Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 03:08, 6 June 2006 view sourceRick Block (talk | contribs)Administrators31,132 edits e-mail accessibility← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 23:12, 17 January 2025 view source Buffs (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,493 edits →Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request: oppose
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. Thanks for the heads up. -] 05:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::There also is ], resulting from today's slander from Primetime? --] 18:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Increasing (desperate) personal . Does WP have a more appropriate place for ongoing, long-term vandalism of this sort? --] 01:20, 6 June 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)
	== 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)
	== 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)
	== ] 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))
	== 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)
	== Deleting from page history ==
	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)
	Contact a user with ] permissions, who can remove the revision direct. ''']''' | ] 23:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	I'll do it - i want to test the new oversight permission thing. ] | ] 23:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*D'oh, I'm so stupid for forgetting about Oversight. ''']''' (]) <em><strong>]</strong></em> 16:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	**What's oversight? I've never heard of it before and I cannot find anything on it by searching. -- ] 07:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Many Speedy Deletions of talk pages ==
	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)
	: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)
	::I think I had put ] on ]. ] 22:04, 29 May 2006 (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)
	:::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)
	::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'.
	::While this might technically be deletion discussion it could also be couneted as nonsense, trolling, and other things. ] 22:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::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)
	::::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)
	:::::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)
	::::::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)
	:::::::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)
	::::::::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)
	:::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)
	:::*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.
	::::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)
	: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)
	== Girls' Bike Club ==
	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....
	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}}
	:] :) <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 04:17, 30 May 2006 (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)
	: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)
	: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)
	== ] ==
	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)
	== ] ==
	has the general aroma of a ]/] sock, and a misleading user ID. ] (]) 11:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	:What about Wombdpsw and TBeatty and Cal Burrattino ... What was your evidence again? ahh yes he wrote "lets keep it NPOV" ... Good one. How many more people you 3 going to accuse of being sock puppets, this is beyond fishing its intimidation tactics. TBeatty asks for clarification on Merecat and all of sudden people are accuing the user of being merecat, Burrattino edits an article the 3 hold dear and he is merecat also. Wombdpsw edits Iraq War and he also is a sock puppet. I find it all to conveinent that anyone who opposes the view of RyanFreisling, Mr Tibbs Nescio and Phr end up being accused of being sock puppets. --] ] 17:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	==Proposal for spam noticeboard==
	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.
	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.
	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)
	::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)
	:::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)
	::::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)
	:::::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?
	:::::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)
	==Newpage patrol==
	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)
	: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? ==
	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)
	== Block bug? ==
	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)
	: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)
	== Savage deletion ?? ==
	Recently, the talk sub-page ] was victime of an unjustified speedy deletion.
	Several days later the page was undeleted by ]. See the respective ''']'''.
	Now the page is deleted again, WITHOUT ANY DELETION PROCESS !??
	Even if I ] by a move – like it was proposed – there are several back-links now broken, cf. ].
	Thanks for resolving this problem due to '''an obvious case of savage deletion''' by an anonymous administrator.&nbsp; -- ] 18:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	: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)
	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)
	:The only thing deleted was a cross-namespace redirect. Your subpage continues to exist at ]. ] 18:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	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)
	::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)
	:::::I was referencing a discussion last month which said that Cyde should be defrocked for the userbox deletions. ''']''' (]) <em><strong>]</strong></em> 16:31, 4 June 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'''.
	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)
	::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)
	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)
	Finally, I decided to move back the page to its original place. And so I will corrige the back-links to the user page within the next days. <br> I understand the motivations of user Xoloz, even if I prefered a new advise. I also hope that everyone can live with the solution I choised. <br> -- ] 22:00, 4 June 2006 (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 highly doubt that he's a WoW sockpuppet, as none of his contribs have anything to do with "on wheels." ] ]]] <sub>]</sub> 00:15, 5 June 2006 (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)
	:Why is there such a template for a user who has never been blocked? ]|] 02:08, 31 May 2006 (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)
	== <nowiki>{{NPOV-section}}</nowiki> template removal ==
	<!-- 00:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC) -->
	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.
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=X-Men%3A_The_Last_Stand&diff=56015168&oldid=56009478
	==]==
	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)
	: {{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.
	: 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)
	:: ProhibitOnions has reverted himself and apologised. --] 00:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	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)
	== Need more admins on ] duty ==
	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)
	== Zeq banned from ]. ==
	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)
	:FWIW I totally agree with your action. ] 02:56, 31 May 2006 (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)
	<s>Zeq has just violated the ban. </s>] 04:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Nothing said anything about the Talk page, only the actual article. --] ] 04:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	Whoops, you're correct - template says he can still edit the talk page.] 04:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Blocked for votespamming for the articles' AFD ''']''' (]) <em><strong>]</strong></em> 22:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	::This block was in clear violation of several wikipedia policies. Please see this: ] and replace the block with a warnning. I appologize from having to work from this and can not log in, but it seems despite the unblock template put on my talk page no one is paying attention. Singed: Zeq editing from: ] 10:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	== A vandal ==
	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)
	::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)
	::see the damage , never having been repaired - (I won't touch a lemma such as Heydrich]. ] 10:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	== List of Wikipedians in Main Article Space ==
	Hi - I need some clarification. Should links to categories that are lists of users be included in the main Article space?
	'''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.
	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)
	: I've protected this article. --] 13:44, 31 May 2006 (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)
	::: 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)
	== 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)
	::Wrong. That's not what admin coach program is. -- <small> ]</small> 17:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	::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)
	:::Ha... Ha... Ha.. Ha... Ha... ''']''' ]|] 05:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	::: Short answer: No, you can't sysop an IP.
	::: 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)
	== Advice Requested for Nut (goddess) ==
	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.
	] 20:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Known bug. ] 06:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] Move ==
	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)
	:Done. I've moved the June entries to Current events as well ''']''' (]) <em><strong>]</strong></em> 13:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	{{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)
	: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.
	::BTW, I "claimed that left Misplaced Pages for good"? Mind showing where? --] 04:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	] is repeated reverting the article ] and keeps removing warnings from his talk page even though he has been repeatedly warned for it. See ]. ] keeps deleting his talk page warning. ] is currently in a revert war with ] at the The Epoch Times article. He keeps reverting without attempting to reach consensus. ] apparently is a new account and intent of deletion of his talk page warnings and revert war over ] article. ] 01:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	:See the same below. ] 01:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	==] (what to do with neo-nazi provocation)==
	I've blocked the guy indefinetly as I think that's what we're supposed to do with cases like this one, but I'm posting this notice here to check if my action was right. The guy's edits are nothing but vandalism, so he definetly deserves to be blocked for a time. But, the reasons I indef blocked him are (the guy on picture is ]), and . Did I do the right thing? Is it OK to indef block a guy for putting a picture of ] on his user page? --] 10:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	: I support the ban. I've also requested ] to translate the message he left on ]'s talk page - I don't like a Serb leaving a message on a Croatian nationalist's talk page in a language most admins on the English Misplaced Pages are not going to understand. --] (]) 10:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	:: I provided the tranlation. --] 10:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Yep, possibly a borderline case but glad he's blocked now rather than in a hundred edits and an ArbCom case time. ] 21:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Thank you for blocking this pro-] user. --] ] ] ] 23:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Puzzled at identifying that picture as Hitler, though. --]] 00:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::: A sort-of associate of Hitler, really. ] (]) 02:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::: As I noted in my initial posting, the guy on the picture is ]. --] 13:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::I don't think putting a picture of Pavelic warrants a ban. Should we start banning people for having the picture of Mao or Guevara on their userpage? ] 11:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	A very interesting developement just occured. A user (which never edited no articles even near the Balcans thematics) contacted me complaining that he can't login because of my block of ] (he stepped on an auto-blocked IP, obviously). I appologised and asked him to wait for 24 hours so the block expires. He agreed and pointed out that this already happened when another user got blocked. I took a look at the user he mentioned and was puzzled to discover the user which obviously shared the same IP with ] is, in fact, Serbian editor currently blocked for a limited period of time. I think we could have a case of sockpuppetry (where Serbian editor got blocked, then got annoyed at being blocked and then engaged in sockpuppetry trying to discredit the Croatian side) and I think that it would be appropriate to reset this user's block. I myself wouldn't like to do that since I'm from Croatia and would probably be accused of making all of this up, but if some other admin wishes to investigate this case, I'll provide username of the guy which contacted me complaining about the auto-block so somebody can contact him... --] 14:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Possible copyvio issues ==
	Could I get someone more experienced to take a peek at the contributions of ], please? It looks like this user's started a number of pages that appear to be copyvios from various places. Might need some attention. Thanks. ] 22:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*I have placed {{]}} on his user talk page; if he continues, please warn him with <nowiki>{{subst:cv}}</nowiki>. '']''&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 22:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*I marked one for speedy deletion, but the others (except for ], in which all revisions prior to the most recent one were copyvios) I could not find the sources of. --] 22:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	**Tagged ], too (I had tagged ] previously) --] 22:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	***] is the only one left. I can't find a source for any revisions. --] 22:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Some users are breaking NPOV by trying to second-guess media reports and add doubting attributes to them. No discussion on the /Talk page so far. Please take a look and make these guys respect facts and discussion. --]
	:Content dispute so far. 217 has already violated ] today, I have warned him. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Status of religious freedom in Canada ==
	A new (disturbed and sort-of angry) user is causing chaos on the page ]. He obviously doesn't like the content of the article (which he also edits), but I can not communicate with him in any useful way. Now he is messing up the entire history of our discussion including my last talk comments, and filling the page with junk. I am not familiar with handling disputes with individuals like this. Please help or tell me how I am to react without getting myself in trouble. He is making edits under ], ], ], and ]. Thanks. ] 02:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I've left a message at that user's talk page, and gave some pointers as to good behaviour. Though I must say I agree with his basic argument that that page is currently a polemic rather than an encyclopedia article. - ] 02:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	::It looks to me like a good example of how something can be thoroughly referenced and be in breach of ] and ] -- it is a otherwise unpublished collection of ] facts meant to drive the reader to a conclusion. ] 03:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Thanks, and I hear you both on all fronts. It's a newer article which I expect will evolve significantly through thoughtful input. ] 03:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	] breaks 3RR during ongoing discussion to force his pov on a style issue. Please revert to pre-3RR state and tell him to use the discussion page.
	His reversals:
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Haditha_incident&diff=56417812&oldid=56417436
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Haditha_incident&diff=56483358&oldid=56482943
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Haditha_incident&diff=56484383&oldid=56484028
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Haditha_incident&diff=56484899&oldid=56484554
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Haditha_incident&diff=56485696&oldid=56485296
	:Please use ] for 3RR reports. --] <sup>]</sup> 12:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	:: Sorry and thanks, done.
	Incorrect accusation. Further, to block for something years old (hyperbole) seems a bit much.]<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 23:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Chaning quotations ==
	Does changing an attributed quotation fall under the heading of editorial dispute or vandalism? —'']'' 12:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	:That's a content dispute. Its not a quotation its a statement about the source. Shell <sup>]</sup> 14:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Well, here we are again. This is a continuation of , which I alerted everyone to a few days ago. I had blocked SuperDeng and ] for 72 hours for this continuing fight of theirs. Specifically, Deng had reverted 40 of Kurt's edits in a 3 hour period (which you can see in . Well the block expired and Deng went right back at Leyman, as he has been doing for 2 months now. is the edit that is causing the problem. Deng has been accusing Kurt of vandalism all along. Well. The edit I just cited is not vandalism. In fact, Kurt's edit is better than Deng's. And it's more than just the ] article. We also have ], where Deng has reverted Kurt by . And he's done this twice. And I and others have tried reasoning with Deng. We've pointed out policies. We encouraged a RfC and then a RfAr (to which he responded with . So he won't even follow basic dispute resolution. Yes, he tried a request for comment but that's been it. So, because of all of this, I've blocked Deng for 1 week. If someone disagrees, let me know. --]<sup>]</sup> 14:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Has ] been blocked too? - ] 15:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Not yet. I am keeping my eye on him. The stuff that Deng reverted was not vandalism. If Kurt goes back to his old habits, I will block him. At the moment, it's not warranted. --]<sup>]</sup> 00:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Strike that. :) Kurt was also in violation of 3RR. So I blocked him for 5 1/2 days. It's for a lesser time because Kurt has one less 3RR vio and he hasn't been stalking anyone. On the other hand, I really wish that when they see each other editing something, they just stayed away or alerted an admin to take care of it. --]<sup>]</sup> 00:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::If only there were someone crazy enough to volunteer to mentor them both. - ] 01:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Yep. Well I told Deng that he should try arbitration and he told me that the arbcom is "too backed up", which isn't a reason. Instead, he's decided to be a vigilante...and no matter what Kurt has done, we can't done that. --]<sup>]</sup> 05:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::I can try mentoring Deng but I would leave it to others to deal with Kurt. --] 05:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::Teach him civility. He actually just lectured me on . I have 26,000+ edits! He has a condescending, "I'm always right" attitude with everyone. He refuses to compromise. He doesn't listen to reason. Oi. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::Indef-block him. ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> at 10:31 ] <small>(])</small>
	:::::::::Actually, could you do it? Part of the problem I've had with him is that he seems to think that I'm some sort of rogue admin, even though I've never had another admin overturn any of my blocks. I'm not a block happy admin. I tend to use that power relatively sparingly. Anyway. I think we need to show some solidarity here. I'd appreciate it. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	Indefinitey blocked SuperDeng, with message on his talk page - someone please watch there and protect it if needed, or respond accordingly to any unblock request, cheers. ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> at 10:38 ] <small>(])</small>
	:Thank you! I should kiss you. But I won't. :) And yes, I added it to my WL earlier this evening. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	It is my impression that although hotheaded, arrogant and disruptive, Deng is still an asset to wikipedia. He made a great number of very good edits related to the Eastern Front during the World War II and in his vendetta with Kurt in quite a number of cases he indeed is fixing some subtle vandalism. As a matter of fact me and Irpen had been planing to give him a barnstar on the V-Day for his editing, then delayed this because of his disruptive behavior.
	] has agreed to be his mentor, I never tried mentorship before, but I could try my chanses as a co-mentor if it is needed. Please give him a second chance, if it works, it would be worth the nervous energy spent due to his scandalous behavior. ] 04:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	It's a shame that Kurt, with his pesky pro-Nazi trolling and no valuable contributions at all, has not been permabanned as yet. I support the idea of mentorship for Deng, however. Deng is a potentially valuable contributor, but his editing needs to be supervised by a team of more experienced wikipedians. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 07:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	This article was originally named ] even though no official investigation has been concluded and as of yet everything is speculative. Per ] and ], I moved the page to a more neutral title of ]. I feel it is not Misplaced Pages's place to look at this ongoing speculation and make the declaration that this is in fact a massacre. However, ] has moved the page back citing "more Google hits" for the original title. On Talk I explained that Google hits have no bearing on ] and an article's need to be neutral. The dispute, however, is ongoing. —] 17:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	:There is also an issue with Category:War crimes being added to the article for much the same reason. I removed the category pending the results of the ongoing investigations. A user has raised concern on the Talk page, but I have explained my edits. Hopefully an admin can comment in an effort to proactively resolve this issue. —] 17:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	I restored this userpage because of a ''polite'' request from the user. SlimVirgin never explained to me why she blanked and protected it, but I think it's because HK insinuates on the page that even administrators can push POVs and vote-stack sometimes (I don't see any problem with admitting that publicly). Since it's unprotected, feel free to nominate it for ] if you would rather not see ]. But don't blank it again; that leads to wheel warring and other bad things. I disagree with HK about many things and I am not contesting HK's block. ] <small>]</small> 21:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	: ''']''' (]) <em><strong>]</strong></em> 22:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	::The page does appear to be an attack on Misplaced Pages, its editors, and funders. However MFD is set up for these purposes so that is an appropriate venue to discuss the page's deletion. -] 22:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	''Page has been ], so further discussion should be done there. ] <small>]</small> 01:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)''
	==Abusive editor is an admin on another wiki?==
	It's come to my attention that ] is an administrator on the Serbian Misplaced Pages (http://sr.wikipedia.org). I seriously wonder whether this is a good idea, given his extremely poor conduct on the English Misplaced Pages (see my comments under ] above) and his continuous pushing of a hardline nationalist POV despite repeated requests to abide by ]. It's absolutely not the sort of behaviour one should expect of an administrator. If he was an administrator on this wiki he would certainly have been desysopped. But should administrator misconduct on one wiki result in desysopping in another, or do we treat each wiki as a separate realm insulated from all of the others? -- ] 22:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	:This may indicate disturbing things about sr, but I don't imagine "we" have much influence on who sr decides to give admin rights to. ] 22:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	::You can just mention this on ], and users will discuss there after your report and arguments. --] 23:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::It could be an imposter, I suppose a coordinated checkuser could determine if it is likely they are the same. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::It seems to me that there is a lot of pushing around of the term "nationalist" when anything about a east-European contributor or anyone who is involved in such articles. Still, there maybe actual truth in this one, as there as been evidence given higher up the page. ''']''' (]) <em><strong>]</strong></em> 23:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Unfortunately we do have a problem with some users - many of them emigrés, not actual residents of the countries involved - using Misplaced Pages to push ultranationalist POVs, casting their side as victims and the other side as villains. This is true of users representing all sides in the Balkan conflicts, in my experience. Because of this, many of our articles on the Balkans are very badly written, unreferenced and full of POV commentary. I think it's highly likely that this is a multi-wiki problem due to the users involved being active on several wikis. However, I'm not aware of any mechanisms for dealing with multi-wiki problems, hence my question above. -- ] 23:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	:The last time I was around on sr.wiki, adminship was automatic. Pretty much everybody who stuck around for some time (a month or two) and had some number of edits got adminship. That, imho, explains a lot of it. --] 23:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I imagine that many, if not all of the small wikis will go through teething problems as they grow. sr is still very small (though by no means the smallest), it has about 32,000 pages and about 3,700 registered users, with 39 admins (see ]). --] (]) 00:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	Paraphrasing ]:
	<pre>
	<spectie> don't they realise that the national language wikipedias are
	only used to coordinate POV attacks on the English language wikipedia?
	</pre>
	Joking aside, this is a real problem. The certainly has its problems too. Unfortunately there is not much that can be done, as insufficient non-X speak the various language. - ] 00:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	I still don't see why this is an enwiki admin's problem. He's not an admin here, and never will be. He cannot possibly have exhibited administrator misconduct here having never been one, and we most certainly have no authority to desysop someone on another wiki by mincing about it on this page. If you have some problem with the user, as evidently you do, then use our dispute resolution procedures. If you're not asking for admin intervention, then don't use up time on the admin noticeboard with it. -] - ] 02:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Thank you, Splash. I can't see how I can lose my admin priviledges on sr wiki, if I do something bad on en wiki. It just doesn't make sense. I have contributed a great deal to sr wiki, with over 6000 edits, and many new articles. ChrisO's goal of spreading his own POV, and his hate of me, has went too far, with him trying to ban me from a different Misplaced Pages, even though he has never seen what kind of edits I have made there. And anyways, for a user to lose his admin priviledges, a vote must be organized, and I doubt that the sr wiki admins will vote to expell me for misbehaiving on en wiki, and contributing greatly to sr wiki. Also, note that I've never made a single vandalist act on sr wiki, so think about who's the source of the problem here. Thank you. --] ] ] ] 04:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	::You can contribute a deal over one milion edits, that is not important. Your conducts on sr Wiki is something what is problematic: protecting pages whitout motive and consulting other admins, threating for blocking other users also whitout reason. So, if you thing that you are St. Mary whitout sin on sr Wiki, you are note right. --] 13:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Oh, you're the one to talk. You '''were''' an admin on sr wiki, but you '''lost''' your admin priviledges after behaiving very... well, don't wanna make personal attacks... --] ] ] ] 20:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Lost? Dont write nonsense. --] 21:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Help needed for Hindi wikipedia ==
	Hi, I am a new admin at Hindi wikipedia. I wish to know how to edit the commands/links listed on the left side of the default wikipedia main page (of Hindi wiki). There are certain commands not used in Standard Hindi language. I am talking about the navigation / search and toolbox panels. I also want to edit the insertbox at Hindi wikipedia (at the bottom of the edit page) to inlcude more useful characters. Please reply at my talk page. Thanks in advance.] 23:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Well, I don't speak Hindi, but in English, it is located at ]. I am not sure about the special characters box. Don't know if this helps at all, but it's the best I can do. Sorry. --] <sup><font color="#3D9140">]</font></sup> 02:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Aha... the character field is located at (in English) ]. Hope this can be of ''some'' help to you. --] <sup><font color="#3D9140">]</font></sup> 02:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Thanks, it does work.] 15:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Hi. A few days ago, I noticed an anonymous user from an article I recently improved. The user's IP address and the nature of the edits were consitent with what I would expect from B.J. Averell himself. When a new user, ], began making essentially , I began a discussion with him on ], in which Hexadisc asserted that he is either B.J. or a representative of him, and agreed to discuss concerns on the article's ]. This has yet to occur, and in the meantime I have been reverting similar edits from other new users, who Hexadisc claims are more upset associates of his and not sock puppets. I have been eagerly awaiting a discussion on the article's talk page, but today Hexadisc himself has made essentially the same edits to the article without the discussion I thought we had agreed should take place.
	At this point, I am uncomfortable reverting these edits again, especially from a representative of B.J. Averell who seems to have a grasp of the preferred method of dealing with his concerns. To ensure that proper steps and a fair discussion take place, I would like to ask that one or more administrators become involved. I believe that someone who can more authoratitively interpret ] and convince Hexadisc that a discussion can result in a fair article, as well as evaluate my interactions with him to ensure that I haven't gotten something wrong, can make a difference and satisfy the concerns of all more fairly and effectively than I can do right now. Thank you. --] 03:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:IMHO, the version to which Hexadisc made edits was wholly permissible and appropriate per ] but likely was a bit ]; the current version, even as it is demonstrably less critical of the subject, seems to provide a more encyclopedic treatment of the subject. The inclusion of the intimate details of the Harvard election and airport incident isn't, I think, proscribed by ]--indeed, the details, as sourced per ] and ] and as formulated consistent with ], were compliant with our policies generally--but is militated against by ], viz., that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ] 05:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Left my thoughts at Hexadisc's talk page. ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> at 06:14 ] <small>(])</small>
	== Tawkerbot2A - proposal for it to have sysop for anti WoW capacity ==
	This is just a public announcment (maybe this gets more readership than bot approvals normally does) - anyways the proposal is @ - essentially its operation is described there. Several users have said that RfA wasn't the correct place for discussion hence the bot request but Essjay has expressed concern its not advertised enough and when the flags are set it would raise hell. Its essentially a replacement for the offline / inactive Curps bot, as usual if anyone has any questions you know where to ask. -- ] 06:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Tawker, that is rather skewed version of my concerns. Given the past expression of community opposition to bots with admin priviledges, and the fact that even Curps' bot did not have wide community support (read the discussion of giving him checkuser if you're not aware of what was said), I was concerned about whether the community was even aware of this. It had never been mentioned here, or on the Incident's board, where it would be commented on, nor was it ever mentioned, even a note directing attention to the bot discussion, on RfA, where adminship discussions are expected to be placed.
	:Announcing that a new bot is being placed into service, and that it is being granted adminship, without ever notifying the vast majority of the community, smacks of secrecy, and it was my concern that the community would feel the discussion had been hidden. While I've always apprecaited Curpsbot and the work it does, I do not support granting adminship to completely separate bot accounts, and there is considerable concern about it at the Foundation level (one such bot was desysopped just last month after reports that it had gone berzerk); if individual admins want to run bots on thier accounts, that's for the community to handle, but to set up a completely separate bot account and grant it adminship without notification to the majority of the community is quite simply not the way we do things around here.
	:The community outcry over the use of Tawkerbot2 was queited for the most part by assurances that it would never become an adminbot; this strikes me as a direct reversal of those assurances, and the assurances you made when you were granted adminship, that the bots would remain separate from admin priviledges. I can see us right back here in a month when this bot is blocking users based on Tawkerbot2 warnings. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 07:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	::As I said, I could have run it as my personal user account but I believe in a little thing known as honesty and I won't run it as myself (despite it being suggested to me multiple times.) In fact, I was asking around trying to figure where the correct place to get consensus would be, I was told it's not a matter for RfA, to leave it on bot approvals, then today it was suggested AN was a good place and hence it was posted. I should also note that ] had offered to set flags yesterday but I didn't think there was consensus or a mandate to run this bot so I asked him to decline until such a time. I think I did make a mistake, this is basically a unique bot, the only thing it really shares with the revert-o-bot is it shares the same IRC feed. This is no rush, let the community decide. -- ] 08:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:One question, aside from "on wheels" moves, does it also block for high move rates?''']'''<sup>]</sup> 06:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Nevermind.''']'''<sup>]</sup> 06:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Well, no sysop flag yet but yes, it will warn before blocking when that feature is enabled -- ] 06:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:: Uh, I do think that RFA is the correct venue for that. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 07:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:The point appears ... ] <small>(])</small> 07:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	Its proposed scope is rather limited. Handling high page move counts and "... on wheels" moves. ]<span style="font-size:90%;">buddy</span><sup><span style="font-size:75%">]</span></sup> 07:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:To be entirely honest, I don't believe for a second that it's proposed scope will remain it's scope for long at all, and given the way this proposal was handled, I have to question whether the community will be consulted ''at all'' before new functions are added. I feel completely deceived, as I was told, personally, by both you and Tawker, that admin functionality would never be added to these bots (this semantic garbage about "we added an 'A'" is total bull, and you know it). This is a complete reversal from what the community was told when Tawkerbot2 was set up, and I'm beginning to suspect quite strongly that this has been the plan all along. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 07:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I entirely agree with many of Essjay's concerns here. I remember in a certain ] not too long ago, where Tawker stated that he had no intention of pursuing sysop rights for his bot or letting it touch his sysop account. I have some rather strong reservations about sysopping the bot, but the request for bot approval seems to be rather strong support. I'm assuming that no 'crat will sysop the account without an RfA for it, and in that RfA, I intend to oppose unless I'm pursuaded otherwise. I mean, the bot's great, but I feel a certain creep here--I agree with Essjay that I wouldn't be shocked to see its scope grow and grow without any communication with the community. ] (]) 07:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Thirded concerns, and made it known at the request for approval. ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> at 07:34 ] <small>(])</small>
	::::I just had to wait for someone else to oppose before I could =D. Odd of me to offer the bot code one minute and then oppose the bot's new tasks entirely the next, but upon more careful consideration I think this to be a ''really'' bad idea. ] (]) 07:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Essjay, you were told that Tawkerbot2 would never need admin access. This is a new proposal for a new different bot with a highly limited scope. If a bot with admin access does something outside of its scope, I would think that would be grounds for desysoping the bot and quite possibly the sponsor. To quote from Tawker's RFA: "If a supermajority of users (95% or so) wants the bot to have sysop, sure, I'll think about it" He was not categorically opposed to a sysop'ed bot.
	::Having said that, I never wanted Tawkerbot2 to have admin access. That was never in my plans. ]<span style="font-size:90%;">buddy</span><sup><span style="font-size:75%">]</span></sup> 07:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Backlog on ] ==
	There are a lot of unresponded to RFCUs, could we got some more admins on this? -- ] 07:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	*Admins do not have checkuser rights. Not all, at least. ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> at 07:43 ] <small>(])</small>
	**I'd checkuser but I don't have that right. A good 20 or so have it, so it seems stange that only one user has to keep it all together.''']'''<sup>]</sup> 08:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	**13, all but 5 of whom are current arbitrators. Also, the are serious misconceptions in the community about what is involved in running, and most of the other checkers have either done their time (like David Gerard and Kelly Martin, who each were the sole public checker for months at a time), or aren't willing to put up with the unhindered abuse the is involved in the process. It is not a job that can be done in five minutes, nor is it one that brings rewards of any kind; it earns you near constant abuse, including legal and death threats. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 08:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	I have been the only one running checks on RfCU for the last several weeks (Mackensen was running some as well before that, but I believe he is on break at the moment). Right now, I'm not running any checks, pending improvement of some issues at RfCU. If other checkusers would like to pick up where I've left off, they of course can, but if I'm going to go back to running them all, I need some clerks and some admins to back me up; those interested are welcome to ask how here or on my talk page. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 08:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I don't have checkuser abilities, but I can help to a limited extent. If people are happy for me to do this, I'll filter through ] and reject the requests that don't meet the policy stated at the top of the page. It'll make it easier for the checkuser-users... --] <sup>]</sup> 18:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Typically a substantial portion of the requests on RFCU are out of policy, so that would likely be quite useful. ] (]) 22:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I'd prefer that non-checkusers didn't reject requests; sometimes something looks too small for checkuser, but there is something going on underneath that needs investigating. Also, people tend to get upset when their requests are rejected by checkusers; I imagine this would only be more so if it was done by a non-checkuser. Most of the work I need help with is clerk-type work, so I've set up a clerk system to help keep things running. Those interested in helping with clerk work can find more information at ]. In addition, I've cleaned out the backlog. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 22:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	== HighwayCello ==
	] keeps interfiering with all edits. Its like hes using me.
	* It just ''Happens'' to be images I upload that he used (I din't create them but I uploaded them)
	* It just ''happens'' to be articles I edit, he edits.
	* It just ''happens'' that HighwayCello looks at every page I edit.
	He seems to be following me around Misplaced Pages.
	He might be checking my contributions to see what articles I edit, and then edit them (even though I don't know if that part is true)
	Every time I make a talk comment in any of the talk pages withing the Pokémon portal, he tries to interfiere. When tried to tell an administrator at ], to do something about it, HighwayCello tried to reverse the action so he would blame me instead of HighwayCello. Thats another thing, he just ''happened'' to be posting comments on ].
	He was rejected as an administrator (]) but is trying to pretend to be one by telling me what I can't do on Misplaced Pages when there was no message on any Misplaced Pages project page.
	Please do something about this.
	To HighwayCello: Please do not reply to this message as I know you'll try to reverse this message so the administrators will blame me instead of you.
	] ] ] 10:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	: I don't think it's appropriate to say don't listen to him just take what I say as the truth. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 12:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	::As I've mentioned on ]'s talk page, it sure seems like ] is the one doing the personal attacks. I ask that ] please cease the same. -- ] <small>]</small> 14:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	::: Can you point out which personal attacks you would like me to cease, since I'm not aware of any I have made. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 14:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::So sorry Pgk, my comments were directed at ]. I've amended the above, as it seems ambiguous even to me on a second read -- ] <small>]</small> 16:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::If you are making accusations about me, I have every right to defend myself. Full log - ]. ]<font color="#009933">]</font>] <sup>]</sup> 15:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Thats ancient history. What you are doing is a lot worse.<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small>
	::::::And ]. You can't ask someone not to write on a page. It's not right (punning of me). --] <sup>]</sup> 18:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	This user is trying to provoke me into breaking 3RR. See . He has 3 reverts now and the 3rd time he removes my tag! He does not explain himself or explain on talk as I have done. Someone please put back the POV tag on the demographics section (totallydisputed-section) of ]. ] 11:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I am not inserting "propaganda". I am writing on the changes in Khuzestan's demographics. Much of the information concerning land confiscations, etc, is contained within the main body of the article and is well-sourced, linking to UNHCR and Amnesty International reports. Khorshid is blanking the section without saying which particular parts of it he has an issue with.
	:Korshid has also been involved in a number of civility infractions , etc--] 11:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	::There is only one source, brother. Others on ] say that it is propaganda and not "verifiable". I am sorry, but it is true. You don't leave edit summary either. That does not look good with respect to your intentions. You removed a tag even! ] 11:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::The source is an Iranian writer who is respected, but who is maligned by those editors of a certain political persuasion who have no sound argument against him. Are you seriously suggesting that the districts mentioned in the demographics section have no Arab population? There is an effort at organised vandalism on this article and I request that an neutral arbiter be invited to mediate or this will become an edit war.--] 11:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Brother, you have not answered any of my questions. You ask for someone neutral but you still remove a tag! Put the tag back. You have no right to remove and the information you put there is not even true. ] 11:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::You have not asked any questions for me to answer. You have some anecdotal evidence from personal experience that you say refutes the work of one of Iran's leading and widely published experts in Khuzestan's history and culture. It is obvious to anyone that the Arab population is concentrated in the south and west and the Lurs and Bakhtiaris are concentrated in the north and east. Even this map ] featured in ] - an article I have barely touched - shows the distribution of Arabs in the province. The objections on the ] are just intended to inflame an edit war rather than engage in anything constructive. And I hope admins will take note of the links above relating to Khorshid's recent behaviour.--] 11:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Brother, you have no right to remove the tag. The information you put there has been disputed by not just me but others too, and your one source is not even "verifiable". Why you do not find other sources? Amir Taheri states that only 40% of the province are Arabs and CIA says the same thing and so do others. I am sorry that you do not like the rules, but that is what they are. If you were so sure of yourself you would not remove the tag. But you did. ] 12:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::There are plenty of disputes over the number of Arabs in Khuzestan because there is no census data detailing ethnicity. Bani Torof is the only person who has carried out detailed research into the issue. Unlike Amir Taheri, Bani Torof is not an employee of the right-wing Benador Associates think tank in the US which is definitely a source of propaganda. He is an Iranian writer living and working in Iran and with no political affiliation. The reason some editors have a problem with him is because he writes on Arab heritage in Khuzestan and that seems to offend the sensibilities of some.--] 12:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::My dear brother, Mr. Taheri uses "verifiable" sources like CIA! That is better than your "Centre for Iran Studies" that does not even exist! Again that you remove the tag says everything. ] 12:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::The CIA does not comment on Khuzestan's demographics and Taheri is no expert in the field.--] 12:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	Again I ask the good admins to revert brother Ahwaz so that the tag stays on that page. ] 12:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I think both of you need to calm down here. Misplaced Pages does not function totally on the truth. The truth has to be verifiable and backed with proper citations. Please review Misplaced Pages's policies of ] and ]. And yes, it is always advisable to have a discussion on the talk page of the article in case you are going to make major changes to the article. But, always remember to cite the sources, and official ones from the Internet (preferably, so that they may be confirmed easily by other users). Regards, --] 14:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Attention ==
	Admins --> ] --] 12:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Done, thanks. ] 14:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	::For future reference, reports of errors on the Main Page should go to ] for a fast response. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 15:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	* {{user5|Chooserr}}
	I have removed two instances of solicitation of funds for political purposes, through linking to an external donation web page, from each of Chooserr's user page and talk page. Chooserr had been editing but his response to requests by other editors that he remove the links was negative and defiant. --] 14:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	: and ? As soon as he logged on he replied to the person who'd warned him, and as he demonstrated on Tony's talk page, nobody bothered to explain to him that there was actually a policy violation there. Then Tony gives him reply, and Chooserr does and then on second thought, . Congratulations, Misplaced Pages. -]<sup>(])</sup> 19:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:: I think you're being unnecessarily charitable towards Chooserr. Everybody knows this isn't where you come for fundraising. --] 19:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Everybody knows? Chooserr's had that link on his page for about six months, and nobody's ever said a word to him about it. How does he know that the "wide latitude" we allow in user space doesn't include what we've been allowing him for six months? It's not like an admin's never looked at his page. You think I'm being too charitable; I think you're being way too brash and disrespectful. Tony, you talk to people like they're misbehaving dogs and you're their master; it's disgusting. Would it kill you to treat people respectfully? -]<sup>(])</sup> 19:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	I think it would be nice if occasionally an administrator wasn't pilloried for removing blatantly unsuitable material from the site and warning the editor in question. Your own part in this was unfortunate; you restored the solicitation link after another editor had correctly removed it after the warning. Don't make it worse by blaming others. --] 19:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I have no problem with you removing blatantly unsuitable material. I have a serious problem with your apparent inability to maintain courtesy. You contribute a lot to the Wiki, and we all appreciate that, but you are not above ]. If it's not readily apparent to you that you could have handled this situation much better, then I question your good sense.
	:As for my action, I explained it sufficiently at the time. Removing a link that had been sitting there for six months is ''not'' so urgent that it overrides our basic need to treat each other well. An administrator had left a warning, asking Chooserr to remove the material himself, and then acted on it ''before Chooserr had even logged on again'', as least as indicated by his Contributions page. Then another editor vandalized the page by inserting different linkspam. Having a choice of which version to revert to, I chose the version where Chooserr still had a chance to remove the offending link himself, because what's the point in giving someone a chance to fix something for himself, if you're going to just do it before he actually gets that chance? I err on the side of respect, because it pays to maintain an atmosphere in which people treat each other excellently.
	:Again, to be very clear, you have mischaracterized my statements. I am not criticizing you for removing the link. I am criticizing you for talking down to other human beings. It's unnecessary, rude, counterproductive, and against policy.
	:Oh, another thing: I'm not "blaming" you for anything. I'm just saying be more respectful. -]<sup>(])</sup> 20:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Just a minor correction, GTBacchus. Timothy Usher did leave a request (I wouldn't call it a warning), but you're incorrect in stating that an administrator did. Timothy is not an admin. Jumping in to remove it before Chooserr had logged on was, of course, unfortunate, as it made it more difficult for Chooserr to do so without losing face. ] ] 11:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	For those of you just joining us, {{user|Alienus}} has been embroiled in a long struggle with this user; see his talk page. ] 21:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	If I've failed to maintain courtesy, GTBacchus, then you're right to reprove me. I agree that Alienus was very, very naughty and he's been given warnings by Nandesuka and (when he told me about that warning) me. There may be some minor details of timing here but I won't go into those, just observe that at the time I removed the links he'd been told about the problem and was being pretty stroppy about it. It really doesn't take an immense amount of thought to realise that what Chooserr was doing is absolutely prohibited, ''anywhere on Misplaced Pages'', even on Chooserr's talk page and user page.
	Chooserr has and does seem to have a history of biased editing . Had he come here to produce unbiased edits but had only popped a fundraising link onto his user page by accident, then of course a lighter approach would have been appropriate. But Chooserr isn't about that at all. He uses his user page to advertise his pet causes, though he does so in a reasonably Wikipedian way:
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	Now Chooserr has been up to this for six months. Hooray! Let's allow him to continue to engage in political fundraising for another three weeks or so. Or should we just remove the bloody horrible thing and tell him not to abuse Misplaced Pages again? --] 00:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	:First I was "pillorying" you for removing inappropriate material, and when that turned out not to be true, I'm suggesting that you put off removing the material for three weeks. Where will you go when that turns out to be false?
	:I'm actually quite familiar with Chooserr's history. I remember him new at Misplaced Pages, getting blocked left and right, and I watched him learn how to edit here, and how to use the talk page instead of revert warring, and how images have copyrights that we have to worry about, and I have seen him become a valuable member of the editing team on some articles that we both work on. He hasn't been blocked since the last time I blocked him in February, because he's improved, and he's helping build the encylcopedia. The linkspam on his page - you were right, it had to go - but I see a human being there, and I have no problem having a conversation explaining to him about why the links aren't cool. You know, changing the culture one person at a time? Apparently, you don't see a human worthy of respect, all you see is "abuse"; and who has time for a conversation or a civil interaction, when you could be bossy and contemptuous instead? It's efficient, that contempt stuff.
	:So apparently, I'm asking that we screw around for three weeks, and "allow abuse" or something; that's right, Tony. Christ. You really think the small effort of treating someone respectfully is a big waste? That's all I'm talking about. You're right about everything, of course, but you could treat people better, and you should, because it matters. Stop contributing to an atmostphere of combativeness. Play well with others. This is all I'm saying. If you want to blow a bunch of smoke about how I'm harassing you for removing unsuitable content, or what a "bad user" Chooserr is anyway, and how he was being "stroppy" (what a load of horseshit), I don't buy it, and I don't give a fuck either. None of that is an excuse for you to be a dick. Stop poisoning the well, because I care about this project a lot, and I don't like you marring it with your antisocial attitude. If I see you shitting on people, I will call you out on it.
	:Now, are you going to find another way to miss the point, and drag this out longer, or what? -]<sup>(])</sup> 05:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I've seen the odd user page or two asking for donations via Paypal in return for their wiki contributions. Is this also frowned upon? -- ] 00:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	:: Possibly not. I don't know. --] 18:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	:: Depends who you ask. Me, if it helps build the encyclopedia, then so be it (but certainly don't spam asking for it). Hell, I wouldn't mind some pocket money myself for the hours I've put in here. ] ] 18:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	===] - Enforcing policy doesn't require trampling on other editors===
	Chooserr had those links for months. I haven't checked the history to see how long exactly. I had noticed them before, and had found them inappropriate for a Misplaced Pages user page. However, I have seen user pages and user talk pages with pictures of penises (and I don't mean just the one recently reported at ]; I have seen user pages which attacked or belittled other users. I saw no reason to barge in and trample on another editor &mdash; especially when it involved an editor who might feel ganged up against. This has been discussed before at one of the admin noticeboards. Chooserr has been blocked (or had blocks increased) for doing things that were not against policy, but were disruptive (welcoming too many new users, saving his talk page every minute while blocked, in the hope that someone would see his unblock request on Recent Changes). I am quite sure that I could have stopped some of the problems without resorting to a block &mdash; just by asking nicely. Editors who have openly wiki-stalked him, reverting his good-faith edits with "rvv" or "mindless, incoherent troll" were never blocked. For those reasons, I prefer to be extra gentle and extra tactful when dealing with Chooserr. I have found, also, that he responds much better to people making polite requests than to people bullying or threatening him. (Don't we all?)
	At 16:35 (UTC) on 1 June, Alienus removed the link from Chooserr's talk page with no prior warning or request. The edit summary said ''this is offensive enough on a user page; it doesn't belong on a talk page''. Note that Chooserr did not edit Misplaced Pages between 31 May and 3 June, so presumably did not see it at the time.
	At 20:01 on 1 June, Elliskev reverted, with ''rvv''.
	At 20:05 on 1 June, Elliskev sent Alienus a {{tl|tpv2}} message.
	There was some discussion then at ], and at ]. It later spread to ]. At one stage, Elliskev removed Alienus's message (asking him to AGF) from his talk page. Alienus promptly sent him a {{tl|civil}} message and commented on the rudeness of deleting a message, although he routinely deletes any message he receives from ] using popups. Elliskev deleted the <nowiki>{{civil}}</nowiki> warning as well, though after discussion with Timothy, he restored these messages.
	At 02:31 on 2 June, Timothy posted a message to Chooserr saying that the link was inappropriate, and politely requesting him to remove it.
	At 04:05 on 3 June, Timothy posted to Chooserr: ''As you've not responded, I've done it.'' Note that Chooserr had edited at all since the request was made, and so had presumably not been online.
	At 04:06 on 3 June, Timothy removed the link, but kept the words "Make Abortion History".
	At 05:15 on 3 June, '''''Alienus vandalized Chooserr's talk page by linking "Make Abortion History" to the donation page of Planned Parenthood''''' &mdash; edit summary: ''a link is fine, so long as it's not to anything partisan''. The page now looked exactly as it had looked before Timothy removed the link, but the link was to the donation page of a pro-choice website, rather than of a pro-life one.
	At 05:23 on 3 June, GTBacchus restored the page to Chooserr's version &mdash; certainly not out of approval of the link (Chooserr and GTB disagree on article content), but presumably because he felt annoyed by the vandalism and harassment, and felt that the removal of a link which had already been several months on a page which visitors browsing Misplaced Pages would be unlikely to see was a less urgent matter than treating another human being with respect.
	At 05:51 GTBacchus pointed out that Chooserr had not even logged on, and that "respectfully waiting for a reply" was "more important than making be gone now".
	At 05:53 on 3 June, Timothy posted, "Okay, let's wait until he's logged on."
	There was also ] showing that Alienus was defiant, unrepentant, and flippant.
	Most editors who logged on to find all that in the page history would find it a bit galling to remove the link. Once again, I agree it shouldn't have been there, but for Alienus (who is in constant dispute with Chooserr, and who at the time had on his own talk page) to barge in and remove it without request or warning, for Timothy to jump the gun by removing it before Chooserr had had a chance to respond, and for Alienus then to vandalize his page by linking to something that promoted the opposing POV must all have have contributed towards making Chooserr feel that he ''didn't'' want to remove the link. I saw the history of his talk page just before I went into work on Saturday morning, and decided I'd ask him myself to remove the link: I felt fairly sure he would agree, and it would all blow over. I have found that Chooserr responds well to being treated with ordinary human respect &mdash; something which unfortunately does not seem to have been tried by Alienus or Tony in this case.
	In fact, at 06:50 on 3 June (his first edit in three days) Chooserr wrote to Timothy, thanking him for his comments, saying that they were obviously well meant, and that he might remove the tags. I wouldn't call that "negative", "defiant", or "stroppy". Nine minutes later, he posted a fairly mild message to Alienus, asking him not to vandalize his page. His next edit, at 07:25 was to his own user page, where he removed two links to external sites requesting donations for the pro-life cause, and kept the remaining one. I would call that a step in the right direction, not being "negative", "defiant", and "stroppy". I would also consider it to be evidence that reasoning with Chooserr would be better than bullying him.
	When I got home from work, I discovered that Alienus had added ''"Well, he's logged on and entirely unrepentant''" at 14:05 (No sign of any repentence from Alienus for his own trolling, vandalism, and insult.)
	At , , , and , Tony Sidaway made four edits to Chooserr's talk page, removing the link, calling it "completely inappropriate", threatening "to block for linkspamming if insist on abusing Misplaced Pages in this way". That must have been especially galling for Chooserr since Alienus had not been threatened with a block. (He was subsequently threatened by Nandesuka.) Tony may have been unaware of the vandalism, but was able to make (false) statements here about Chooserr having been "negative and defiant".
	At 18:28 on 3 June, Tony told Alienus that his edit (linking Chooserr's page to a Planned Parenthood donation page) was "out of order", and asked him "please" not to do stuff like that again. (No "completely out of line", no threats to block.)
	At 19:07 on 3 June, Tony, in response to Chooserr's protest that he would have taken down the link himself if someone had shown him it was against policy, said ''"You've been told now. Happy?"''
	I have just two questions for Tony and Alienus:
	#Would it have been possible to get that link removed without threats and vandalism?
	#Assuming that it was possible, would it have been ''preferable'' to get it removed without threats and vandalism?
	I'm quite, quite sure that I, or GTBacchus, or FreplySpang would have been able to get those links removed without trampling on Chooserr, without making him feel that someone who had vandalized his talk page was vindicated (note that Alienus claimed that his action had been redone by another admin), and without resorting to threats of blocks. Tony, you've managed to get that link removed, which is good for the project, so ''you'' probably feel that this has been a success, but in my view, the only people who could be happy at the way this was done are people who don't think that real human beings with real feelings matter. GTBacchus has come out of this extremely well. Nobody else has.
	] ] 11:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	: I was unaware of Alienus' vandalism. In fact alienus later told me about Nandesuka's warning (which contained a block threat ). I told alienus not to do it again, feeling that a further block threat was superfluous as he'd stopped. Personally I would probably have blocked alienus without a warning had I been aware of the vandalism at the time. He is an experienced editor and should know better.
	: Alienus' vandalism to a certain extent explains and mitigates Chooserr's uncooperative and defiant attitude. I think it's ''possible'', though it seems incredibly unlikely, that Chooserr didn't realise that what he was doing on his talk page and user page was quite beyond the pale. --] 13:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	==User:Marknw==
	Vandal ] continues to vandalize ]-related pages, inserting the same blatantly anti-UC comments on every page he finds, and spams talkpages despite multiple warnings. I am now monitoring his edits but it would be good if an administrator would block him. ] 19:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Not a vandal. See ]. ] 19:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:(edit conflict) It seems to me that the guy is acting in good faith--not particularly constuctively, but in good faith. Rather than reverting his edits, try contacting him and discussing the changes he wants to implement and why. In any case, I don't see a need to block here over a content dispute. Sorry. ] (]) 19:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	::It appears that ] is acting tempermentally. He has blanked his talk page and left nasty notes on my page and on Jcoplanes' . -] 20:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	::It's getting worse:. I think this user needs a wikibreak to remember how to be civil. -] 21:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::It will only get worse until you stop vandalizing my talkpage. '''I will not stop reverting Marknw's mass vandalism and I will not stop standing up to your tyranny'''. Jacoplane, I suggest you stop encouraging vandalism and spamming. ] 21:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Please note that user ] asserts to be the same contributor as ] on ].] 17:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I'm blocking any sock indefinetely. ''']''' ]|] 00:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I'm talking to him about the civility issue. He's right about POV bias in the edits (stating as fact that something is "specious", "revisionist", and "pseudoscientific" just ''isn't'' "neutral"), but obviously needs to address the problem differently. As to the 'socks', I'm not sure the term really applies since he has asked for the prior account to be shut down and openly declared the change... it's not like he is hiding anything. He apparently just thinks he can 'start over'. --] 11:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Using sources for movies and comic books ==
			== Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request ==
	The last time I asked this question, I was blocked. I would like to know if one can really use a comicbook as a source for an article about the same comicbook. The same goes for movies: can someone use a particular movie - say Pulp Fiction - to write an article about Pulp Fiction and use only the movie as a source? Another admin whom I corrosponded with said that in the Plot Section, there should be a third-party reference and I agree; elsewise, it's the author that must interpret the plot and then the article falls under Original Research and reads as a review, instead of an encyclopedia article. --] 19:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
			The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}:
	:This user's problem is that there is no 'independent source' for the plot of movies. --] 19:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{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.
	::Bingo! Should there be independent sources for the plot section or can anyone write about the plot? --] 19:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::The movie isn't going to write its own plot summary. --] 19:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:You were not blocked for asking this question, and your repeated assertion that you are is just more of your continued trolling. You were blocked for violating ] because you were unhappy that I would have the temerity to ask for a source for one of the articles you held dear, so you went off and started demanding sources for every other article you could find. I suggest you '''''stop''''' this continued trolling. ]|] 19:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::But I had stopped doing that after your first warning, so how can I have been blocked for that if I was no longer doing it? I had stopped removing unsourced info long before your block. Anyway, this is off-topic. I'm just here to get a few answers to my inquiry, if you don't mind. --] 19:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	::He's now brought this up again as retrobution for my warning him for personal attacks. --] 19:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Yes, I'm quite aware of that. Could you please explain that to Mikkalai, my stalker? ]|] 20:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Not a bad idea. We should swap detractors sometime! --] 21:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Calling an oldtimer and respectful admin for stalker is quite uncivil. He didn't stalk you. He saw the situation and acted on it. --] 20:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
			Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (], ], ]) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at ]). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see ]). I have created over 900 pages (see ]), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance ], ], ], ] or the event ] that is barely mentioned at the English ]. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see ] and ].
	== ] is removing warnings ==
			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 ].}}
	Exploding Boy had may personal attacks upon myself during the course of editing. He decided to make up a new name for me ("Chuckwagon") and said that my edits were useless . I gave him a {{tl|Npa-n}} warning in regards to the edits. he removed the warning, and then I with a removing warnings message. He that one and tried explaining on ] (in a not very civil tone) that I had no idea what I was talking about. I the warning back with a {{tl|Wr2}} message, which is the final warning for removing warnings. He has since . He has been notified that he can/will be blocked for this and has told me to "stop threatening with] a block". I believe a block is the proper course of action after receiving a {{tl|Wr2}} and blanking warnings after that. ]]]<sup>]</sup> 20:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
			] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Support unbanning and unblocking''' per ]. ] (]/]) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Quoting my SPI comment ]: {{tq2|I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of ''block'' evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as ] of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-] unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is ''banned'', and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like ].) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here.&nbsp;... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an ] unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.}}That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at ], which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ] violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per above.] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Endorse one account proviso. ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: ]. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would '''Support''' with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of ]. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they ''seem'' to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. ] (]) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. ] (]) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' User seems to have recognized what he <!-- before someone complains about my use of the gender-neutral he, this user is male per what they've configured settings to be --> did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. ''']]''' 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*<s>'''Weak Support''', the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. ] (]) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</s>
			:*'''Oppose''', I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. ] (]) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Support'''. Completely support an unblock; see my comment ] when his IP was blocked in April. ] (]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see ''clear'' evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like may well be on notable competitions, but with content like {{tq|On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.}}, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. ] (]) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Currently '''oppose'''; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. ] (]) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:{{yo|Ahri Boy }} Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. ] (]) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. ] (]) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "]"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. ] (]) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. ] (]) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::See . ] (]) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. &spades;]&spades; ] 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). ] (]) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. ] (]) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:: I think saying that {{tq|I will never use multiple accounts anymore}} and that he wants to {{tq|make constructive content}} would indicate that {{tq|the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.}} ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. ] (]) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... ] (]) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:: And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}. ] (]) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to ]. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''] ]'''</span> 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. ] (]) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' per Fram and PMC. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Question''': Is SvG the same person as {{U|Slowking4}}? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by ]. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">]</span> (]) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			**No. ] (]) 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support'''. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' basically per ], particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get ] without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). ] (]) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since ] was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.<br />'''Support'''. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --] (]) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Conditional support unblock''' (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use ] for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. ]] (]) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' I can't repeat what Beaniefan11 say enough: "Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}." This should assuage any doubt in the mind of the reviewing administrator. ] (]) 15:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' Claims of "It's been seven years!" fall on deaf ears when you find out he's been socking all along and as recently as a year ago. Fram and PMC have good points as well. Show some restraint and understanding of your block and ] is yours. ] (]) 23:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft ==
	:The purpose of an npa warning is to make the user aware of the policy. I can assure you that he is now aware of it. Beyond that, the state of his talk page is really for him to worry about, not you or me. ]] 20:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
			I have not come across a situation like ] before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it.
	::I'm not certain what your talking about. Npa is a warning, and he removed it. If he had talked about the problem, I wouldn't have cared, but he didn't. He removed it, removed it again, and removed it again. It may not be our place to say the state of his talk page, but he cannot remove warnings, that is a clear-cut policy. ]]]<sup>]</sup> 20:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
			It is a draft article about a film that can not have an article, per ]. I think the idea is that there is some valuable content there and it would be a shame to delete it when it seems likely that the film will enter final animation and voice recording in the next year or so.
	:: Also, please note that using templates to communicate with an experienced user can be seen as offensive or inflammatory, especially when you have been involved in a dispute with that user. ] 21:03, 3 June 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.
	:::] is a ''proposed'' policy. It is not policy. ]] 21:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
			I became aware of this because there is a request at ] to EC-protect the talk page. But it makes me think we should have some kind of protection for the draft too. But I can see arguments for weaker than ECP (speculation is just by IPs) and for stronger... like... why are people editing it anyway? Maybe there are reasons I am not aware of.
	::::I wasn't referring to ], but to ], where under types of vandalism it has "Removing warnings". ] '''is'''an official policy. And just because he is an experienced user who was committing personal attacks, doesn't mean he can't get a warning template. ]]]<sup>]</sup> 21:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::There's a very important '''may''' in that wording. You seem to misunderstand the whole point of the npa warning: it's not a black mark to give out to naughty people; it's a device to make people aware of the policy as efficiently as possible. It's not an appropriate way to communicate with established editors who are likely to know the policy already. ]] 21:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
			Is anyone more familiar with how we got here? Anyone got any arguments for or against applying semi, EC or full protection to the draft and its talk page?
	::::::Henry is, to be sure, correct; for new users, the templates do sometimes serve as more than edifying devices, as they allow other editors to see that a user has been apprised of our policies and guidelines, in order that, should he/she continue to flout those guidelines, further warning or blocking may occur. Here, the warning serves, at best, to inform EB that you took his comments to be personal attacks; once he has read the warning and apprehended your meaning, he may remove it. I think it's a bit untoward to remove warnings--or any commentary, really--from one's talk page, believing that one ought to reply to, rather than excise, comments with which he/she disagrees, but neither would I try to compel others to act similarly nor would I support a blanket proscription on removing warnings (which does not now exist). Finally, even as EB's comments were indecorous (although ''Chuckwagon'' seems a jocular, if unduly informal and perhaps patronizing, appellative, and certainly not a personal attack), I don't think they rise of the level of blockable ]; in this instance, you would be better served to leave an actual note on his talk page, to the effect that his edits bothered you and that you perceived them as personal attacks, the cessation of which you would, as you continue to collaborate with him and others, appreciate. ] 21:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
			<small>'''Edit:'''</small> Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet ]?
	::::::::Having been one of the targets of ]'s recent NPA tagging spree, I also think he's grossly misusing the template as a warning for those he thinks are being uncivil. Please try using your own works to discuss the concerns you have instead of lobbing templates. You might also want to review the ] policy for a bit of clarification on what a personal attack really looks like. Shell <sup>]</sup> 10:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
			] (]) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	==] and fair use image==
			: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)
	] has erased this public domain photo off my ] and also protected my user page because he claims the photo is fair use, even though there is proof that the photo is public domain. Please help me. --] ] ] ] 21:47, 3 June 2006 (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)
	:Explain how it is public domain. ''']''' ]|] 21:51, 3 June 2006 (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)
	::It's tagged fair use on Misplaced Pages (]). --] <sup>]</sup> 21:52, 3 June 2006 (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)
	:::The website it's from says it's copyrighted... I think we need to tag it for copyvio?''']''' ]|] 21:54, 3 June 2006 (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)
	::::You mean on Commons? --] <sup>]</sup> 21:56, 3 June 2006 (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)
	:::::I just did. ] 21:57, 3 June 2006 (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)
			:The IP has made three unconstructive and uncivil comments on the talk today (see , and they show no signs of stopping. ] (]) 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I have blocked that IP. I note that it is possible that some of the other IPs could be the same users and so will block other IPs and/or apply semi-protection if this continues (or encourage others to do the same if I am away from my computer). ] (]) 11:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			* {{tq|Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF?}} Using draftspace to incubate articles on subjects that are not yet notable but almost certainly will be—unreleased films, upcoming elections, sports events, the next in an "X by year" series, and so on—is a common practice and has been as long as I can remember. As such it's listed at ]. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 12:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			**Thank you. ] (]) 15:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			I think it makes sense to archive all threads in ]. They are all either forumy or else asking when the page can be moved to article space, which is no longer relevant since it is in article space. ] (]) 20:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	: There are two versions of the same image - ] (the image from the user page) is tagged as fair use, the version on Commons is tagged as PD with no information as to the source - it is unlikely that a recent aerial photo of a building is actually in the public domain. It was removed by ], ]'s response was to leave abuse on ]'s userpage and to restore the image. I have rolled back that restoration, twice, and protected the page to prevent it from being restored again. --] (]) 22:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
			:I've updated the archive bot on that talk age to act on 1 month old threads. Should get rid of half of the ones on there when it runs next and the rest will follow soon enough. I've always thought 6 months was way too long of a default archive policy. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::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) ==
	::I'm always sceptical of people that make a complaint about an admin that includes the phrase "admin abuse". Such complains are typically irrational. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:01, 3 June 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)
	::: I'll add that ] was asked, then forced, to remove a bunch of uncivil links from his user page yesterday (associating Croatia with fascism). He is now asking to have the page unprotected so he can put an alternative image of his hometown there. I'm not inclined to do it myself (he claims to have left the English Misplaced Pages, so I don't see the point), but I won't object if someone else wants to unprotect the page. --] (]) 22:05, 3 June 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)
	::::Yes, I have decided to stop contributing, but I'd like my page to be left pretty. Also, the "uncivil" links, I've replaced with my biography, others just wanted to erase the whole thing. So, if my page is unprotected, I promise to put an alternate image of my hometown, and nothing else, If you let me do that, I will stop editing my userpage for good. Thank you. --] ] ] ] 22:18, 3 June 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)
	:::::Anyone? --] ] ] ] 23:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
			::] seems to be unaware of many of the WP polices and guidelines. ] (]) 08:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::No problem, Boris, but please don't go beyond what you've said you'll do. -- ] 23:10, 3 June 2006 (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)
	:::::::And he did go beyond what he said he would - a huge box opposing the independence of Kosovo. I've rolled back to the state where he has the picture he wanted, and protected the page again. --] (]) 07:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			: 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 wish I could say I was surpised but I'm not, frankly - it's not the first time he's edited in bad faith. Oh well. -- ] 13:10, 5 June 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)
	== Inproper username ==
			:This looks to me like it's covered by ]. ] ] 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	Would ] be an inproper username as there is a president called ]? Especially when he is editing that page and has a sock puppet called ] (indef blocked). I would say that he should be able to keep his sockpuppet and indef block the prima account as an improper username.... -- ] <sup>]</sup> 01:52, 4 June 2006 (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 {{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)
	:The actual name of the president seems . I say keep the sockpuppet block, and let the user find a suitable new name. ] 02:13, 4 June 2006 (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)
	::My idea, so I have blocked indef. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 02:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
			:This seems entirely unnecessary. ] (]) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Um, he created the ] account '''''at my suggestion''''' because of the potential for confusion between ] and ]. It's a name change, not a sockpuppet. The ] account shouldn't have been used anymore. Obviously though it is, and there is a stunning lack of useful contributions from either account, so I'm not pushing for an unblock on either. --]<sup>]</sup> 11:07, 4 June 2006 (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)
	::::Yup, I left a message at the page, and although he has not the most usefull contributions, if he want to use that other one, I am not going to resist that (after consultation with the indef blocking admin). -- ] <sup>]</sup> 14:34, 4 June 2006 (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)
	::Regardless of what name he uses, if he continues the vandalism, he ''will'' be blocked. ]|] 20:59, 4 June 2006 (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)
	== New user help ==
	New ] is getting a "you're blocked message" but her block log is empty. I am responding to her {{tl|helpme}} msg. Is it possible that the IP s/he is editing from has been blocked? Could someone please clarify/unblock? Thanks. - <b>]</b><small> ]/]/]</small> 02:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	:She likely shares an IP address with a blocked user. The blocked message displays the IP address you're using... if she can tell me that I can unblock the IP address and she can resume editing. --] <sup>]</sup> 02:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
			:Agreed. An admin got involved and simply continued off-topic discussion. ] (]) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Mrozinski ==
			*'''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 was wondering if someone, if they think it is appropriate, could speedy close ] and ]. There have only been delete recommendations on both nominations. On the first nomination, ], believed to be a secondary account of the article's creator, ], is repeatedly recommending delete and insulting people (he might be ], too). The same thing is going on at the concert article, except that the 2424 account is recommending deletion and insulting people rather than Mrozinski. I think the articles should be deleted quickly so that he can go on his way as soon as possible. -- ] 02:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop
	:There are categories for ]. When articles don't meet them, they go to AfD, so the community has the chance to debate. Things can sometimes change radically during the course of this. ] asserts notability with a no. 1 hit in Italy. I suggest you tell the relevant editor about ] and ask them to provide a reference. It's worth trying to communicate. ] 02:49, 4 June 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)
	::I'm aware of procedure, but a speedy close is done in some situations, albeit rarely. This isn't of great importance and it's not that big of a deal if they run their course, but I thought that it would be a good thing to do. About your suggestion, the editor is not trying to argue that he is notable, he is arguing for deletion. I had already read his comments on the AfD nominations, his user talk pages and the article talk pages and I doubted any further communication with the editor would have been fruitful. He did not understand what Misplaced Pages was about and he tried to use the articles as personal pages. He got upset when other people edited the articles (he seemed to have no idea that this would be done, somehow) and told them not to change anything. At some point he went crazy and started making personal attacks and went on rants about how terrible the idea of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit is. -- ] 03:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
			}}
			Hello, I have a topic ban that is approaching one year old on "undiscussed moves, move discussions, deletion discussions, and racial issues broadly construed (including topics associated with the Confederate States of America)". I would like an opportunity to contribute to these topics again. I have been fairly inactive since then but I have edited a few articles without issue. Thank you. ] (]) 04:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	I have blocked ] for 24 hours for continuous incivility, e.g. . I think an indefinite block on ] as an obvious sockpuppet should also be considered. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
			:I'll kick off by asking the standard two questions: (1) please explain in your own words why you were topic banned; (2) do you have anything to say to convince everyone those same issues won't occur again? ]] 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Protection Tag ==
			::I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. ] (]) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Found it. ]. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Thank you. That is helpful to have. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:* I '''support lifting the ban.''' DI's talk page makes for interesting reading, it shows quite a remarkable change in attitude over a period of a few years, and I believe that's genuine. ]] 08:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose lifting the topic ban''' I think being warned for making edits that violating a topic ban, then being almost completely inactive for six months, and then coming back and asking for it to be lifted and that passing sets a horrible example. ] ] 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:It seemed like a good idea to step away from the site for a time. I was receptive to the warning, even though it was not from an admin, and stopped editing in that area entirely. These are the edits in question: I just forgot that I had to appeal the topic ban here first and haven't gotten around to it until now. It should be noted that the first edit merely restored a previous RFC that had been ignored and the last two were minor changes to articles that have since been restored.
			*:I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you ] and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. ] (]) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. ] (]) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. ] (]) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --] (]) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I have made plenty of edits to articles like ], ], ], and ] in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose lifting the topic ban'''. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see ] for example). --] (]) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose at this time''' I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. ] ] 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects.
			*:I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did:
			*:This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. ] (]) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? ] (]) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I would like to participate in move and deletion discussions. I contributed a lot to ] and I would like to update some place names through move requests. I haven't had issues in that area since 2022. ] (]) 05:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' - I'd say {{tq|"racial issues broadly construed"}} is actually pretty broad given how much of history/geography is touched by it. I'd also say they do appear to have made an effort to improve, though I'd still like to see more. ] (]) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' I want to see some real world effort working collaboratively somewhere else on wp, not just a six month gap waiting it, off wikipedia. There is no evidence here that there has been a change. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 08:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Andra Febrian report ==
	Could anybody put a protection tag on ]? This page is heavily vandalized, primarily by IP addresses. Thanks. --] 02:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop
	:Sorry, not serious enough, just revert. The appropriate place to request protection would be ], so please use that next time. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 02:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
			| 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 ===
	== user:130.108.185.172 ==
			:: <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 ==
	All but one of this anon's edits is vandalism or bizarre ranting. The one almost reasonable edit is bizarre. His talk page has a number of insults and taunts. Would it be possible to block his IP and the two others he mentions on his talk page? (I didn't check the other two, I'm going to bed.) Cheers and good night.] 03:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{archive top|result=I have indefinitely blocked Uwappa per ]. Whilst the legal threat pointed out by multiple editors may be very vague, it certainly is designed to have a chilling effect, and Uwappa has confirmed this with addition to the section. Quite apart from that, we have persistent edit-warring, meritless claims of vandalism against others, and there is a limit to which an editor who thinks all of this is a big joke can be allowed to waste everybody else's time. They can explain themselves in an unblock request if they so desire. ] 22:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:Hmm, I'll block the range he seems to be in and contact the university admin listed on the whois. ''']''' ]|] 04:42, 4 June 2006 (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.
	== ] II ==
	I am putting this here so admins will see it more easily. This is a continuation of the discussion up above. I just protected Deng's user talk page. He had manipulated his talk page by moving my comments to places they shouldn't have been. And at this point, he's just using his talk page to attack Kurt. And besides, I think he's made all of his points. At this point, we need another admin (not me or NSLE but someone else) to respond to his unblock request. I think I made all of my points on his talk page so I don't think I need to add anything else. I will say that this did not just start. He's been stalking Kurt for 2 months now and I've been dealing with him on and off since the beginning of the year. He seems to think that he was indefinitely blocked just based on the discussion here. Please look at his talk page. You will see that that's just not so. Plus, be aware that he has removed block notices and warnings, especially in the last month or so. Thanks. --]<sup>]</sup> 06:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	:And actually I'll unprotect his talk page. The person who decides on the unblock request can decide what to do with his page. Hopefully he won't move or remove my comments in the mean time. --]<sup>]</sup> 06:38, 4 June 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 ].
	I've offered to mentor Deng, who informs me by email that Irpen has also offered. Would it be amenable to you and NSLE for us to joint mentor him (or if Irpen wants I will do it myself)? If so what kind of details/agreement would be ok? - ] 10:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
			'''Diffs:''' ''(all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 ) ''
	:I have no opinion on it, I only decided on an indef block after stumbling over this case. ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> at 10:10 ] <small>(])</small>
			* : 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''
	Please give Deng a second chance. I support the idea of mentoring him. Deng is a potentially valuable contributor, but his editing needs to be supervised by a team of more experienced wikipedians. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 07:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			* Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template.
	:Couple of problems with that. First of all, I've been basically mentoring him for months with no effect. The vast majority of my posts to his page has been trying to teach him how Misplaced Pages works and that's right up to the last few days. His response is to call me incorrect or to simply refuse to follow the direction. An example is recently when I told him that he should open a RfAr against Kurt. His response was basically that the arbcom is too backed up so by the time they act, Kurt will have vandalized hundreds of pages. So basically he was saying he was a one man revert squad and he was quite alright with that. Of all of the advice I've given him, the only 2 he followed was filing an RfC (and that took prodding) and also putting up the unblock template, though he only did that after he was blocked indefinitely by someone else. He's followed little else, including my pleas that he be civil. Just in the last few days, he , and also about how I was watching Kurt's edits...and mind you, this was AFTER Kurt had been blocked.
			* 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.
			---
	:Another problem is that neither of you 2 are admins. So if Deng strays, there is no ability to block him. As I said, I've been dealing with him for 6 months. I think I know him pretty well. I can almost guarantee that if he's unblocked, the first thing he's going to do is to go back to stalking Kurt. All you have to do is the read the last several entries in his talk page to see that. He has this fear that Kurt will be reverting sourcing unchecked, even though I told him I'd be watching Kurt's edits. I just don't think that more mentoring is the solution here. He just doesn't listen to others.
			* 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)
	:And he also doesn't take responsibility for his actions. You can't mentor someone like that. You have to have someone who can say "I'm wrong" occasionally, but Deng never does. Everything is Kurt's fault or my fault or the procedure's fault or another admin's fault. It's never Deng's fault.
			: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)
	:So. Mentoring sounds like a good idea but I've been doing it informally for months and Deng hasn't improved one iota. He's still being uncivil. He's still ignoring all advice. And he's still being disruptive. And he's not exactly a new user. He should know better. --]<sup>]</sup> 17:08, 5 June 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 ]
	I am still waiting for a reply from ]. - ] 16:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page:
	::: May I also add that deng has made many personal attacks against other users. This latest series of conflicts with Kurt is simply one example of his pattern. He has had numerous short blocks, with specific reasons given for each, yet he comes back and repeats the same types of actions. I also question the notion that he is a valuable contributor. He has made some good edits, but has also made others that are nonsense and push a POV, often against the consensus of other editors. ] 17:22, 5 June 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)
	Francis, I replied to you, you missed it. I also said that here earlier. I agree to try co-mentoring Deng. Others would have to deal with Kurt. Also, to address Woohookitty's consern, Alex Bakharev is an admin and expressed his willingness to co-mentor Deng as well. With Alex, Francis and myself, he would be enough supervised. I believe Woohookitty tried his best with Deng, but perhaps Deng percieved him not even handed and too forgiving to Kurt. No offence. Woo gets all my respect, but of these two, Kurt is definetely a bigger problem. --] 17:35, 5 June 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)
	:No he is not. He's a bigger problem for those users on here who don't really care how one says something as long as it is something that they agree with. --]<sup>]</sup> 22:42, 5 June 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)
	:Also, regarding NSLE's entry above sayng: ''"I have no opinion on it, I only decided on an indef block after stumbling over this case."'' (It was NSLE who blocked Deng) I wish the editors that strict monitored more cases of abuse at this page and at ANI. I mean it is OK to trigger-happily ban abusive users, but we should apply the same standards if we are to be harsh. I have actually no problem with faster blocking of problem users than the leaway they ''mostly'' get around here. That would save a lot of time for the ArbCom and a lot of user's time currently spent uselessly at RfC's or admin boards better spent on adding content to Misplaced Pages. But with users like Molobo and a ] getting away with only one month for by far worse incivility and Deng getting indef, the system seems uneven and broken. One month may be exactly appropriate for AlexPU (some suggested indef though, but even one month may be harsh enough.) Deng getting an indef is something I don't understand, especially when Kurt, who really engage in lots of sneaky vandalism, gets away with 5 days. --] 18:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			:and just to throw some more fuel on the bushfire, you have just accused me twice more of vandalism., . --] (]) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	Ok, sorry I missed the reply, I wasn't watching your page. So, me, you and alex it is then. How should we proceed? - ] 18:24, 5 June 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)
	:Deng is only doing this so he can get back on here and stalk Kurt and apparently, Irpen has no problem with that. "Kurt's the bigger problem". No he isn't. You are ok with a user reverting another user 40 times in 3 hours? You are ok with someone who not only violated 3RR, but actually reverted EIGHT TIMES in 2 hours? Deng is disruptive. Period. That's why he got the longer block. Deng's block was increased because he was extremely uncivil with me and he refused to take any responsibility. My original block of Deng was 7 days. For Kurt it was 5 1/2. Kurt's block was shorter because Deng's history of disruption is more extensive and he had one more 3RR vio. Kurt is not a saint and I bet that within a week or two, he will be blocked indefinitely as well. I have no doubt about that. But it doesn't absolve Deng. It doesn't give him the right to revert one user on sight, even when the edit is not vandalism. As he tried to resolve it? Sort of. He opened the RfC. Even on his talk page, he says that others have tried to talk to Kurt on Kurt's talk page to get him to stop. Others. Not Deng. Others. That is the most basic part of dispute resolution. And he hasn't tried it. All of his posts to Kurt's page have been of the "what is wrong with you?" variety. He did a request for investigation, but again, that's not really dispute resolution. That's trying to get another user blocked. That's what that is. He refused to follow a correct procedure on RfM. He outright refused an RfAr. Instead he's decided to follow Kurt all over the site and revert on sight, though he's been blocked for it several times and he's been told how to resolve the issues numerous times. To me, that is just as bad as what Kurt has done, if not worse.
			*: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)
	:And all 3 of the perspective mentors either support Deng's case or in the case of Alex Bakharev, believe in "ignore all rules". That is not going to work with Deng. We need totally neutral admins on this. Non-Russian. Non-WWII experts. People with absolutely no opinion on Deng. Just ordinary admins who don't have a stake in Deng. And you know, that was me 6 months ago. It's been said that he deserves a 2nd chance. 2nd? No. Try about 6th. --]<sup>]</sup> 22:42, 5 June 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=]}}.
	::Ok, then we can find some other mentors. Unfortunately, mentoring is generally thought to be a tough job, so I'm not sure that you will find any admins to mentor him who don't support his case. I'd like to point out that I'm certainly not pro-Russian and I'm not an expert on the second world war in any respect. You were mentoring him? I think it will be quite easy to tell if he is stalking Kurt, and if he does, under mentorship conditions, he will be blocked. I'm quite happy for him to have a more stringent set of rules to follow, 1RR or something, for a trial period of say a month or two... - ] ] 22:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			:* Suggestion: Add the following calculator to ]:
			{{calculator|id=edits|type=number|steps=1|size=3|default=3|min=0}}
	:::Restrictions like that would require an arbcom decision to stick. It's odd, I know. We can block without arbcom but we can't restrict someone's editing without it. Just how it works. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:40, 5 June 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.}}
	::::Even if he himself agrees? Thats kind of odd. Where is that written? - ] ] 00:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)		:* ] (]) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::* From ]; {{tq|Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring}}. Which this quite obviously does, especially as you've reverted ''twice'' whilst this report was ongoing. Frankly, you're quite fortunate it was only a partial block. ] 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			: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.
	Well it said so in ] - ''When mentorship arises as an outcome of the dispute resolution process, the mentor has formal supervisory powers over the protégé.'' I propose the following:
			: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)
	*The behavior of Deng was indeed egregious. I think we all agree that he deserved a one month block
			{{ab}}
	*The month is enough time to prepare an arbcom case against him, we could ask to put him under ''Involuntary mentorship''. Then his behavior will be monitored not only by his mentors but also by the whole ]. It should be enough to stop him ''before'' he would make 8 reversions. I think if the both sides agree on the Involuntary mentorship, it could be pushed through really fast (even at the start of the arbcom proceedings as a preliminary action)
			*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)
	*If you need an administrator to be his mentor, I volunteer to be his co-mentor. If you think somebody else is suited better, then it is fine with me. BTW could you, ], name any of my administrative actions that may be seen as the ] or encouraging of violations of 3RR or stalking? I might even deserve an apology.
			**. I've revoked TPA. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	*I think that permablocking a user for his good faith edits, who did not commited gross acts of inivility, etc. is to strong a punishment. Permablocking by an act of an admin is allowed only if all the admins agree with it. I disagree and I am an admin
	If there are no other proposal, I will set the block to one month ] 00:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
			== Kansascitt1225 ban appeal ==
	:I have set the block to 1 month. I will be happy to assist with the arbcom case, but i do not have the full information on the matter ] 02:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop green|result=Appeal successful. There were some murmurings requesting a topic ban from Kansas, but nothing approaching consensus. Of course, ] would be well-advised to be careful not to go back to the behaviors that led to a block in the first place. But in the meantime, welcome back. <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 19:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			I am posting the following appeal on behalf of {{user21|Kansascitt1225}}, who is considered banned by the community per ]:
			(keeping it short for WP:TLDR) Hi Misplaced Pages community, it has been over 1 year since I edited on Misplaced Pages without evading my block or breaking community rules. I would like to be given another chance to edit. I realized that my blocking was due to my behavior of creating multiple accounts and using them on the same page and creating issues during a disagreement. I was younger then and am now able to communicate more effectively with others. I intend to respect community rules and not be disruptive to the community. I was upset years ago when I mentioned Kansas City’s urban decay and it was reverted as false and I improperly reacted in a disruptive way that violated the community rules. The mistake I made which caused the disruptive behavior was that I genuinely thought people were reverting my edits due to the racist past of this county and keeping out blacks and having a dislike for the county. I also thought suburbs always had more single family housing and less jobs than cities. In this part of the United States a suburb means something different than what it means in other parts of the world and is more of a political term for other municipalities which caught me off guard and wasn’t what I grew up thinking a suburb was.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://slate.com/business/2015/05/urban-density-nearly-half-of-america-s-biggest-cities-look-like-giant-suburbs.html}}</ref> Some of these suburbs have lower single family housing rates and higher population density and this specific county has more jobs than the “major city” (referenced in previous unblock request if interested). This doesn’t excuse my behavior but shows why I was confused and I should have properly addressed it in the talk pages instead of edit warring or creating accounts. After my initial blocking, I made edits trying to improve the project thinking that would help my case when it actually does the opposite because I was bypassing my block which got me community banned to due the automatic 3 strikes rule. I have not since bypassed my block. I’m interested in car related things as well as cities and populations of the United States and want to improve these articles using good strong references. Thanks for reading. ] (]) 04:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	== AfD List of famous people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder ==
			{{reflist-talk}} ] (]/]) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	Hi, could a administrator please fix this up ], I thought about trying but it may look a lot better (and done properly) if it was undertaken by a admin rather than a standard user.--]] 12:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
			* '''(mildly involved) Support'''. I gave feedback on an earlier version of their ban appeal. This is five years since the initial block. Five years and many, many socks, and many, many arguments. But with no recent ban evasion and a commitment to communicate better, I think it's time to give a second chance. -- ] (]) 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	:What do you want done with it? Cleaned up? The AfD is not due to close until another few days. ''']''']|<sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 13:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per asilvering and ]. ] (]/]) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	::] has constructed a new (2nd time) AfD over the old closed AfD. It needs to be split, with the old AfD being reverted and a new AfD constructed (somthing like ], links checked and so on.--]] 13:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
			*'''Support'''. Five years is a long time. Willing to trust for a second chance.] (]) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Done! I have moved new to ], reveted the old to the closed version and changed the ] to the (second nomination). Could some check to see I have not missed any thing?. --]] 13:49, 4 June 2006 (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)
	:::Everything looks to be in order.&#160;— ]] 13:55, 4 June 2006 (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)
	::::Thanks for checking--]] 14:02, 4 June 2006 (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! ==
	==Soccer-europe images==
	I have taken the great liberty to remove the advertising from the articles that have soccer-europe images on them. The main reason doing so is becuase it advertises the site; you are supposed to credit the work on the image talk page, not the article space, just below the image itself. Just thought I would let you all know. ''']''']|<sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 13:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Sometimes, "courtesy of" comments may be left in captions, but certainly not wide-scale. ] 20:40, 4 June 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)
	==]==
	This arbitration case is closed. The parties were:
	*{{user5|Squeakbox}}
	*{{user5|Zapatancas}}
			:{{like}} -] (]) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	* Remedies:
			:Note: {{no ping|DreamRimmer}} is now also a maintainer. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	**Both are banned from Misplaced Pages for one month.
			:My congratulations/condolences. ] (]) 15:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	**Both are banned from editing ] and related articles for one year.
			:So, will ftools be renamed or not? Congratulations. ] (]) 02:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	**Both are placed on personal attack parole for one year.
	* Enforcement:
	** An escalating schedule of enforcement by block.
			== Block appeal for ] ==
	For the Arbitration Committee. --] 17:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop
			| status = unblock denied
	:I've carried out both blocks per the remedy and logged it in the case. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 19:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)		| result = AKG has withdrawn the request. In any case, I see too many misgivings even on the "support" side to consider an unblock at this time. ] (]) 02:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
			I 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 have also indefinitely blocked Zapatancas' old account, Zapatero. --] 19:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
			:I was blocked for sockpuppetry. There was no doubt throughout the discussion over that. I have agreed to a one-account restriction. However, during the unblock request, a topic ban on me was proposed from ] (WP:ARBPIA) and also from ] (WP:ARBIPA). Though no proper evidence was provided to substantiate such proposals.
	== User subpage deletion ==
			: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.
	I tagged ] for {{tl|db-owner}}. Is there a place where I list speedies, or does it get put into some backlog?--] 18:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	:It's automatically put into a ] ''']''' (]) <em><strong>]</strong></em> 20:16, 4 June 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.
	== Possible sneaky vandalism at ] and ] ==
			: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 have been coming accross some strange looking edits on ] today. After an attempt to cleanup the article I noticed that the text was the result of edits from newly created accounts and an anon, who also (and only) made similar edits to ] which is a totally unrelated subject.
	Accounts in question: {{User|Vany90}} {{User|Haniii}} {{User|Ba-KaDüÜ}} {{User|Skung}} {{User|80.145.197.126}} {{User|Miri2202}}. Can someone take a look and let me know what they think. ] 20:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
			] (]) 01:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	==] backlog==
			*'''Support unblock without TBANs and with single account restriction.'''] (]) 01:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	For any admins who have some time, there's a fair amount of pages building up at ] that can be deleted. All of the pages at ] can be deleted, and most of the pages at ] can be deleted (in ~3 hours, ALL of those can be deleted as well). I'm trying to do some of it, but it could probably use a few more people if anyone has any time. ]] (]) 21:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	:] is done. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' as requested. The request is sincere. Having edited a fair amount of articles where I discovered this editor's edits, I found his edits thoroughly productive and that is absolutely uncommon in this area. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 01:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Oui. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 23:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
			:* '''Comment''' "Support as requested" sounds like a canvassed vote, did you mean it in a different way? ] 08:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:*: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)
	==Racist vandal==
			:: I don't believe the PIA issue is a problem, only the IPA one. ] 18:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	I've looked all over and can't seem to find a way to report a racist vandal who has made continusou and repeatd attacks to ], including . The IP is {{User|74.64.40.94}}-- ] 21:36, 4 June 2006 (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 ==
	:No activity from this IP since ]. ] 21:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop
	:Generally speaking we deal with this kind of vandalism by reverting it. As the vandalism was reverted and the vandal hasn't edited since we don't need to do anything else. ] | ] 21:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
			| 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>
	::Thanks for the information and the quick response! I'm glad to hear that this IP has stopped for now. So this is the page to note these kinds of things? --] 21:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
			:I suppose you mean , which you ''didn't'' create at all though, and which is completely unsuitable for enwiki as it stands, being unsourced and lacking all indication of notability. ] (]) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Well, they create the page. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::], oh, okay<span id="Cactusisme:1736586978195:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 09:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
			{{abot}}
			== Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators ==
	:::For vandalism in progress, a better page on which to make a note is ]; more complex or longer-term vandalism, though, may be noted here. ] 22:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
			The Arbitration Committee has resolved by ] that:
	== Confirmed sock puppet: ] ==
			{{ivmbox|1=
	This user is a confirmed sockpuppet of a indef banned user . Could an admin block them? ] 22:54, 4 June 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.
	*The Whois for this IP , shows that this is one of a seven IPs assigned to an ISP in Oman. This is obviously a dynamic IP, the last edit from it was on May 18. I do not see the point in blocking it. We probably would not want to block all Oman wikipedians by the total range blocking this ISP ] 04:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Ok, in that case should I just remove the sock puppet tag? ] 04:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			The specific responsibilities of coordinating arbitrators shall include:
	==Help with a user==
			* 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.
	], (also used ] and ] is removing image problem tags faster than I can replace them - without addressing the underlying problems. Can someone assist? ] 00:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			</blockquote>
			}}
			For the Arbitration Committee, ]&nbsp;] 23:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	== User:YINever ==
			: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators}}'''<!-- ] (]) 23:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->
			== Backlog ==
	{{vandal|YINever}} ] is repeated reverting the article ] and keeps removing warnings from his talk page even though he has been repeatedly warned for it. See ]. ] keeps deleting his talk page warning. ] is currently in a revert war with ] at the The Epoch Times article. He keeps reverting without attempting to reach consensus. --] 01:10, 5 June 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)
	:This user is for violating 3RR, for which he has been warned and blocked before. He is attempting to put repeated templates on my page to goad me into excerbating a content dispute, and so far has seen two fraudulent vandalism reports shunned. Apparently he thinks if he can just keep reporting to more and more places, maybe someone will be fooled and block me over his templates.
			== Requesting review of SPI ==
	:"]" has just been blocked for his own violations, and so far this one remains free. ] 01:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{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)
	::"]" was blocked for personal attacks, not 3RRV. Apparently ] is a new account and most of his edits was in a revert war with ] and other editors. He has been amply warned yet he still continues to revert the article. I suspect the IP address reverting ] article is his ]. He keeps deleting his talk page warnings which is vandalism. ] 01:28, 5 June 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}}
			== IPBE for AWB account ==
	*The article has been protected to give you all a cooling off period. Please discuss your edits on the talk pages. Deleting comments from ones' own talk page may be rude but is not considered vandalism. Since your mutual checkuser requests were negative on all counts, I suggest you stop warning each other and try to cooperate on writing the article. ] 15:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop|status=Done|1=Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			Hi. I'm performing a task using {{user|CanonNiAWB}}, but the edits aren't editing since I'm using a VPN. I already have IP block exemptions on this account, so could it also be granted to that? Thanks. <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 02:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Done. ] (]) 02:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Thanks. <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 02:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Content removal, POV pushing, edit warring ==
	== GNAA Afd Socks ==
			{{atop
			| result = Please use ] rather than creating new ones. ] ] 15:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
			@] removing content and POV pushing here and is currently edit warring ] (]) 10:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	], ], ], ] and ] all appear to be the same person per contribs and User creation logs (though not all are editing), interestingly creating '''and archiving''' (?) Afds for ]. <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 01:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			:This looks like the same complaint as ]. Let's centralise discussion there. I note that ] is also empty. ] (]) 11:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	== JtV Sock ==		== Tulsi (unblock request) ==
			{{atop green|User unblocked. ] 12:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			* {{userlinks|Tulsi}}
			* Blocked (indef) on 3 April 2024 (9 months ago) by ] during an AN thread (]) for undisclosed paid editing
			* Subsequent unblock request was also considered at AN before being declined (])
			Tulsi has now submitted an unblock request which I am copying:
	Johnny the Vandal, Jr. is a sockpuppet of Johnny the Vandal. I'd give him an indef block, but I'm not an admin.] 01:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{talk quote block|Dear Sysops,
	:What happened to your signature? ] <sup>]</sup> 01:30, 5 June 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.
	:That user was blocked 10 minutes ago, so there is no need for action. Interesting sig bug, for those interested see . ] <sup>]</sup> 01:34, 5 June 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 ].
	==]==
	This case is closed.
			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.
	*{{user5|Marcosantezana}}
			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.
	Marcosantezana is banned for one year from editing ] and related articles. He is placed on probation indefinitely. Should a suitable mentor or mentors be found, a mentorship agreement may be negotiated with the arbitration committee.
			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.
	For the Arbitration Committee. --] 02:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			Thank you for your consideration. I humbly request your reconsideration and the restoration of the editing privileges on my account on English Misplaced Pages.
	== Protect This Image ==
			Sincerely,
	] needs to be protected as it's now on the Main Page. ]]] 02:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	: Done. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 02:32, 5 June 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.
	] should probably also be protected. ]]] 03:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Done too. Thanks. --] <sup><font color="#3D9140">]</font></sup> 03:29, 5 June 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.
	== Admin Input Requested on Suggested Template:AfD Tweak ==
			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)
	Would an admin be kind enough to come take a look at ] and perhaps make the tweak suggested there (or join the discussion)? I think the tweak could help reduce somewhat some certain types of vandalism associated with AfDs. &mdash; ''']''' <sup>(]&nbsp;|&nbsp;])</sup> <span style="color:black; background-color:#FFFF99;">&nbsp;'''<small>&dArr; plz reply <U>HERE</U> &nbsp;(])&nbsp;&dArr;</small>'''&nbsp;</span> 03:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			*I cannot find the link for "A related meta-wiki discussion". <span>]]</span>  15:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Personal attacks by user Pantherarosa ==
			**I've deleted those words. I had decided not to include them in my post, but accidentally left them in. For interest, the discussion was this one: ]. ] 15:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per ]. I will AGF that Tulsi will keep his promise not to engage in any COI editing going forward. ] (]/]) 16:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Question''': We are all volunteers here, so the applicant's comment {{tq|if I am ever in a situation where I am '''required''' to contribute to such an article}} (emphasis mine) is worrisome within the context of UPE/COI. Could they, or someone else for that matter, provide some clarification? ] (]) 19:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*: I assume "required" is just poor phrasing and refers to circumstances similar to ] provided in the same sentence you quote. In any event, the second part of the sentence states {{tq|<em>I will ensure full disclosure on the article talk page and submit it for review</em>}} (emphasis added). That promise is enough for me. ] (]/]) 21:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''', we should generally give a second chance to users who have greatly and fundamentally changed in several months. Given that the user acknowledged the block and promised not to engage in undisclosed paid editing, not to mention that the user is trusted elsewhere, I see no reason to oppose. ] (]) 20:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' I believe in their ability to address any concern in the future, given that they served as a sysop on Wikimedia Commons, Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki, and the Maithili and Nepali Wikipedias. ] (]) 21:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Support''' A second chance promises that Tulsi will not do highly undisclosed paid editing. I may partially support a topic ban on Nepalese politics against Tulsi. ] (]) 05:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	I posted the issue on the backloged WP:PAIN but it became a cluttered mess that gave no result. Instead of getting into a detailed explaination, below are the personal attacks made by Pantherarosa even though (s)he had been warned numerous times to stop. I think they speak for themselves:
			*'''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}}
			== ] ==
			{{atop|1=Snow in the forecast. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	and
			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)
	Keep in mind these were being made after ] had been warned numerous times to stop. ] 04:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			::Snowed by me. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 16:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Thank you!!! ] (]) 16:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Request for Administrator Review of Repeatedly Declined Draft: Ario Nahavandi ==
	== Personal attacks by user Batman2005 and bad-faith edits by Moe Epsilon ==
			{{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.
	]'s user page contains numerous personal attacks on various people. When I removed the attacks him and ] reverted my edits and Moe Epsilon gave me a blatant vandal warning even though I was discussing the matter with Batman2005. Could someone re-revert Batman's page to the version without personal attacks, remove the warning from my talk page, and let Moe Epsilon know that his conduct was not very nice? ] 05:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			Over the course of several months, I have worked diligently to gather reliable, published, and independent sources, including magazine articles and other credible publications, that meet Misplaced Pages’s notability criteria. My most recent submission was declined in less than an hour—a timeframe that strongly suggests it was not even reviewed carefully or thoroughly.
	::First off, Batman2005's userpage contains no personal attacks. Paul is refering to linking John Kerry to the word ''douche'', which doesn't violate NPA. NPA refers to editors, not real-life people like John Kerry. If Batman2005 feels like linking John Kerry to his userpage, I see no reason why he shouldn't be able too. And, I know my conduct isn't very nice, it's who I am. ;-) ] ] 05:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::NPA says no personal attack anywhere. It doesn't say "but it's ok if they aren't a Misplaced Pages user". If it's not okay to make personal attacks to other users, why is it okay to make them to general people? Personal attacks are inappropriate, regardless who they are addressed towards. And you admit that your conduct is mean, even though that would mean you see nothing wrong with violating ]? ] 05:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::The reason we have the NPA rule is that personal attacks prevent good collaborative editing, and that is bad for Misplaced Pages. John kerry doesn't edit wikipedia. ] | ] 05:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Theresa, if you were famous but did not edit on Misplaced Pages, you would find it appropriate for someone to refer to you as a douche? ] 05:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Your missing the point. ] ] 05:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::''No you're missing the point!'' Let's keep the pointless comments to ourselves okay? I think the point Theresa knott is making is that if it is not disruptive to Misplaced Pages, it's okay to do. However the fact that we have a <nowiki>{{defwarn}}</nowiki> tag would seem to support that any personal attacks are not allowed, which is what NPA literally says. If it's fine and appropriate for Misplaced Pages, why do we have the defamation warning and a policy that supports the position in the first line? ] 05:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::I had a point to my last comment. Did you read the other half of her comment. John kerry doesn't edit wikipedia. Doesn't that sound something familiar to what I said? ] ] 05:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::Sounds exactly like what you said. Sounds flawed. ] 05:48, 5 June 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.
	This isn't defamation. {{unsigned|Theresa knott}} 05:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Well it can't be a personal attack if it isn't defamation, so it's ok if I do this ]? ] 05:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			I have followed all guidelines in good faith and cannot accept decisions that appear to be based on personal opinion rather than policy. It feels as though my article is being subjected to an unjust standard, especially when compared to articles that seem to bypass scrutiny. I genuinely wonder if this process is influenced by factors beyond content quality, as I have no means to “pay” for an article to be published, unlike some others.
	:::<s>Yes</s> No, because she is a Misplaced Pages editor. Mind ]. ;-) ] ] 05:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::You said yes, so you're saying it's appropriate? ] 05:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::No, it's not appropriate. Note the smiley face, I was joking. ] ] 05:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Three problems with that:
	:::::#It's a double standard; why is it okay to insult someone in one case but not another? How can you not say that attacking someone should never be allowed.
	:::::#If, by chance, John Kerry were to sign up on Misplaced Pages, are people going to chase down everyone who previously was allowed to attack him and now remove their insults?
	:::::#What if I knew (or was perhaps friends with) one of the people attacked. Do you not see a conflict there?
	:::::Lastly, I would still like you to show me where NPA says it does not apply to people outside of Misplaced Pages. It explicitly says no attack anywhere, so can you find where it explicitly says unless they aren't a wikipedia editor? ] 05:59, 5 June 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.
	My two cents is that attacking/insulting someone who isn't a Misplaced Pages editor isn't ''per se'' prohibited, though (in my opinion), the less the person is a public figure the less the leeway for it. However, attacking/insulting someone who isn't a Misplaced Pages editor '''with the intent to provoke a reaction from Misplaced Pages editors''' is intentionally disruptive and intended to degrade the editing process, and is, as far as I'm concerned, subject to admin review and (if necessary) sanctions. --] | ] 05:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Do you think batman2005 was doing that? ] | ] 05:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Maybe, but since I haven't actually seen Batman2005's contribution to the polity nor was my general comment on the (in my opinion) overly narrow interpretation of NPA policy being floated in any way addressing Batman2005's contribution to the polity, I fail to see the relevance of the question. --] | ] 06:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	::IMHO, no, because he wasn't trying to draw attention to himself. The only attention he got from it was Paul trying to remove it from his userpage bringing this forth. ] ] 05:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			To provide context, here are some of the sources I included:
	My comment is not related to the kerry link, but on the images used in Batman's user page. He has placed a lot of Fair use images there. To the best of my knowledge, fair use images are not supposed to be placed in anything other than the corresponding person/subject's page in the main namespace. Thanks. --] 05:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I'll remove them and talk to the user. ] ] 06:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			• https://www.nationaldiversityawards.co.uk/awards-2024/nominations/ario-nahavandi/
	Just to let you know, whether or not WP:NPA is being violated, ] says that user pages can NOT have ''Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Misplaced Pages''. Which Batman2005's page has. ] 06:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			• Taurus Magazine (2024-11-19). "Ario Nahavandi". Taurus Magazine. 88: 7 – via www.magcloud.com
	As well, calling the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternaty losers would I'm sure be an insult to some of the users here who are in it. ] 06:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			• 6x Magazine (2024-11-22). "Ario Nahavandi; The Persian Icon". 6X Magazine. 432: 6–7 – via www.magcloud.com
	::Anybody here in Sigma Alpha Epsilon? -- ] ] 06:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Another pointless comment Moe? ] 06:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Again, not pointless. Your comment above, ''what if Kerry had an account..''. I guess if Kerry had an account on Misplaced Pages, then we should take down personal attacks against him, but thats a one and ten billion chance of him joining this site. You're comment, ''What if I knew someone being attacked'': well, what if? If they had an account on Misplaced Pages, I guess we could take it down, but ya know.. what if. And it's two differant things the comment made on Kerry and Theresa. Theresa edits here, Kerry doesn't. ] ] 06:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			Thank you for your time and consideration xx
	:::Ah, so membership in the attacked group by Wikipedians must '''proven''' before it's considered a divisive attack? Gotcha.
			] (]) 23:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::I'm not a member, and I'm sure ] is willing to poll the other 999,999 registered users on that issue, just to be sure. --] | ] 06:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::I'm so up to it. ;-) ] ] 06:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Didn't the whole userboxwar thing start when all gwb related userboxes were deleted on the grounds that ''disliking george bush is a personal attack'', you would think that would cut both ways--] 20:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I think that would definately not be a personal attack. Someone can say "I don't like so and so" but they can't be like "So and so is a loser". ] 02:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
			:Administrators cannot override draft declines, and in fact the administrator toolset ]. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 23:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Inappropriate username? ==
			::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 ==
	Is ] an inappropriate user name, especially as he seems to be editting articles about ]? <font style="color:#BB0055">'''s'''murrayinch</font>]<font style="color:#BB0055">ster<sup>(]), (])</sup></font> 06:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop green|Unanimous consent after 36 hours to lift the restriction. ] (]) 14:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			A bit over a year ago, with near unanimous support, I appealed a TBAN from GENSEX - receiving in its place the following sanctions {{tq|1RR restriction in both the GENSEX and AMPOL topics; is limited to 0RR on articles for organizations/activists who are affiliated with anti-transgender activism or gender-critical feminism, broadly construed; and has a PBAN from Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull.}} Previous discussions are linked there. I am now requesting that my restrictions be dropped entirely because I have grown considerably as an editor, both since my initial TBAN when I'd just turned 19 and since the appeal.
			I translated ] (having originally wrote it on eswiki during my TBAN) and made it my first GA. I uploaded multiple colorized photographs of transgender historical figures to commons I improved ] and wrote articles for famous trans activists ] and ]. I also cleared up serious BLP violations at ] and rewrote the article. I also helped expand ] and wrote ]. I improved ] and ]. I improved ]. I rewrote and considerably expanded ] as well as ]. I expanded the article on the ]. I wrote the article on the 1970 semi-governmental report '']''. I expanded the articles on ] and ]. I rewrote ] to follow ] and use systematic reviews instead of primary studies. '''Most proudly''', I wrote ] and took it to GA - this is particularly relevant as a key part of the original TBAN discussion was whether my commitment to removing misinformation from Misplaced Pages was a case of either ] or following ] and ].
	:I've left him a note, because he seems under the impression (judging by his userpage) that he is Sir Richard. Naturally I'm skeptical. If he is, he needs to directly say so (but the account will still need to be monitored, of course, until we know definitively). If he isn't, or fails to say whether or not he is after his next edit, than block post haste. --] - '']'' - ] 07:16, 5 June 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.
	:Raul has also left a message that should aid in positively identifying this user. --] - '']'' - ] 02:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
			I appreciate your consideration. My best regards, ] (]) 01:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	==Speedy deletion backlog==
			:'''Support.''' ] (]/]) 01:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	As of two minutes ago, ] was up to 110 pages and a couple of dozen images. Any admin want to pitch in? --] | ] 06:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			:'''Support'''. Based on YFNS's activity since the original tban, I don't see any reason to believe that restrictions are necessary going forward. ] (]) 06:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Support'''. Welcome back comrade. ] (]) 06:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Support''' based on their editing activity between TBAN and last year, as well as between the sanctions and now. Good work, and a great example of how this restorative process is ''supposed'' to work. May you inspire other misguided people to a path of restoration. ]&thinsp;] 08:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Snow Support''' ] (]) 14:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Strong support'''. To me YNFS comes across as a very responsible editor and I believe these restrictions are no longer warranted. ] (]) 16:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Support''' I remember the original ban happening due in large part to canvassing on twitter, the fact that any restrictions remained in place thereafter strikes me as a deep miscarriage of justice. ] (]) 23:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			'''Query''' Does your reference to BRD mean that you undertake to follow it in the future? ] (]) 14:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Enthusiastic support''' YFNS is a perfect model of an editor who is an asset to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Support''' A well worded appeal, worth giving another chance. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' This is a convincing and sincere appeal. ] (]) 00:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''', Welcome. ~] ] <sup>「] / ]」</sup> 02:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' as they have convincingly demonstrated change. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' I supported and still support the original restrictions, and the later now appealed restrictions. I think YFNS's case has shown that an editor can come back from the brink successfully and am happy that happened. ] (]) 04:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Copyvio Problem ==
	Holding steady now at 115 pages and 30 images. --] | ] 07:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			Hey all, I believe that these three diff should be redacted as copy vio's, thanks. There are several sentences which are directly lifted from the sources. Some one more experienced should likely have a look through the revision I restored as well. I didn't spot anything, but I may have missed something.
	== Santa's reindeer ==
	I have no idea where to take this, so I'm trying here. A user ] an individual page for each of Santa's reindeer. Frankly I have no idea what to do with this. I was thinking NN until I realized that they really are notable. Chances are more people have heard of ] than ]. The question is - do they really deserve individual pages? --] 14:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			] (]) 22:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] ==
			:To be clear, I don't think that @] is really at any fault here.
	It's getting terribly piled up. In need of some admin attention. Thanks <b>] 14:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			:] (]) 22:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Under control now, thanks to the efforts of other admins. --] ] 15:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			::@] please see {{tl|copyvio-revdel}} on how to tag copyvios for attention. ] (]) 08:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Lardlegwarmers block appeal ==
	==]==
			{{atop
	Jimbo Wales has banned {{user5|Anittas}}. Following this, Anittas and {{user5|Xed}} abused ] for the purpose of trolling. When this was protected, Xed continued by using the user page as a talk page. Looking at Xed's recent contributions I see nothing but trolling. I have blocked him for one week. Presented here for review. --] 15:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			| result = Essentially unanimous consensus to not unblock. ] ] 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I'm not a sysop, but this looks like a legitimate block. Much trolling under the guise of being a freedom fighter for those maligned by "The Leader". Few contibs otherwise. Good block. -- ] <small>]</small> 15:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			}}
			* {{userlinks|Lardlegwarmers}}
	:: I've just realised that Xed is on personal attack parole. Some of his recent edits qualify as personal attacks so I will enter this block into the log on ] (there is no log there at present, I'll have to create it). --] 15:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			I blocked Lardlegwarmers yesterday for one week for a violation of ] from COVID-19. This was about ], although I subsequently noticed ] as well. LLW has asked me to copy their appeal here. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== 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 ===
	: Xed asked Jimbo nicely and was unblocked. --] 16:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			* Going to open a new subsection here since I've made comments to ] two weeks ago. I wish I could say I was surprised that this ended in tears but that would be untrue (though I did have some hopes the comment a month ago indicating they were aware pro-fringe POV-pushing was sactionable was a signal they were intending to modify their behaviour). As bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez points out, making thinly veiled attacks is not exactly the type of thing looked favourably upon in an unblock request. Nor is making polemical statements on one's user page, whether within the scope of the ban or not, likely to convince the community of one's inclination and ability to ]. Lardlegwarmers, if you do really want to return to editing, especially if you want to appeal your topic ban in 6 months or a year, I would strongly advise reading ] and following the advice there, especially ]. Complaining about Hob's conduct won't help you here, because the block (and it's a rather short one) and ban are about you, not Hob. Given your comment that {{tq|apparently two wrongs make a right}}, I had hoped that you were already also considering your own behaviour, but I would like to make it very clear: taking the role of one of the "wrongs" to address someone else's "borderline uncivil" behaviour is ]. Whether Hob crosses the line is on them, but what you do is entirely on you. ] (] • ]) 07:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			* 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 ==
	Xed began his Misplaced Pages career with attacks on Jimbo. I see little has changed. ]|] 17:26, 5 June 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 do not see how Xed and Anittas's actions on the latter's talk page in any way constitute abuse and trolling. They simply discussed the fact that Wales's indefinite block of Anittas was unjust and discussed possible ways of rectifying this error in judgement on Jim's part. Are users not allowed to challange or at least discuss the decisions of administrators on their own talk pages? Anittas might have gone a bit too far at the end, but you can surely understand his anger and frustration and his impulsive block, but Xed truly did not engage in any form of abuse or trolling, he simply criticized some of Wales's actions and then criticized Sidaway's action of blocking the talk page which even to me appeared ridiculous in the extreme. ] 17:31, 5 June 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)
	:::You don't consider abuse? ]|] 17:35, 5 June 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 ==
	::::Had he written that statement in bad faith solely in an attempt to blacken Wales's name, it would have been one thing. However, I am certain that he truly believes that the ban was inappropriate (particuarly in the case of Anittas where he posted the same statement) and that those users were banned not as much for their participation in other sections of Misplaced Pages, but rather for criticizing Wales, and he wrote a brief and concise message to that effect where the topic was being discussed. ] 17:43, 5 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)
	== Protection ==
			:So there's two things here.
	Both this page and the talk page are s-protected because of an AOL attack. Unprotect in a few minutes when the attack dies down if I'm not around to do it. --] - '']'' - ] 16:35, 5 June 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.
			:* Second, Acalamari, could you please refrain from calling people "Drumpf supporters" and ] on the reasons for nominating an article for deletion? While you're entitled to your opinions, that's borderline (at best) ], especially when you call them "delusional".
			:If both users agree to accept what they did wrong here and move forward, I don't think any further action is necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 22:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Ok, I'm newer to Misplaced Pages, I understand what you are saying, my train of thought was, "this comment looks like vandalism, vandalism on Misplaced Pages is removed, therefore remove". I didn't know that they don't do that for talk pages. Thank you my friend. ] (]) 22:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Vandalism has a '''very''' specific definition on Misplaced Pages - see ] for more information on what is not vandalism. Merely calling people names and/or being uncivil, while against the rules, is '''not''' vandalism. There are proper processes for handling other rule violations (such as asking someone to edit their own comments, or asking a noticeboard for help) such as those, but they are decidedly '''not''' vandalism. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Ok thank you for telling me ] (]) 23:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Where are the ]? ] (]) 22:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*This is a baseless complaint. Ater not editing for months, the OP refactored an AfD that was closed last November. Acalamari rightly warned them for doing that.--] (]) 22:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I agree, but at the same time, I think TV19E has a right to be unhappy that Acalamari, an administrator and bureaucrat, was able to cast aspersions and call people names without it being called out at the time as far as I can see. They went about it the wrong way (removing the comment), but that doesn't mean there isn't room for discussion of that comment. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 22:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Nope. First, it doesn't rise to the level required of this noticeboard, and, second, it's not at all timely.--] (]) 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::To be blunt, Acalamari didn't even tell the editor when they ''initially'' reverted back in November (while the discussion was open) where they could discuss further/report if they felt the comment was not appropriate. I'm not suggesting sanctions against Acalamari at all. But to tell a new editor "someone broke the rules and since you didn't report it in the proper way at the time because nobody told you how, they're allowed to break the rules" is clear ]. I think all that's necessary is an apology from Acalamari - TV19E has already explained that they were mistaken as to it being vanadalism. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 23:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I didn't edit for a few months because I have to do other things. I was just scrolling around I don't even remember what I was doing and I saw he put it back, I didn't know he was a mod, and it also said you can't edit archived talk pages, which he did, so I reverted his edit. ] (]) 23:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::That's not true. You modified a closed AfD. Acalamari rightly reverted your edit of an archived discussion.--] (]) 23:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I just said, he is the one who modified a closed AfD, which is not allowed, then I reverted it not knowing he is a moderator ] (]) 23:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::He didn't modify a closed AfD. His comment was readded while the discussion was still open, because you removed it in violation of ]. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 23:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Oh okay this is my mistake then I thought it was after the AfD was closed my bad ] (]) 23:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Wait hold on, I just looked at it again. He added back his comment after the result was SNOW. On the page when he re added it, it said do not edit the page. ] (]) 23:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::You removed Acalamari's comment as vandalism with the edit summary "subhanAllah". You had ''no right'' to do that. Acalamari restored it, which even though the AfD was closed, they had the right to do in the circumstances.--] (]) 23:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/2028_United_States_presidential_election_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1257014612 Take a look, this is his edit. When he re added his comment, on the page in red it said '''Do not edit the page''' ] (]) 23:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::The comment never should've been removed in the first place. It's within the spirit of the rules to readd a comment that you improperly removed, even if the discussion had been closed in the meantime. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{ec}} There's no admin abuse here as no admin tools have been used. In case you missed ''"The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below"'' with the bright red ''"Please do not modify it"'' at that AfD, I'll repeat the instructions here - don't modify archived discussions.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I was saying Admin abuse because of the fact that he is able to keep his comment on the page when even if he is violating the rules. I'm not a moderator so I can't do anything about. Now I just learned from that guy that they don't remove comments even if its vandalism, now I know. But thats why I reported it here you know. ] (]) 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:He is the one who edited the closed AfD. This was one of the reason why I reverted his edit. ] (]) 23:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*It's very hard to work out what's happening without the presence of diffs. ] (]) 23:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:*{{tq|without the presence of diffs}}. But Ponyo and I have contributed, so you're in the presence of greatness; isn't that better than diffs? :p --] (]) 23:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:*:* ''Tiggerjay is bowing down in great humility before such greatness never before seen in this universe. '' Now.... where is the trout? ]&thinsp;] 23:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:*:Who am I to disagree with the Jedi? ] (]) 23:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Okay, I've looked into this. And...surprise surprise, TopVat19sEver was the one who ''origially removed Aclamari's !vote while the AfD was still open'' . Yes, about a day after the AfD was closed, Aclamari reverted this removal , which ''is'' technically "editing a closed AfD" but I would say they were ] to revert a ]. And now, suddenly, today, two months later, as their first edit ''after'' having done that improper removal, TopVat19sEver goes back to the AfD and removes Aclamari's !vote ''again'' , which Aclamari - entirely rightfully - reverted , and then TopVat19sEver comes here to cry "admin abuse", when no administrative abilities were used ''at all'' in this whole mess. Could Aclamari have used more moderate language in their initial !vote? Yeah maybe, but it was no ''violation'' at all, and the only thing needed here is a ] or at least a {{tl|trout}} for TopVat19sEver. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	: I've removed the protection now; 30 minutes or so should be enough. --] 17:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{Abot}}
			== Ban appeal from Rathfelder ==
	== ] blocked ==
			* {{userlinks|Rathfelder}}
	I have blocked {{vandal|AIias Flood}} indefinitely as an imposter of ]. The user and user talk page were identical to Alias Flood's. Posting here for review. ] 16:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			* ] for sockpuppetry, vote-stacking and undisclosed COI writing of a BLP attack page
	:] has restored aiias flood's ]. Should he be blocked, and should the page be protected? ] 19:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			* ] declined by the community
	::AYAYAYAY indefblocked by me. Guess it depends on if you have it watched, but prolly it should be protected. ] 19:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			* ] 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:
	== Prod backlog ==
			{{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)
	The articles at have been sitting for about 7 days now. There's about 175 articles in there. Would an admin mind taking a look at them? Thanks, ] 01:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
			*'''Question''' during the January 2024 unblock request Rathfelder said they would be willing to accept a restriction on editing articles related to BLPs or healthcare orgs. Are they still willing to accept those edit restrictions if they are un-banned? Furthermore, in January 2024 there was, at the time, no evidence of any further socking. Can we confirm that good behaviour has continued? ] (]) 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' They have been a very productive contributor at the Simple English Misplaced Pages, and it has definitely been long enough for the ]. ] (]) 21:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Appealing April 4 2024, indefinite WP:CUP ban and indefinite 1-nomination GAN limit ==
	:I'm taking care of it. —] 01:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{atopr
			| result = Consensus to lift this ban will not develop. ] (]/]) 22:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
			At ], I was instructed by closer ] that I could appeal these in a year and it has been 9.5 months. I am appealing because the CUP entry deadline is traditionally January 31. See ] through ]. This year the ] verbiage says "The competition will begin on 1 January 2025 and signups will continue throughout the year". I am just noticing the new language as I am putting this appeal in. Nonetheless, I am requesting time off for good behavior on the ban.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 18:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	==Ceraurus==
			:'''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)
	How did an indefinite block on in a content dispute/revert fight turn into a permanent ban? ] 01:15, 6 June 2006 (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)
			{{abot}}
			==Requesting info==
	:When he violated his agreement not to use sock puppets to get around the 3RR rule. ]|] 02:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop
			| result = {{u|Steve Quinn}} is {{itrout|trouted}} for bringing this to AN. ] (]/]) 21:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
			Hello. I have come across several image files and the U.S. Gov. PD licensing seems to be incorrect. Four of these images and possibly another one could be copyright violations - if I can figure out how to find this type of information on their websites. However, since I am unable to find that information at this moment, I am wondering which group of Misplaced Pages editors work on this sort of thing so that maybe I can get some help with this. I will post the files here for information purposes. Also, there may be more copyright violations by this particular editor who seems to have a propensity for downloading image files. Below are the files:
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			Further comment: The above TN file - File:AppalachianTN.jpg - is covered by the TN.GOV "linking policy" and can be found . So this Misplaced Pages image file is still not licensed appropriately, although I have no idea what the correct Misplaced Pages licensing would be.
			I will notify the editor who downloaded these files that I have opened a discussion here. Well, now that I have taken it this far, the editor in question is: {{userlinks|Brian.S.W}}. However, the above image files might be too stale to be considered for any action. I leave that up to the Admins. If you look on their talk page, they have previously been blocked for copyright violations. ---] (]) 20:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	== e-mail accessibility ==
			:As you can see they've already been tagged for a deletion discussion yesterday, so there is no need to have a difference notice board also working on it. ]&thinsp;] 21:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	A few weeks ago, I looked to see if the first 20 or so admins in ] were accessible via the "email this user" link. Something like 25% were not. I think this might be related to the fairly recent requirement that email addresses be verified. If you think you should be reachable via email, can each of you please check to make sure. See ]. Thanks. -- ] <small>(])</small> 03:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{abot}}

---

Latest revision as of 23:12, 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
• 4 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 1 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 40 sockpuppet investigations
• 54 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 2 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 1 requests for RD1 redaction
• 96 elapsed requested moves
• 1 Pages at move review
• 20 requested closures
• 16 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)
• Oppose Claims of "It's been seven years!" fall on deaf ears when you find out he's been socking all along and as recently as a year ago. Fram and PMC have good points as well. Show some restraint and understanding of your block and WP:SO is yours. Buffs (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As far as I'm aware, articles on films are allowed so long as principal photography has occurred (principal animation in this case, I guess?). That has clearly happened for this film, even if they are having to scrap and re-write things. And notability is certainly not in question, so having an article is fully within the policy rules. If there are harmful edits happening, then semi-protection seems like a normal response. Silverseren 00:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

People say that on the draft's talk page every so often and get rebuffed. Maybe you can be more persuasive, but the general argument is the existing animation was created for "Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse" before it was split into two films and no "final animation" has begun on this film. Yaris678 (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Are they basing that claim on any reliable source as evidence? Since what exists in that draft currently with reliable sources clearly indicates work has started. Silverseren 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I'm the editor who has requested the protection for this draft. Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace. Final animation is different from standard reels being produced, which as sourced, is currently what this film has produced while no voice recording has occurred. It seems to still be very early in development, and much of the earlier work when this was the second part was reportedly scrapped (as sourced in the draft). I do not believe the mainspace viability ought to be discussed here as that is more for the draft. As for the protection request, it appears to be the same person making these disruptive comments which have become unnecessarily excessive and are detracting from the content of the draft itself. I requested protection (initially as ECP though semi works for the talk) because these comments have not benefitted any actual constructive progress and have largely ranged from the IPs attempting to enforce their own opinions about the delays and trying to remove sources they don't like, which has been ongoing since the end of October. As a draft, not many other editors are editing this, so it becomes quite unrelenting and tiresome to deal with these repeated disruptions. Glad to see this has garnered more attention. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace ...I'm pretty sure that BtSV meets WP:GNG already, regardless of the state of production, and that should be the main factor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem with the draft being moved, this is just not the normal route to do so and typically NFF is followed for film articles, but I digress. I do caution that this article could be susceptible to further unconstructive comments in the mainspace, but that is a price I'm willing to handle. I can make the move as needed, no worries, I am primarily concerned about these type of comments continuing and if any protection is necessary to prevent or temporarily postpone them from continuing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be enough disruption to the draft page to justify protection at this point. Draft talk definitely should get semi-protection. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Really? That seems excessive for a few FOURMy IP comments (likely from the same person). If they continue with it, block the IP, maybe. Protecting talk pages should really be a last resort. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Some people overly use NFF to block any film article that has not confirmed start to production, which is really a bad black/white approach. Most films prior to production are not notable or may not even happen when they are first hinted at, and thus it is absolutely appropriate to use NFF to hold back on a standalone until production starts. But then you have some exceptional cases like this (the 3rd of the animated Spider-Man movies that have earned a massive amount of money and praise, with a lot of attention already given to the film even before production) as well as my own experience with Akira (planned film) which deals with a film that has numerous delays and other incidents that its still nowhere close to production, but its journey that way is readily sourced. NFF should not be used to block creation of articles on films that have this much detail about the work that is otherwise suitable by notability guidelines. For this specific article on the Spider-man film, I see no reason why it could not be in main space at this point as to avoid the whole draft problem. — Masem (t) 05:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a point to be made that even if this final film somehow never finished production, it would still be notable because of the coverage of its attempted production history. There's several films (and video games, among other cultural apocrypha) that meet that notability requirement, even without ever actually having been completed and released to the public. Silverseren 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, a number of aborted films projects are notable exactly because they wound up in development hell. Jodorowsky's Dune is a film about my personal favorite never-got-made film. El Beeblerino 02:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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

The IP has made three unconstructive and uncivil comments on the talk today (see this diff, and they show no signs of stopping. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked that IP. I note that it is possible that some of the other IPs could be the same users and so will block other IPs and/or apply semi-protection if this continues (or encourage others to do the same if I am away from my computer). Yaris678 (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF? Using draftspace to incubate articles on subjects that are not yet notable but almost certainly will be—unreleased films, upcoming elections, sports events, the next in an "X by year" series, and so on—is a common practice and has been as long as I can remember. As such it's listed at WP:DRAFTREASON. – Joe (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  • 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)
• Support They have been a very productive contributor at the Simple English Misplaced Pages, and it has definitely been long enough for the standard offer. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting info

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

As you can see they've already been tagged for a deletion discussion yesterday, so there is no need to have a difference notice board also working on it. TiggerJay (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards