bio and the originator doesn't want it to get deleted. There's no reason to waste space on those sorts of "please don't delete this - he really is notable" defenses. --] 23:20, 29 May 2006 (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)
	:::*This does raise another point to me. I'd misspelled 'category' last week, and when I caught it self-nominated it using {db-because} while emailing a friendly admin to move it; and not wanting to create a talk page too, added the inline comment, or better yet, move it to 'category', the software doesn't allow me to do that with protected space. It also goes to the point that several stubs have been speedied before I could get back to fix them up. Again, with an inline comment saying I was hip-deep in nested edits, and would be doing so.
			*: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 ==
	::::So why isn't there a ''minimal check'' by people to check for inline comments at the least, and shouldn't there be a minimal time period from ''article creation'' before someone can tag on a Csd template? I'm talking about stuff that disappeared in less than three hours, addressed a redlink, was categorized, and I just couldn't get back to because of other editting. Totally disrespectful of the creating editors time&mdash;more the behaviour one would expect from some juvenile schoolkid without any sensitivity to or experience with the needs of others he/she may be working with. This is counter-productive as it's currently administered to those of us primarily adding content. Someone needs to apply some checking, an inquiry, and some commonsense instead of blindly crossing things off a list because a template put them there! Best regards // <B>]</B><font color="green">]</font> 21:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			{{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 ===
	:Note that the upsurge in talk page speedy deletions is a result of getting a fresh dump of orphaned talk pages. See ]. --] 03:55, 1 June 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 ==
	== Admin Canidate ==
			{{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)}}
			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 ]), 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.
	I'm trying to run for admin, however ny nomination keeps being removed by Naconkantari. I discussed with him on his talk page but he wont budge. He theatens I will be blocked if I replace it. What should I do? ] 23:33, 29 May 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 ].
	:Try stopping your trolling --] ] 23:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
			'''Diffs:''' ''(all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 ) ''
	::Go through and read all of my contribuations, i've "never" trolled. Have you read the discussion I had with him on his talk page? ] 23:38, 29 May 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''
	:::Well what do you know, you happen to be the . (For those who don't know: the Lingerie vandal has been adding paragraphs like the one linked to above to hundreds of articles from dozens of IPs for the last few weeks). I must admit, although I did ] at first, a history of vandalism and spam makes it a little harder to do so. --] 23:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::Im sorry Bachrach, thats not me. They must have tunnled through my computer as this is my first night editing wikipedia ] 00:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			* Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template.
	:Although the decision of whether or not you should run for admin (or can run for admin), is not an issue I can get involved in, allow me to give you a word of advice. First of all, ''anyone'' can edit. The only things admins can do is delete articles and isue blocks, and if there's any of those you need done, there are ways or reporting to admins who can do the janitorial work for you. The second thing is that although there are varying standards for adminship, they generally range from 3-9 months of experience on wikipedia, and at least 1000 edits. You have less than a day's experience and less than 50 edits. Your Ralph Nader analogy isn't apt because at least one person voted for Nader - I doubt you would get any. There's really very little point in your running at this point in time, as I doubt you've even been here long enough to know what admins do. Stick around, make this a better encyclopedia, and try running for admin in 4-6 months. --] 23:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
			* Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also ] for escalation in progress.".
			* JMF reverts to ''sqa'' again, with edit summary " rv to consensus version, pending BRD discussion. That is now also a WP:3RR violation." {{midsize|My 3RR challenge was not valid as reversion was outside the 24-hour window.}}
			* At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing.
			* At their talk page, Uwappa alleges ] violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit.
			---
	]. I left a note on the user's talk page. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
			* At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI.
			* Uwappa replies to refuse de-escalation.
			As of 11:48 (UTC) on 30/12, the live version of the template is the one that has consensus support. --] (]) 11:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	I would really just like to run. Bachrach44, I feel i'll be able to prove you wrong if you allow me to run. I bet "at least" ten people will vote for me. You guys dont have to accept me, i just want to run. Also, the above commen was by me, I logged off and forgot to log back on. ] 23:48, 29 May 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)
	:::Sorry, but you need at least 75-80% of the voters support to gain adminship. Trying to prove someone wrong is a clear-cut case of ]. ]] 00:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			::Yes, that is why I felt it important to make clear that our time zones are very widely spaced, which makes collaboration difficult in the best of circumstances. When they do see it, I would expect they will take some time offline to polish their response before posting it{{snd}} and consequently it is likely to be as long again before I respond. ] (]) 20:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			Reposted above from archive, see ]
	Ok ok, I wont run. Now for the funny part. Spell my name backwards, what does it say, I told you all I was gonna run for admin. Ask Radiokirk or KinvdLinde about it. And go ahead block me I be back tomorrow and you little wikinerds will just assume good faith ] 00:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page:
	:You must be kidding... you, ], ] and ] are lecturing '''us''' on Wikipolicy when ] and ] utterly escape you? Please... <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 00:29, 30 May 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)
	::Ignore him. He's clearly out to get reactions from us, to annoy us, and generally waste our time. The best we can do is ignore him. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:30, 30 May 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.
			:::::I was very happy you did escalate and will be happy to reply now that I have spare time available for WP. My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.
			:::::Would you like me to repost your escalation? ] (]) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I strongly advise that you read ] before you write another line. ] (]) 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{od}}
			I am so sorry I was late to join this party. End of the year was a bit too hectic, did not leave much spare time for fun activities like WP.
			] What would you like me to do now? ] (]) 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Well, guess what? is also the vandal... oh, what a shock... <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 00:34, 30 May 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)
	Actually i'm not the lingerie vandal. We probally just use the same proxy. I just wanted to keep my word about runnung for admin. Sorry about the delay, its a real pain trying to find a good proxy these days ] 00:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC) or is it Rappy30?
			: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)
	:Thanks :) <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 00:46, 30 May 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)
	I sware RadioKirk sometimes really makes me feel like reforming and becoming a useful contribuator(thats for the future though) He's a really good admin. Oh,and the thing about RadioKirk abusing a new user posted above was by me also. (sorry radio). ] 00:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC) or is it Rappy 30?
			*: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)
	:Keep going... :) <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 01:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			* Yes, I noticed. I have pblocked them indefinitely from the template, and reverted that edit myself so that no-one else is required to violate 3RR. ] 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:* Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous. {{Blockquote|text=An editor must not perform {{strong|more}} than three reverts on a single page whether involving the same or different material—within a {{strong|24-hour period}}.|source=]}}.
	::lol, I saw the name backwards and noticed it was Rappy30 spelt backwards, but I thought it was a concidence. Guess not.. Good job RadioKirk. ]] 01:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			:* Suggestion: Add the following calculator to ]:
			{{calculator|id=edits|type=number|steps=1|size=3|default=3|min=0}}
	:::Exactly, though it was actually ] and, to be honest, I was only '''reasonably''' sure until he . Thanks :) <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 01:26, 30 May 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)
	== Could somebody please shoot this image? ==
			::* From ]; {{tq|Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring}}. Which this quite obviously does, especially as you've reverted ''twice'' whilst this report was ongoing. Frankly, you're quite fortunate it was only a partial block. ] 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:To admins, please ] Uwappa from further work on the calculator template for the body roundness index and waist-to-height ratio, and from further editing and talk page input on those articles. Uwappa has done admirable extensive work, but the simple calculator is finished and sufficient as it is. Uwappa has created voluminous ]/] talk page discussions for articles with under 50 watchers and few talk page discussants; few editors would read through those long posts, and few are engaged.
	Could someone please delete ]? It blatently violates Misplaced Pages's fair-use policy, particularly the bit about "fair use images can only be used if it's not possible to make a free-license replacement". I've tried deleting it through process, but ] has reverted my attempts, and has refused to discuss it. --] 02:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			: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)
	:Shot down as an orphan. <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 02:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			{{ab}}
	::We can shoot images now? Wow! The powers we have! ;-) --]<sup>]</sup> 07:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			*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)
	== Girls' Bike Club ==		== Kansascitt1225 ban appeal ==
			{{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)
	This keeps being deleted as "patent nonsense", which is it not (it is neither random strings of characters, nor particularly confusing - merely incomplete). It has been deleted out from under me twice as I enter information (including information on the cultural relevancy of the text and the authors), VERY shortly after creation. I'd saved it so that I could work on sections individually, but I suppose it's a bit much to ask that someone let an article live for 10 minutes before outright deleting it....
			{{reflist-talk}} ] (]/]) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	Anyway, could someone please move some version of it (I don't really care which) into my user space so that I can finish the stupid thing without it being deleted? Alternately (preferably, but I don't have high hopes of this), could it just be undeleted? Thanks. {{unsigned|Jacquez}}
			* '''(mildly involved) Support'''. I gave feedback on an earlier version of their ban appeal. This is five years since the initial block. Five years and many, many socks, and many, many arguments. But with no recent ban evasion and a commitment to communicate better, I think it's time to give a second chance. -- ] (]) 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per asilvering and ]. ] (]/]) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support'''. Five years is a long time. Willing to trust for a second chance.] (]) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Ideally I'd want to see some indication that they don't intend to ] as the issue seems to be rather ideological in nature and I don't see that addressed in the appeal. I also don't love the failure to understand a lot of issues around their block/conduct and their inability to effectively communicate ] and on their ]. ] (]) 00:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Would a topic ban from Kansas-related topics help? This was floated as a bare minimum two or so years ago. -- ] (]) 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I'm not that concerned by the RGW issue. Their communication on this appeal has been clear, they responded to my feedback regarding their unblock request, and they've indicated they'll not edit war and seek consensus for their edits. ] (]/]) 00:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five? In any event it's been a long time since they tried to evade. I'm leaning toward giving a second chance but I'd really like them to understand that walls of text are not a good way to communicate, that they need to post in paragraphs, and that Misplaced Pages is not a place for righting great wrongs. ] (]) 16:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:{{tq|Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five?}} ssssshhh. -- ] (]) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:] from KC:{{tq2|Yes I can write in paragraphs and list different ideas in separate paragraphs instead of a giant run on sentence.{{pb}}I wasn’t trying to right great wrongs but noticed the contrast of the definition of ] on Misplaced Pages and these communities being described as suburban (meanwhile some of these suburbs verifiably having lower residential to job ratio than the city and also a higher overall population density with some suburbs gaining population during the day due to commuters coming into them). This is essentially why on my case page It says I feel as tho something had to be “fixed”. I thought my edits were being removed simply because people didn’t like this place or some of its past so I felt as tho I was simply being purposefully misled which caused me to not follow proper civility.{{pb}}I just wanted to clarify that these places weren’t only residential and were major employment areas that they sometimes have a lower percentage of single family homes. This to me was always the opposite of what suburban meant, atleast what I learned during grade school and what it says on Misplaced Pages. That’s where the confusion came from. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}} ] (]/]) 02:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' Six years is a long time, and they have shown growth. I do not think what is actually happening here is ], instead they ] and things went downhill from there. I think ] of {{tq|Jackson county being THE central county of the metropolitan area}} (which Misplaced Pages deems urban) {{tq|when you can see in the census reference here there are actually 6 central counties}} (which Misplaced Pages deems suburban) is reasonable. I researched it, but found the concerns are inconsistent with ] page which provides the definition that {{tq|An urban area is a human settlement with a high population density and an infrastructure of built environment. This is the core of a metropolitan statistical area in the United States, if it contains a population of more than 50,000.}} An urban area is the most urban area compared to its surroundings, even though its surroundings are quite dense. I hope this helps. ] (]) 22:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I add that their concerns that suburban designation misleads people seem to have merit. It is not the suburban designation that misleads people though, but the definition of suburban itself on the ] article seems to be misleading. I know this is not a place to discuss content, but discuss conduct. But some insight into content can help resolve problems. ] (]) 11:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== ftools is back! ==
	:] :) <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 04:17, 30 May 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)
	:If you don't mind a friendly piece of advice, it does look a lot like nonsense at the moment. Perhas you should put the article in its proper context - what ''is'' the GBC? --] 13:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			:{{like}} -] (]) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Jacquez, you may also wish to tag the article "in progress" or something similar, just to be safe. <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 16:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			:Note: {{no ping|DreamRimmer}} is now also a maintainer. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:My congratulations/condolences. ] (]) 15:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:So, will ftools be renamed or not? Congratulations. ] (]) 02:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Bachrach44 - well, there WAS context at one point, but it was in an earlier version, so now I've got to add it back in. Heh. RadioKirk - thanks - I'll work on it in the user space until I think it makes sense, and then if it gets deleted again, I've no one to blame but my own self. --] 22:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			== Block appeal for ] ==
	== ] ==
			{{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)
	If any of you are at a loose end, might I suggest taking a look at ]? Some articles there have been tagged for months. I've made a start by speedying/prodding/detagging a few but it's a job for more than one person. --] 07:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			}}
	: A lot of them seem quite notable, but not conclusively so - many are university professors. If I knew anything about how pop musicians I would have probably caused an uproar about deleting thousands of bandcruft by know, but I don't.''']''' | ] 07:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	::In those borderline cases, if they've been tagged for months and hardly touched (i.e., nobody cares), prod is the way to go. If it might be slightly controversial, AFD. If you're satisified of notability, detag. Any of these are better than leaving the article tagged for months I would contend. --] 07:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::{{tl|prod}} seems to be a good way to go with these articles.--] 07:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::I suppose that people might be hoping that the articles will be improved, but it seems like this tag is used to avoid having to speedy, prod or AfD the article yourself. It's great when people put on a wikify tag at the same time, because I love making articles that are likely to be deleted look good. ;-) -- ] 07:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::: This cat should be split into subcats, like stubs, so that people can find the articles in their area of expertise, such as {{tl|importance-music}}, {{tl|importance-sport}}, {{tl|importance-professor}} much more quickly. I'm thinking of making more specific templates for this.''']''' | ] 02:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I think thats a bad idea, it creates another useless layer of metadata, since I think we are all aware specific stub types haven't really improved content development, they have just made more types of stubs. As far as I can tell from a year and a half of digging through these articles, music-importance does not severe any function beyond the generic importance template. --] 02:21, 1 June 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:
	== ] ==
			: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.
	has the general aroma of a ]/] sock, and a misleading user ID. ] (]) 11:01, 30 May 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.
	] 11:51, 30 May 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.
	:Wait for someone with ]? ] <sup>]</sup> 12:03, 30 May 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)
	::I'll just go ahead remove it manually. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			] (]) 01:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Done, which makes the twenty first time I have done this. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			*'''Support unblock without TBANs and with single account restriction.'''] (]) 01:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' as requested. The request is sincere. Having edited a fair amount of articles where I discovered this editor's edits, I found his edits thoroughly productive and that is absolutely uncommon in this area. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 01:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:* '''Comment''' "Support as requested" sounds like a canvassed vote, did you mean it in a different way? ] 08:48, 10 January 2025 (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)
			:: 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 ==
	==Proposal for spam noticeboard==
			{{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>
	Currently, the talk page of ] is acting as a sort of ] for reporting spam and external link abuse, as cases are usually too lengthy and complicated for AIAV and AN/I to deal with.
			:I suppose you mean , which you ''didn't'' create at all though, and which is completely unsuitable for enwiki as it stands, being unsourced and lacking all indication of notability. ] (]) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Well, they create the page. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::], oh, okay<span id="Cactusisme:1736586978195:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 09:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
			{{abot}}
			== Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators ==
	To make this resource easier to find, and to encourage its use and patrol by administrators, I've proposed that a dedicated noticeboard for link spam be produced, in the style of WP:AIAV and ], WP:AN/3RR, etc.
			The Arbitration Committee has resolved by ] that:
	Of course, the success of such an initiative depends mainly on input from the administrators, so I would be grateful if any admins interested could leave comments and suggestions at this talk page. ] 14:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	:While we're at it, is there a need for a ] page and an Oversight noticeboard? ] ] 14:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			{{ivmbox|1=
	::As I understand it, calls for oversight are directed at a small subset of admins and are generally urgent, so a separate board seems eminently sensible. In a similar fashion a spam board would keep together records of repeat offenders, and a small group of people familiar with them. ] 17:13, 30 May 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.
	:::I support the creation of both, with some kind of indicator on the spam board for when a case has reached the point that it needs to be added to the Spam blacklist on meta. Since only meta admins can add to the blacklist, and not everybody knows who we are, it would be helpful to have a centralized place we could skim every so often and add things as needed. (Obviously, most spamming cases can be solved with a block of the offender, and do not rise to the level of having to be blacklisted on every Wikimedia project, and dozens of non-Wikimedia projects that rely on our blacklist.) As for the latter, I think a ] (to follow the naming conventions of things like "Requests for checkuser" and "Requests for arbitration", and avoid the confusion of what exactly "oversight" is) would be an excellent idea. Very helpful for those of us with the oversight permission, and for those of us who are meta admins. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 02:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
			The specific responsibilities of coordinating arbitrators shall include:
	::::Should either/both of these proposals go through Village Pump first, or can we just be ] and create them? Both ideas seem worthy of a trial at the very least, and don't represent a change in policy, as such. ] 16:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
			* 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.
	:::::The only issue I've seen raised to the request page for oversight use is that, like certain other high profile options (*cough* ] *cough*), such a noticeboard would actually make these types of edits *more* obvious. I guess it's a six of one, half a dozen of another issue. Perhaps an oversight mailing list, where anyone could email in, but only those with the permission could read it?
			</blockquote>
			}}
			For the Arbitration Committee, ]&nbsp;] 23:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::As for the spam option, I say be bold and get it started. Just remember to notify the meta admins (I'd suggest individually) when it's ready so we can be watching for those that need ot be blacklisted. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 05:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
			: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators}}'''<!-- ] (]) 23:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->
	==Newpage patrol==		== Backlog ==
	I whipped up a JS tool (for monobook skin) that checks the number of edits creators of newpages have (up to 10). It definetely seems to help me waste less time when doing newpage patrol.''']'''<sup>]</sup> 15:14, 30 May 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)
	:That's ironic. When doing NP patrol, I usually only read pages made by someone whose talk page is red (meaning non-exitent). Whenever there's a good page worthy of not being CSD, I sent the creator a welcome message. --] 17:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Having used the tool for a while, it seems to be very helpful for finding cruft.''']'''<sup>]</sup> 17:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	== One vandal or many? ==		== Requesting review of SPI ==
			{{Atop|No need to have brought this here.--] (]) 23:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			I recently filed an ]; any admin/checkuser eyes would be appreciated. Thank you! ] (] • ]) 22:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	This may just be standard vandalism, but perhaps someone wants to run a Checkuser on this. I have indefinitely blocked impostor {{user|Fang Ali}}, {{user|Hetare}} (impostor of ]), {{user|Shaan122}}, and {{user|EdnaMaid}}, all who either vandalized my userpage or recreated ] (also ], and another, which were AfD'd) within about 15 minutes. {{user|Sneewop}} may also be involved (and has been blocked for 24 hrs by another admin). I have {{tl|deletedpage}} protected the TigerGardens pages. --]]] <sup>]</sup> 17:29, 30 May 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)
			{{Abot}}
	== Block bug? ==		== IPBE for AWB account ==
			{{atop|status=Done|1=Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	Hi. I just indef-blocked {{vandal|Betty Yves|Betty_Yves}}, who had already been indef-blocked by {{admin|Golbez}}. I don't understand why that was necessary, and am not confident the block will take this time. Can someone explain why Golbez's block didn't work, and whether or not this one will? ] 17:56, 30 May 2006 (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)
	:Something screwy seems to be happening with extending blocks - I had two new blocks fail to override old ones in one day a while ago, even I unblocked first in both cases. I've noticed some admins block a user for one second, then apply the indefinite block. I don't know whether that works any better. --]<sup>]</sup> 19:29, 30 May 2006 (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 ==
	== Savage deletion ?? ==
			{{atop
	Recently, the talk sub-page ] was victime of an unjustified speedy deletion.
			| 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)
	Several days later the page was undeleted by ]. See the respective ''']'''.
			: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) ==
	Now the page is deleted again, WITHOUT ANY DELETION PROCESS !??
			{{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:
	Even if I ] by a move – like it was proposed – there are several back-links now broken, cf. ].
			{{talk quote block|Dear Sysops,
	Thanks for resolving this problem due to '''an obvious case of savage deletion''' by an anonymous administrator.&nbsp; -- ] 18:19, 30 May 2006 (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.
	:17:43, May 29, 2006 Xoloz deleted "Talk:Ancient Roman units of measurement/Hexadecimal metric system" (R2 content was: '#REDIRECT User:Paul Martin/Hexadecimal metric system' (and the only contributor was 'Paul Martin')). ] 18:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			The issues in question occurred ], prior to the block. At that time, I admitted my conflict of interest (COI) and disclosed it on the relevant article talk pages. Following discussions, my global and local rights were removed, but the block was not enforced until two years later. Many of the articles in question were deleted, so I did not find it necessary to disclose anything further. Moving forward, I have no intention of creating or editing COI-related articles. However, if I am ever in a situation where I am required to contribute to such an article, I will ensure full disclosure on the article talk page and submit it for review, as I did with the article ].
	Thanks for the information. However, I ask its undetetion. Yes the only contributor of this '''subpage''' was me since it illustrated a discussion topic. -- ] 18:31, 30 May 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.
	:The only thing deleted was a cross-namespace redirect. Your subpage continues to exist at ]. ] 18:33, 30 May 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.
	That's right. However there is no reason to delete the redirect page with aktive back-links. -- ] 18:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	: Yes there is, with few exceptions we don't do cross namespace links, there is no point in userfying to just leave a mainspace redirect. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 18:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			I am requesting an unblock because I am fully committed to abiding by all the established policies moving forward, and I am eager to contribute here in a constructive manner. Please kindly allow me a second chance.
	::Note that still works for the deleted page, so you can go back and fix links. Regarding the section header... "Savage"? Is that a technical term? -]<sup>(])</sup> 18:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Of course. Any admin who savagely deletes something should also be defrocked immediatley :D ''']''' (]) <em><strong>]</strong></em> 20:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Indubitably - who ever heard of a savage in a frock?!? -]<sup>(])</sup> 21:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::: "we're collecting money to buy frocks for savages - every little bit helps."&nbsp; Thanks for your humor ].&nbsp; -- ] 21:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::: No ], I don't approve your quick postulation. It's true – with you – I think it's fundamental to have good proceedings. <br> Nevertheless, "be defrocked immediatley" without clarification is neither a good proceeding.&nbsp; -- ] 21:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	For ]: The page - after undeletion - was regulary moved to the user space. So its a simple '''redirect page'''. I don't understand what you mean by "cross namespace links". Nor this is a "'''mainspace''' redirect", but a '''talk-page redirect'''.
			Thank you for your consideration. I humbly request your reconsideration and the restoration of the editing privileges on my account on English Misplaced Pages.
	For ]:&nbsp; With "savage" I mean "out of process". During the ] it's me who accepted the proposal of ] '''with''' the redirect on May 18. The page was undeleted as a subpage of the discussion page '''without any condition'''. Because the user demanding initially the speedy deletion ], I moved the page. So its a ] in several acts?? 1. Speedy deletion 2. Deletion review 3. Undeletion 4. "Cold" re-deletion...&nbsp; I continue to ask for regulation. -- ] 19:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			Sincerely,
	::Friend, 'twas I who redeleted the link from talk-space to your subpage. I have no problem restoring it, actually; I had assumed, given your userfication, that the redirect was useless, and I redeleted per R2. This is a cross-space redirect, and we need a good reason to leave it in place, as those are generally frowned upon. When I had originally processed the DRV debate, I was expecting the subpage to remain, and not to be userified. It was the change in circumstances of the userfication that made R2 applicable. There's no "farce" in the redeletion, as the content was saved and transferred in the interim. ] 20:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			]&nbsp;] 14:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			Having had discussions with the blocking admin, we would like to seek community comments on the unblock request.
	Thanks Xoloz for your reply. Before I can answer – excuse my ignorancy – could you remember me what R2 says.&nbsp; -- ] 21:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	:See ]. Cross-namespace redirects are deleted as a matter of policy, so I believe that Xoloz can keep his frock. -- ] 22:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Criteria for Savage Deletion?! ;) <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 22:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			Tulsi was blocked after UPE allegations that had been outstanding for around 2 years essentially caught up with them. They have now attested to having never edited for pay, which was the question they originally failed to answer twice (], ]), leading to the block. In the unblock request, they give a sincere undertaking not to engage in any more UPE.
	== ] ==
			They have created several dozen articles about Nepalese politicians but these seem to be innocuous. I have identified only a handful of articles where Tulsi could have edited for pay. Given the amount of other contributions Tulsi has made, it would be appropriate to give the benefit of the doubt. ] 15:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	placed a "WoW" tag on ]. DOn't know if it's legit. Thanks] 19:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	:] seemed to think so, then changed his mind, then reblocked. You might ask him. ]|] 21:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			*I cannot find the link for "A related meta-wiki discussion". <span>]]</span>  15:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] ==
			**I've deleted those words. I had decided not to include them in my post, but accidentally left them in. For interest, the discussion was this one: ]. ] 15:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' 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)
	This guy is listed at ]. He does make some genuine contributions, but they're mostly lost in a sea of crap. Favourites of his involve creating articles of none existent ], ridiculous video games based on and generally pissing about with some (note that Coolio does not appear on the soundtrack). Is there any reason why he hasn't been blocked, or at least forced to edit from one account? - ]]] 19:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' Make the most of the second chance ] (]) 23:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' I had already been kind of watcxhing the discussion on their talk page over the last few days, and agree with an SO unblock. ] ] 23:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== ] ==
	:Why is there such a template for a user who has never been blocked? ]|] 02:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Snow in the forecast. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	::Hello admins, may I ask how would one go around blocking this guy? Is he blockable material? He's been up to more vandalism today, but as he's using a different account, he gets a test1 instead of a test4 and a block. - ]]] 15:19, 31 May 2006 (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)
	== <nowiki>{{NPOV-section}}</nowiki> template removal ==
			::Snowed by me. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 16:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- 00:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC) -->
			:::Thank you!!! ] (]) 16:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Request for Administrator Review of Repeatedly Declined Draft: Ario Nahavandi ==
	I added the <nowiki>{{NPOV-section}}</nowiki> tag to part of the ] article and another editor (]) removed the tag less than 1 hour later! The NPOV dispute was not resolved and did not come to a consensus. How should I proceed? I thought tags were supposed to be removed when there is some consensus.
			{{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.
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=X-Men%3A_The_Last_Stand&diff=56015168&oldid=56009478
			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.
	==]==
	Protection requested due to edit war. I protected this but did not make an edit to a version requested by the person who requested protection (there is nothing wrong with the version it's on, and no urgency). As I'm known for my fairly strong views on abuse of templates, I thought it might be a good idea to bring this here for further attention. The requesting party is still asking for the edit to be made. --] 23:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Jesus ] Christ, if you want an atheist userbox on your userpage that's slightly different from this one, subst the ] thing and change it yourself. This is why transcluding userboxes is stupid. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:35, 30 May 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.
	: {{admin|ProhibitOnions}} has reverted the protected page, apparently to a version that he personally prefers. His edit summary is as follows: 'Saved as version requested in WP:RPP, ie "This user is an atheist." -- not as redirect to "interested in atheism" wchich is a different matter.' He has made it plain that he did so on grounds of content.
			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.
	: This does seem to me to be somewhat unethical. Editing a page without discussion while it is protected due to a content dispute. I urge anybody else who gets involved to refrain from editing this page while it is protected. --] 00:02, 31 May 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.
	:: ProhibitOnions has reverted himself and apologised. --] 00:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
			To provide context, here are some of the sources I included:
	==]==
	Most of the active people on the project need a block for a day or two. Endless, endless fighting, reverting of each others' work, labelling it as 'vandalism'. Violations of 3RR, WP:Civil, legal threats, wikistalking, stupid requests for comment, harassment, much more. They've even taken the fighting to MY talk page, when they have no fight with me.
	Users include (but are not limited to): ] , ] , ] , ] , ] . All five need a wikibreak. I don't want to go to MY talk page and find a bunch of fighting on it, from people I'm not even arguing with. I've tried to talk with them, I've tried mediating. Nothing works. The most immature "group" on Misplaced Pages.--] 00:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
			• https://www.nationaldiversityawards.co.uk/awards-2024/nominations/ario-nahavandi/
	== Need more admins on ] duty ==
			• Taurus Magazine (2024-11-19). "Ario Nahavandi". Taurus Magazine. 88: 7 – via www.magcloud.com
	Lots of 3RRs are going unresponded to on the 3RR noticeboard. Could some more admins start watching that noticeboard? -- ] 00:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	:This one was missed too. -- ] 05:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
			• 6x Magazine (2024-11-22). "Ario Nahavandi; The Persian Icon". 6X Magazine. 432: 6–7 – via www.magcloud.com
	== Zeq banned from ]. ==
			Thank you for your time and consideration xx
	See . This ban may be lifted at any time by any administrator who disagrees with it, though I would request that they register their reasons for doing so here and/or on my talk page. Thank you.--] 02:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
			] (]) 23:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:FWIW I totally agree with your action. ] 02:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
			:Administrators cannot override draft declines, and in fact the administrator toolset ]. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 23:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	I've moved Homeontherange's original request from the arbitration page to ] and asked him to use that page in future. --] 03:15, 31 May 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 ==
	<s>Zeq has just violated the ban. </s>] 04:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop green|Unanimous consent after 36 hours to lift the restriction. ] (]) 14:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:Nothing said anything about the Talk page, only the actual article. --] ] 04:29, 31 May 2006 (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 ].
	Whoops, you're correct - template says he can still edit the talk page.] 04:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
			I believe the restrictions impair my ability to edit productively. I generally edit with 1RR regardless of sanctions. With 0RR, as Red-tailed hawk noted at my previous appeal "they can wind up restricting the sorts of partial reverts that are often a healthy part of the ordinary editing process." With 0RR, I am unable to engage in the BRD cycle properly and always second-guessing whether a partial edit to a recent edit counts as a revert or not. It also prevents me reverting drive-by SPA/IP povpushing. I don't plan to ever edit KJK's article again, but I believe that my record of neutral constructive editing shows the PBAN is no longer preventative or necessary. In the highly unlikely event I ever see a reason to edit it in future, I know my edits would be subject to heightened scrutiny which I'd welcome.
			I appreciate your consideration. My best regards, ] (]) 01:02, 15 January 2025 (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}}
	== A vandal ==		== 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.
	Please have a look here: - all contributions should be reviewed, thank you. ] 09:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	:What exactly are you expecting us to do? The vandal has already been blocked. --] <sup>]</sup> 09:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
			] (]) 22:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	::It doesn't seem to be blocked. There is no notice on the talk page and I did not find anything in the block log. However, a block might not be needed. The person has not edited since the second warning a few hours ago. -- ] 09:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
			:To be clear, I don't think that @] is really at any fault here.
	::see the damage , never having been repaired - (I won't touch a lemma such as Heydrich]. ] 10:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
			:] (]) 22:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] please see {{tl|copyvio-revdel}} on how to tag copyvios for attention. ] (]) 08:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Lardlegwarmers block appeal ==
	== List of Wikipedians in Main Article Space ==
			{{atop
			| result = Essentially unanimous consensus to not unblock. ] ] 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
			* {{userlinks|Lardlegwarmers}}
	Hi - I need some clarification. Should links to categories that are lists of users be included in the main Article space?
			I blocked Lardlegwarmers yesterday for one week for a violation of ] from COVID-19. This was about ], although I subsequently noticed ] as well. LLW has asked me to copy their appeal here. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Statement from Lardlegwarmers ===
			I have only been very active editing Misplaced Pages for about one month, even though my account is older. I was blocked for pushing a minority POV in the talk page for Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory, which I understand. For context, this issue wouldn't have even come up at ANI except that there was this very old account making borderline uncivil comments constantly, and I took them to ANI myself and it boomeranged. One thing that I learned from that experience is that Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement, and that I am probably not going to be the one to fix it.<ref>]</ref> Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed; my edits were in good faith and I was really just attempting to talk it out with the other editors who did not agree with me. But I understand that the norm in this space is to walk away if there isn't any uptake of my ideas or take it to dispute resolution instead of continuing to try to convince people. The current ban is for making a comment on an AE thread, not a Covid-19 article. I was on the page for a totally unrelated reason and noticed that a user I recognized from the Covid thread was being discussed. My comment was mostly about user behavior and reflecting on the underlying dispute itself, not Covid-19. Also, on my user page I quoted ] discussing his view on Misplaced Pages's approach to Covid-19 , which I'd assumed was permitted because it's my own user page and it's really a comment about the state of Misplaced Pages as a whole. The admin who blocked me, @], blanked it from my user page. If the community won't let me keep that quote on my user page, then fine, we'll leave it removed, but I wish they would have just asked me to remove it and described why instead of editing my user page. A block for this stuff seems harsh. Thanks.
			{{talk reflist}}
			=== Statement from Tamzin ===
			Excerpting my comment on their talkpage:{{tq2|Usually we only warn someone on their first topic ban violation. However, in your case, the fact that both violations occurred within hours of the ban being imposed, and that they were belligerent rants treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground, made me judge that a short block would more clearly communicate just how far you are from what is considered acceptable conduct. Even if you didn't understand that the ban applied outside articles, you should have understood that the community found your editing about COVID disruptive, which should have been reason enough to not make those edits.}} <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Discussion among uninvolved editors ===
			*This is clearly a topic ban violation - and it came less than a day after it was imposed. Even if assuming in good faith that they didn't know it was a topic ban violation, their unblock request shows not only that they don't understand what they did wrong, but they attempt to justify it with statements such as {{tq|Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed}} which is borderline a personal attack (veiled insult that others weren't being grownups); {{tq|which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement}} which is confirming they still don't understand why they were topic banned nor why they were blocked for violating it; and quoting Larry Sanger's ] promoting comments on their userpage after their topic ban. To summarize, I have no confidence that the user understands what they did wrong, and I would go so far as to say the user attempting to skirt the edges of their topic ban and supporting another user trying to promote fringe theories on Misplaced Pages merits an indefinite community ban. TLDR: '''Oppose unblock''' and ultimately would support indefinite ban due to the flagrant violation, lack of understanding, and no belief that after the 7 days is up they will not go straight back to trying to ]. I won't be the one to propose that, however. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 03:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I don't see how an unblock is possible when Lardlegwarmers clearly still doesn't understand what a broadly construed topic ban means. To be clear, there's no need to ask the "community" whether you can keep your topic ban violation. The only hope for you to be able to obey it is if you are able to decide yourself, especially after you've been told by an admin. While we do try to educate instead of just blocking, the "community" isn't here to help you understand the limits of your topic ban. ] (]) 04:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Should clarify that despite what I said above, I'd weakly oppose extending the topic <del>ban</del> <ins>block</ins> to indefinite at this time. While I'm not hopeful Lardlegwarmers is going to be able to obey it given what they've said, I think it's fine to give them rope after the <del>ban</del> <ins>block</ins> expires and apply normal escalating blocks. Since we're already here, perhaps this will somehow help them understand that yes the community requires you to apply it broadly on anything to do with COVID-19 throughout Misplaced Pages. They should consider this very short rope though and notably the next time they feel they need to ask the community whether they're violating their topic ban when they are, it might be the last time. ] (]) 20:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Sorry mixed up ban and block above twice, now fixed. ] (]) 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose unblock''' as the user looks to have no intention of following Misplaced Pages guidelines with their request. It is only a week and will give a change to think about how to change. ] (]) 04:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose unblock'''. It truly takes some ] to cite a Signpost piece authored by the admin who blocked you to support the proposition that you're being railroaded. '''Weak support for an indef''' because that's what Lardlegwarmers seems to be speedrunning. ] (]/]) 04:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose unblock'''. The topic ban was on ''the topic of COVID-19, broadly construed'', not ''the topic of COVID-19 directly in articlespace''. And the topic ban was violated, not just within less than a day, but ''within three hours'' of it being imposed. On top of that the unblock request could be a case study for ]. I won't call for an indef ], but when the block expires Lardlegwarmers should bear in mind that any further violations of the topic ban will be their last. - ] <sub>]</sub> 10:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''No unblock''' - Basically per Lardlegwarmers: they don't appear to understand why they've been blocked. An indefinite block seems very likely in this editor's future and we certainly should consider cutting out the middle-man and just skipping to it, but I'd like to give them at least some chance here to understand why they were blocked. ] (]) 10:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose unblock''' - While I usually support giving editors ] to demonstrate improvement, this case warrants a longer wait. The user acknowledges pushing a minority POV and failing to disengage per ] norms, but their justification suggests a lack of understanding or acceptance of policies like ], ], and ]. Their off-topic comment in an AE thread, despite knowing the sensitivity of such spaces, and the policy-violating content on their user page, further reflect ongoing disruption. I recommend they take time to reflect and gain a better grasp of Misplaced Pages's collaborative culture before requesting an unblock again. ] • ] ⚽ 11:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose unblock'''. I agree that absent change from this user an indefinite block is likely. For their benefit, if you're the subject of a topic ban, broadly construed, about COVID-19, you need to be editing in an entirely different topic area. Think of something that you're interested in--television shows, football, English gardens, science fiction books? Take a week and think on it. ] ] 11:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose unblock.''' What is there left to say? This conduct feels like appellant's purpose is use Misplaced Pages as a battleground and to soapbox their views rather than to build the encyclopedia-- to remake Misplaced Pages as they think it should be. My feeling is that a week won't be nearly enough. The railroad comment is appallingly full of not understanding that their conduct is not acceptable in a collaborative project. ] (]) 12:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:PS: What Tamzin said in her statement above. ] (]) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Whilst I don't believe user will be able to change their approach, I feel an indef would be premature for now. We should give them a chance to mend their ways. ] (]) 12:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*An account that ] is topic banned, violates that topic ban immediately, and posts a ] unblock request that thoroughly ]. Whoever closes this should be considering indef, not an unblock. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Indeed. ] (]) 14:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose unblock''' this specific response {{tq| Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement}} is indicative of their viewpoints and why they're not ready to contribute. They continue, {{tq|my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed}}. These demonstrate that they still do not get it, and rather project their self-perspective is that they are actually a victim of people who are abusing the rules against them. . I proffer that this is going to be a consistent problem until they acknowledge that they were violating policy. Zero indication that they know how to positively contribute, just perhaps a vague inference that they'll avoid getting in trouble -- because -- we'll I'm not entirely sure they've communicated what they will do differently, but rather simply say that {{tq|a block for this stuff seems harsh.}} ]&thinsp;] 15:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Notwithstanding the harsh situation I presented above, to be clear I '''oppose indef''' for now. A new user should have the opportunity to overcome early (while significant) setbacks, which is what TBANs are designed to encourage. I am encouraged by things like YFNS corrective behavior in a prior AN discussion, and can only be hopeful and AGF that might apply to LLW here. We need more passionate, subject matter experts, as contributors to this project, but they ''absolutely must contribute positively'' and following established PGs. ]&thinsp;] 16:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose unblock''' and support an indef. I am pretty confident in saying that this is where we will be heading after this block ends. ] (]) 15:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose unblock''', clear violations of the topic ban. Don't oppose indef, but I'd like to at least give him the chance to figure out exactly what we expect going forward. --] 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support block, oppose unblock, oppose indef''' - this is a topic-banned newbie's first violation, in the heat of the moment after the restriction was imposed. Tamzin's block was the appropriate response. The unblock request is wholly inadequate, but jumping straight to indef for this sort of violation is a pretty extreme overreach. If they go back to violating their sanction after this block expires, ''then'' let's talk community ban, but they should be given the opportunity to edit constructively while respecting the restriction. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 16:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose unblock, oppose indef...however...''' I am sympathetic to their point of view and their general "right" (we don't really have rights here on WP) to post their opinion on a subject, even one as contentious as COVID-19. I think the blanking of the user page is a step too far. We shouldn't be in the business of deleting negative opinions about Misplaced Pages; while the statement was in reference to COVID-19, it doesn't mention it within the claim and is more a critique of Misplaced Pages at large and mass media than its relation to COVID. I would let the statement on their user page stand/restore it. Larry Sanger's statement is not a ], it is a reasonable ''opinion''. There were loads of statements/claims about COVID/its origin/mandates/treatment/vaccines that, despite their widespread implementations and presentation as "the science", later turned out to be misleading or untested conjecture (examples: no studies on masking effectiveness with a large population vs the coronavirus, 6 foot spacing, lying to the American public about wearing masks because health care professionals needed them more, lab leak theory, military connections to the Wuhan Institute, US funding of WI, etc). '''HOWEVER''', civil discourse ''is'' essential. That means that discussions about COVID were fraught with battlegrounds and bludgeoning. As such, we have additional restrictions for COVID discussions and other contentious topics and LLW needs to follow them. LLW did not do so and has shown a consistent flaunting of these restrictions and a weeklong block is a reasonable start. In summary, the quote isn't unreasonable to leave on their user page (give them that latitude), but a weeklong block for the other behavior should stand. ] (]) 16:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:They added two comments to their userpage. Both were critical of Misplaced Pages. One was also critical of ] and other aspects of the US government's COVID response. I removed the latter. It doesn't matter whether Sanger's opinion is fringe or not; what matters is that he was talking about COVID. I would be quite the hypocrite to remove something from someone's userpage just for criticizing Misplaced Pages, as I have a fair bit of that on my own userpage. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::There's some pretty big overlap there in criticism of Fauci and how it is handled on Misplaced Pages. Again, I don't feel THAT is a significant violation of COVID editing restrictions (beyond the fact that they did it despite such an editing restriction). Anyone can completely skip over it if they wish. {{ping|Tamzin}} playing devil's advocate for a moment, what if I published the same thing on my user page? Would it be ok? Would it be ok if I posted it on LLW's user page (as long as LLW was ok with it, of course)? I realize we're getting in the weeds of a "what-if..." but if so, what's the substantive difference between me putting it on a user page and LLW doing the same? ] (]) 17:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::If you posted it to your userpage, it would be fine (although not that constructive), because you are not topic-banned from COVID. If you posted it to their userpage, that would be ] for a banned editor, since I'd struggle to believe you have an independent reason to think that particular quote belongs on that particular page. {{PB}} If you really want to fight the removal from the userpage, feel free to create a subsection here, but I stand by the removal. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::I'm not fighting the removal per se. Just wondering where the boundaries are and if it's wise to have such a boundary. ] (]) 17:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::The boundary is ]. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 19:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Buffs: In the ''realm of hypothetical'' I would presume that if that quote had been on LLW user page for a long time, in a sea of content, pre-existing AN, then it ''might even still be up today.'' However, on the other hand, to post that after the TBAN was imposed is nothing other than what can be seen as ''abject defiance'' to the ban. But beyond that, it simply violates plain language of the ban, as it applies to {{tq|all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic}}, so I proffer that Tamzin is clearly in the right here. To your charged statement about ''if you were to post the same thing'' to your user page, prior to your statement here and presuming you were not under a TBAN, it would ''not be questioned'' one iota. However, as a response to this discussion, it could be construed (but not technically violating) the principles of ] and I would caution against it. Moreover, you reinstating it on LLW talk page would be a far closer in the proximity of violating PROXYING. ]&thinsp;] 18:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::The fact that the comment only came after the topic ban is key here. I'm fairly sure I've seen several cases where there's something on an editor's user page which is covered by a topic ban but which no one has said or done anything about because it was there from before the topic ban. In fact I'm fairly sure I even remember a case where someone asked specifically if they could modify or remove something on their user page which related to their talk page which was technically under the topic ban (probably gensex). I think this was allowed especially since it related to their personal life rather than some comment on something, although they were told just this once is best. There might have even been a case where an editor wanted to do some more editing or formatting of something under their topic ban and was either denied or told only this once. IIRC, there was also an editor who was happy to be able to finally change someone on their userpage covered by their topic ban once it was lifted. A topic ban is a topic ban. I'd note that if someone makes an extremely constructive edit to an article that is not covered by ] we still treat this as a topic ban violation, although it's something much more beneficial for the project than an editor being able to repost random ramblings about Misplaced Pages they want to share. ] (]) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose unblock, oppose indef''' - The topic ban violation was clear cut. Let's hope Lardlegwarmers will read a bit about how to avoid topic ban violations, or else indef block is not too far for them. ] (]) 16:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose unblock, extend block indefinitely''' - Lardle should try to demonstrate good behavior on another wiki for six months before asking for a SO. Let's hope that this user should handle contentious topics carefully in the future. ] (]) 18:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose unblock''' but no reason to indef, a block has already been imposed. If the user continues to violate the TBAN, than a longer block might be warranted. ''']]''' 02:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Comments from involved editors ===
	'''Dispute details.''' It seems clear to me that a reference to a category that contains lists of wikipedians (links to the User space) is a self-reference that should be avoided. Yesterday, I happened upon the ] article to do some research - noticed the link in the ] section and removed it. ] has reverted the change twice - with comments ''"(rv to last edit by Stevietheman; the "metadata" is staying)"'' and ''"(rv; it's staying)."'' I brought the ] and the only other editor to comment agreed that it should not be in the article space. I have , and linked to it on instead.
			* Going to open a new subsection here since I've made comments to ] two weeks ago. I wish I could say I was surprised that this ended in tears but that would be untrue (though I did have some hopes the comment a month ago indicating they were aware pro-fringe POV-pushing was sactionable was a signal they were intending to modify their behaviour). As bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez points out, making thinly veiled attacks is not exactly the type of thing looked favourably upon in an unblock request. Nor is making polemical statements on one's user page, whether within the scope of the ban or not, likely to convince the community of one's inclination and ability to ]. Lardlegwarmers, if you do really want to return to editing, especially if you want to appeal your topic ban in 6 months or a year, I would strongly advise reading ] and following the advice there, especially ]. Complaining about Hob's conduct won't help you here, because the block (and it's a rather short one) and ban are about you, not Hob. Given your comment that {{tq|apparently two wrongs make a right}}, I had hoped that you were already also considering your own behaviour, but I would like to make it very clear: taking the role of one of the "wrongs" to address someone else's "borderline uncivil" behaviour is ]. Whether Hob crosses the line is on them, but what you do is entirely on you. ] (] • ]) 07:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			* As I was involved in the discussion to topic ban LLW I think I count as an involved editor. With that said I would discourage an early lifting of this block, which seems appropriate considering that LLW's response to the topic ban was to immediately violate the topic ban. ] (]) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Also, perhaps LLW wasn't aware of this, but people who aren't uninvolved administrators aren't generally supposed to put comments into the "results" section of an AE filing. ] (]) 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			* I was there.. Three thousand ye-- No. More like one, two days ago. I seriously believe Lard Leg Warmers is one of two situations: '''1:''' ] and unable to understand the concepts of medical science as if they were a Facebook mother invested in "essential oils" and "holistic medicine" rather than trusting medical and scientific experts; '''2:''' ] and simply f<s>**</s>king with us for no good reason and leading us around, and around, and around, and around, and around the bend because they get a rise out of it. Either way, my advice: don't get led around the bend, '''advise indef block''' for either ] or ]. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::], those kinds of personal assumptions about their character are unnecessary to this discussion. Instead of speculation on who they are elsewhere, let's just focus on their behavior on Misplaced Pages. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Lardlegwarmers' statement clearly shows that they have learned little from the sanction. They should demonstrate such before there is any lifting. ] (]) 18:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Usage of 'Notable people' vis-a-vis 'Notable person' in section headers ==
	Am I correct here that this is a self-reference that should be in the article space - it seems stupid to edit war about something like this so I am going to abandon my attempts to follow the style guide here for a bit, but think that some clarification from an admin could be helpful in resolving the issue. Thx in adv <font color="#06C">]</font> 13:36, 31 May 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.
	: I've protected this article. --] 13:44, 31 May 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'm not sure protection is really necessary - as I am not planning on reverting anymore. I'm just looking for some clarification - since it seems so obvious to me that the style guide states that self-references are not to be used and ] (who I assume read the style guide links I provided) disagrees. Thanks for such a quick and decisive response though! <font color="#06C">]</font> 13:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
			:This seems like a question for ], not ] as it doesn't involve administrator actions. AN isn't a general Help forum for questions about editing. You could even try asking at ] or the Help Desk. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Reporting Administrator Abuse ==
	::: It wasn't protected due to you, it was protected due to Stevietheman. You were doing the right thing. Unnecessary self-references are just plain absurd. ] (]) 06:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{Atop|I'm going to do the OP a favor and close this with no action against them. Essentially, the OP's misbehavior was pointed out by Acalamari and the OP is trying to present it as Acalamri's misbehavior. If another administrator thinks sanctions against the OP are warranted, that's up to them.--] (]) 23:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			] is abusing his moderator powers in order to post unconstructive comments on talk pages, specifically when we were talking about if we should delete the US 2028 election or not, he said "that Drumpf supporters want there to be no more elections so they can remain in power forever doesn't mean we adhere to their delusions by deleting articles here". This is clearly unconstructive, and treating the talk page as a forum. I didn't know he was a moderator when I was removing his comment, and now he left all of these messages on my page and is saying I'm the real vandal here. ] (]) 22:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	== admin tools? ==
	here's an idea, just as an experiment would someone mind temporarily (+)sysop-ing an AOL sharedip? just to see if the result was productive, and maybe could lead to future periods of short term anon syopsings? and maybe even a syops for a day program? or a syops in training internship? seems like a good idea--] 17:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	:No it doesn't. Though ] does have admin trainning for ''registered'' users :).''']'''<sup>]</sup> 17:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
			:So there's two things here.
	::I don't think that would be a good idea, since the only people who can stop a sysop would be a ], and they are hard to come by. Also, I am not sure you can sysop an IP, I recall it being discussed somewhere... ] <sup>]</sup> 18:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
			:* First, TopVat19sEver, you removed other users comments from a talk page (not allowed). A user voicing their opinion is '''not''' vandalism, not in the slightest. If you have a problem with what another user has said on the talkpage, rather than ] (which is only allowed in very specific situations), you should bring it for discussion at an appropriate noticeboard, or preferably ask them to change their own comment.
	:::Ha... Ha... Ha.. Ha... Ha... ''']''' ]|] 05:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
			:* Second, Acalamari, could you please refrain from calling people "Drumpf supporters" and ] on the reasons for nominating an article for deletion? While you're entitled to your opinions, that's borderline (at best) ], especially when you call them "delusional".
	::: Short answer: No, you can't sysop an IP.
			: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)
	::: Long answer: anonymous users are given the default permissions assigned to all users. On ], they're given anything that is assigned to ''all'' users, as they are assigned the permissions in the <tt>"*"</tt> group. That said, you can assign sysop privileges to an anonymous user, but that would mean giving it to ''all'' anonymous users, as well as ''all'' registered users. Since that is never going to happen, get an account, which can be assigned extra privileges. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 05:29, 1 June 2006 (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)
	== Advice Requested for Nut (goddess) ==
			{{Abot}}
			== Ban appeal from Rathfelder ==
	There is a formatting issue taking place at ], where we are unsure how to format to make it more obvious that the reference is for the hieroglyphics. I don't know of any specific place to turn for help on this, so I figured that if the Admins cant' tell me how to do it, they can at least point me the right way.
			* {{userlinks|Rathfelder}}
	] 20:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
			* ] for sockpuppetry, vote-stacking and undisclosed COI writing of a BLP attack page
			* ] declined by the community
			* ] not submitted for review by the community for not complying with ]
			Rathfelder has submitted the following ban appeal on their talk page and asked me to copy it here:
	:Known bug. ] 06:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{tqb|I realise that what I did was wrong - more wrong than I thought it was at the time. The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur. I accept that I was wrong to create sockpuppets and I apologise. I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that. I did that really because I was trying to defend the work I had done for the Socialist Health Association for the previous 20 years. I did a lot of edits on that page, but they were, until the last few, about the history of the organisation, mostly adding to its list of distinguished members - largely before I was involved with it, and mostly before I was born. They were not at all controversial. I was unfairly sacked and my opponents started using Misplaced Pages against me. The row got into the media. I accept that I should not have done that. I should have resisted the temptation to use Misplaced Pages in the dispute.<br>
			I have spent 2 years working on Simple English and Wikimedia. I have not set up any sockpuppets or edited anything where I had conflicts. I plan to continue with Wikimedia, as there is plenty there to keep me busy, but I would like to be able, in particular, to add pictures to articles - now I have found my way round the enormous Wikimedia resource. I also sometimes come across articles in English wikipedia which need amendment.}} ] (] · ]) 17:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Conditional support''' - If there's been no socking ''during'' the ban. ] (]) 17:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] Move ==
			*'''Question''' during the January 2024 unblock request Rathfelder said they would be willing to accept a restriction on editing articles related to BLPs or healthcare orgs. Are they still willing to accept those edit restrictions if they are un-banned? Furthermore, in January 2024 there was, at the time, no evidence of any further socking. Can we confirm that good behaviour has continued? ] (]) 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Appealing April 4 2024, indefinite WP:CUP ban and indefinite 1-nomination GAN limit ==
	Normally the monthly archival of the ] article can be done by any editor. However, the ] has been edited a couple times and therefore the customary move of the ] article to ] must be done by an administrator. This is really just as an FYI; this can be taken care of whenever an admin decides to get around to it and does not necessarily have to be done now. ]]] 00:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
			At ], I was instructed by closer ] that I could appeal these in a year and it has been 9.5 months. I am appealing because the CUP entry deadline is traditionally January 31. See ] through ]. This year the ] verbiage says "The competition will begin on 1 January 2025 and signups will continue throughout the year". I am just noticing the new language as I am putting this appeal in. Nonetheless, I am requesting time off for good behavior on the ban.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 18:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose''' The utter cluelessness of this appeal is more than enough reason not to do this. I was going to write more but decided that coaching you on how to be less clueless is not in the project's best interest. You've been here long enough that you should be able to see for yourself how terrible this appeal is. ] ] 19:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] ==
			:'''Oppose''' and recommend we disallow any further appeals for another year. I'm concerned otherwise we'll just be back here in April. --] (]) 19:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose for now''' It's pretty clear that most people in that discussion were supporting an indef ban from the Cup, not an 8-month ban. This appeal doesn't address people's concerns with Tony's editing relating to the Cup, so should be denied. --] 19:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			: '''Oppose''' The original discussion wasn't linked, it can be found ]. At that place it is very clear that {{tq|here is almost unanimous support for an indefinite ban on participation in the WikiCup}}, so, no, this appeal should not be passed. It is, honestly, astonishing that TonyTheTiger has been here very nearly two decades but hasn't taken on board the way the community works ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose''' for no rational that they understand why they were banned or what even led to their ban, and rather simply a sentiment of "I really want to participate". Please understand that '''your ban was indefinite''', so the one year appeal opportunity is your potential opportunity "time off for good behavior". ]&thinsp;] 19:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose'''. Appealing early on the basis that you won't be able to sign up to do the thing you were banned from doing is certainly a unique take. &spades;]&spades; ] 21:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			==Requesting info==
	{{User|YINever}}, as well as his anon-IP {{User|141.153.74.246}} are the sockpuppets of {{User|TJive}}, who claimed that he left Misplaced Pages for good. Not only he keeps adding right-wing POV into articles, he has put suggestions on his user page and wells as talk pages of certain articles , suggestion that I'm apparantly a "Communist web spy employed by the Chinese government". He has restored vandalism deleted by admins, calling it "restoring valuable comment in proper place". User has also vandalised several articles to fit his political agenda, removing references without discussion, adding weasel words into articles to blackwash leftists . --] 04:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
			Hello. I have come across several image files and the U.S. Gov. PD licensing seems to be incorrect. Four of these images and possibly another one could be copyright violations - if I can figure out how to find this type of information on their websites. However, since I am unable to find that information at this moment, I am wondering which group of Misplaced Pages editors work on this sort of thing so that maybe I can get some help with this. I will post the files here for information purposes. Also, there may be more copyright violations by this particular editor who seems to have a propensity for downloading image files. Below are the files:
	:Please see ]. --] 04:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
			# ]
	::Not sure what he intends to accomplish ''here'', considering there is no actual policy violation described in this rant.
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			Further comment: The above TN file - File:AppalachianTN.jpg - is covered by the TN.GOV "linking policy" and can be found . So this Misplaced Pages image file is still not licensed appropriately, although I have no idea what the correct Misplaced Pages licensing would be.
			I will notify the editor who downloaded these files that I have opened a discussion here. Well, now that I have taken it this far, the editor in question is: {{userlinks|Brian.S.W}}. However, the above image files might be too stale to be considered for any action. I leave that up to the Admins. If you look on their talk page, they have previously been blocked for copyright violations. ---] (]) 20:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	::BTW, I "claimed that left Misplaced Pages for good"? Mind showing where? --] 04:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 21:03, 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	2	2
MfD	0	0	0	11	11
FfD	0	0	5	18	23
RfD	0	0	3	48	51
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 0 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 6 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 0 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 38 sockpuppet investigations
• 50 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 2 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 0 requests for RD1 redaction
• 94 elapsed requested moves
• 1 Pages at move review
• 20 requested closures
• 14 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.

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.

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

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

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

---

• 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)

  Whilst I don't believe user will be able to change their approach, I feel an indef would be premature for now. We should give them a chance to mend their ways. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from involved editors

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

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

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

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

• 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)

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Reporting Administrator Abuse

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

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

---

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

So there's two things here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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.

Ban appeal from Rathfelder

• Rathfelder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Community banned in November 2022 for sockpuppetry, vote-stacking and undisclosed COI writing of a BLP attack page
• Appeal in January 2023 declined by the community
• Second appeal in October 2023 not submitted for review by the community for not complying with WP:GAB

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

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

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

• Conditional support - If there's been no socking during the ban. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Question during the January 2024 unblock request Rathfelder said they would be willing to accept a restriction on editing articles related to BLPs or healthcare orgs. Are they still willing to accept those edit restrictions if they are un-banned? Furthermore, in January 2024 there was, at the time, no evidence of any further socking. Can we confirm that good behaviour has continued? Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Oppose The utter cluelessness of this appeal is more than enough reason not to do this. I was going to write more but decided that coaching you on how to be less clueless is not in the project's best interest. You've been here long enough that you should be able to see for yourself how terrible this appeal is. Beeblebrox 19:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose and recommend we disallow any further appeals for another year. I'm concerned otherwise we'll just be back here in April. --Yamla (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose for now It's pretty clear that most people in that discussion were supporting an indef ban from the Cup, not an 8-month ban. This appeal doesn't address people's concerns with Tony's editing relating to the Cup, so should be denied. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose The original discussion wasn't linked, it can be found here. At that place it is very clear that here is almost unanimous support for an indefinite ban on participation in the WikiCup, so, no, this appeal should not be passed. It is, honestly, astonishing that TonyTheTiger has been here very nearly two decades but hasn't taken on board the way the community works ~ Lindsay 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose for no rational that they understand why they were banned or what even led to their ban, and rather simply a sentiment of "I really want to participate". Please understand that your ban was indefinite, so the one year appeal opportunity is your potential opportunity "time off for good behavior". TiggerJay (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. Appealing early on the basis that you won't be able to sign up to do the thing you were banned from doing is certainly a unique take. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Requesting info

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

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

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

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

Category:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards