| Revision as of 17:28, 27 October 2013 view sourceWctaiwan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers4,409 editsm →Topic ban appeal by Martinvl: fix archiving← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:03, 17 January 2025 view source Premeditated Chaos (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators127,883 edits →Appealing April 4 2024, indefinite WP:CUP ban and indefinite 1-nomination GAN limit: are we serious right now | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{pp-sock|small=yes}} | |||
| <noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| <noinclude> {{pp-move|small=yes}} {{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}} __NEWSECTIONLINK__{{Template:Active editnotice}}<!-- | |||
| |algo = old(7d) | |||
| template:User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |counter = 368 | |||
| |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 700K | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 700K | |||
| |counter = 255 | |||
| |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |||
| |algo = old(2d) | |||
| | |
}}{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude><!--S | ||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | |||
| |header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | ||
| |archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive | |archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive | ||
| Line 17: | Line 18: | ||
| |minkeepthreads= 4 | |minkeepthreads= 4 | ||
| |maxarchsize= 700000 | |maxarchsize= 700000 | ||
| }} | |||
| }}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}<!-- | |||
| --><!-- | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- | ||
| New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. | New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. | ||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- |
---------------------------------------------------------- | ||
| --></noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure}} | |||
| ==]== | |||
| {{anchor|MRM}} | |||
| {{archive top|Per the consensus below, the ] restriction previously imposed by the community has been reinstated (effective immediately) and will expire after 1 year (2014-10-27). Additionally, the 1RR restriction is now applied to all articles related to the "men's rights movement". —] (]) 15:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| Based on a community discussion, MRM pages were put on article probation in October 2011. There is no expiration date. Based on a subsequent discussion, a ] restriction was imposed, which is set to expire on October 20, 2013. | |||
| I propose that we extend the 1RR restriction for another year. At the same time, I propose a modification of the wording. The general probation impacts all MRM-related pages. However, the 1RR restriction, as worded, literally applies only to the ] article. I propose that the 1RR restriction can be applied to any MRM-related page. It has already been applied in that fashion, at least by me. Some of the entries in the sanction log aren't clear in that regard, so I'm not sure if other admins have also done so. | |||
| Although no sanctions have been logged since August 2013, the previous sanctions have been effective in minimizing the disruption to the MRM pages. In particular, a 1RR restriction, which is a bright line, is helpful. There are still editors out there, who, in my view, have an agenda, and I suspect more will pop up, even if we are vigilant, but potentially a greater number if we are not.--] (]) 23:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I support this motion because it is clear that POV activism by SPA editors is a constant feature of the topic. Raising the floodgates will overwhelm the article and related topics. ] (]) 02:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Given the truly horrible state of the Men's rights article (see my rant on the talk page), I'm unclear how things could get much worse. "By their fruits you shall know them" is a pretty good motto. And the fruits of this 1RR restriction are pretty nasty. Maybe not as bad as if the restriction were removed, but certainly not a poster child for 1RR working in this area. I'll defer to those that generally oversee this area on the 1RR continuation/expansion, but wow, that article is a mess of generalizations. ] (]) 03:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I support the renewal and expansion. The restriction has very clearly forced things to be discussed on talk pages, and limited general disruption to the article. --] (]) 13:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' renewal and expansion. Although I haven't been active in the men's rights arena much lately for real life reasons, I have still been keeping half an eye on it, and the 1rr restriction has helped some of the silliness. The article isn't great, and until a greater body of comprehensive secondary literature about the movement emerges would be hard to make great, even without the silliness - and the silliness makes it harder. 1rr hasn't been a panacea, but has helped restrain some of the biggest problems. ] (]) 20:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Bbb23's proposal fully. Article remains on my watch and I see this as a positive for the community to renew this probation as suggested.--] (]) 20:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''', unfortunately, because removing it would make it worse. Hobit, which rant? I'd be interested to hear if you have any suggestions for improving the "policing" of the article; I wish I had some. ] (]) 02:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **It's under the NPOV tag section. I think the real issue is that those unhappy with the article have at least a few good points--the article is poorly written and ''seems'' to paint with too broad a brush. After having lots of things explained to me, I think the problems are fixable but it's a lot of work and I'm a horrible writer and I should be working... We'll see. ] (]) 14:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' based on the history of conflict over this topic. I don't think a 1RR restriction puts an undo hardship upon Editors who work on these articles. Restriction can be revisited in a year. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 12:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Reviewing the article and talk page history of ] suggests to me that the value of the 1RR restriction on that specific article is still rather high and it should therefore be kept. Looking through the sanctions logs also leads me to support explicitly expanding the restriction to other MRM-related pages as well. In both the specific and the general cases, there still seems to be an issue with editors attempting to insert (and re-insert) advocacy without the support of good sources. ] (]) 16:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strongly oppose''' - the normal Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines work fine for the other 4,353,716 articles, so I don't see why this one needs special treatment. ] (]) 03:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **That could well be that you simply do not know about the conflict and disputes involved with the article.--] (]) 03:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ***Whoever the IP is, they're not new to Misplaced Pages, given to Malleus, which, in turn, links . On a more substantive note, the IP is, of course, wrong. There are many articles and topic areas at Misplaced Pages that are subject to restrictions and sanctions--] (]) 14:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ****Even less correct is the notion that Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines work. ] ] 14:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' As a former Wikipedian whose experience with Misplaced Pages was significantly diminished by Bbb23's tactics on this article, I'd like to point out something revealing in Bbb23's request. Bbb23 wrote that it is "useful in dealing with accounts that are agenda-driven". This implies that one's status of being "agenda-driven" (in Bbb23's opinion) is more important than whether or not one is correctly applying Misplaced Pages policy. The fact of the matter is that once Bbb23 has decided that you are "agenda-driven", he or she will dismiss your arguments as "weak" without actually discussing their merits, even after repeated requests to go address a certain point. Furthermore, Bbb23 has a history of deciding that users on one side (mine) of a given argument are "agenda-driven", while not noticing any agenda-driven actions on the other side. The upshot is that it appears to be impossible to get Bbb23 to even discuss the issue on its merits, let alone concede that the other person has a point. Eventually, another admin comes along and says Bbb23 is right, also without discussing the merits. Checkmate, and whether or not one is correct is irrelevant. This is all documented in detail, with diffs, in the archived discussion here. That said, I recognize that the community has made its choice.] (]) 04:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Closure'''. Can an uninvolved administrator please determine the appropriate closure?--] (]) 01:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. While I'm wondering why this discussion isn't being closed, I'd like to draw everyone's attention to a new editor, {{mention|Maleliberation}} (lovely user name, isn't it?) who made to ]. Notice the repeated sourcing to . We have ] about Farrell. Notice also Maleliberation's , which says "Link to our Images directory" (first person plural pronoun), but it gets better when you follow : "Made 10 (useful we hope) contributions. We must wait 4 days until Oct 29 or 30 before we're allowed to upload our images" & "yeah, some on both sides are gonna distrust us...we'll try to fight for ending the abuse and shame and oppression and defaming and restrictive roles and unfair treatment of men.....and of our "sisters", women, too". And the promise that the user(s) will upload images from . And one wonders why we need this topic under probation.--] (]) 14:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Hello. Two of the many edits pointed at Warren Farrell's web page(no personal affiliation) One included a critical piece of information missing form "relation to feminism" section, namely the fact that some advocates of Men's Rights were leaders in 1970s feminist movement. The issue is not whether one views this as tainting that subset of MRA nor whether one views it as exonerating (to feminists) that part of MRA. The issue is that it was factually missing from the "relation to feminism" section that it's not just about antagonism/tension/critique but also have overlap. Second, there's nothing sinister about being deliberately open and transparent on one's user page. Third, part of wikipedia is to allow people to upload images and put them into the public domain and allow (not force) others to use such images. It's widespread and part of what's beautiful about wikipedia, whether photographs or in this case, symbolic gif graphics. So in case that was not clear, we plan to put some images into the public domain on that directory in the user page, that's all that part of the note meant. I am first person singular but have allies to help me built my/our .org (off wikipedia) website mentioned, but this user account is for me. With those clarifications, is there any concern you can share with me about the edits, in light of your " this topic under probation" comment? Or does this address your concerns? ] (]) 20:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*P.S. You will notice to make it easier for folks to undo any part they had concerns with I separated (out of an abundance of good faith) into separate smaller edits a few times, things that could have been put into one edit, making it easier for each separate piece to be modified or undone. I'm also not sure if your comment about our user name being "lovely" is to be taken at face value or in irony. (At the moment I'm not sure if you have or had, strong pro-MRA or strong feminist or strong anti-MRA or strong administrator-worried-about-flamewars, or other concerns. Ah, how lovely to be innocent, if only briefly, before tasting from the fruit of the tree and joining the rest of you ;-) Feel free to reply here or on my user page as is appropriate. Thanks. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:41, 26 October 2013</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| *The above post by Bbb23 is an excellent example of why Bbb23 should not have the power to sanction users in this area. A user name of "Maleliberation" is immediately labeled (by Bbb23) as "lovely." Doubtless, Bbb23 will be quick to enforce any perceived violations by Maleliberation. But wait a minute. While picking a user name of "Maleliberation" does suggest a pro-MRM bias, doesn't labeling that name as "lovely" suggest an anti-MRM bias? Is one of these biases somehow better than the other? And who has more power over the article, and the community -- a biased user, or a biased admin? Lastly, since we all have our biases, Misplaced Pages policy is supposed to judge the strength of arguments, rather than the biases of people who make them. But that's not what Bbb23 appears to be doing above.] (]) 01:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*Hello ]. Frankly, it would be much more transparent if you logged into your account rather than editing as an IP. You have been sanctioned by Bbb23 before, no? Do you really think that pointing out the actions of Maleliberation - who is promoting their view per their website at www.maleliberation.org - is not the job of an adminstrator (and actually any editor interested in neutral point of view?) ] (]) 01:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I've been trying to ignore drama, but it has been impossible to miss the stream of editors eager to right the great wrongs that have been perpetrated against men. ] (]) 00:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I'm involved as an editor, but I'd agree that 1RR has really helped with this article, and that it should be continued.] (]) 01:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin == | |||
| * {{Userlinks|AKonanykhin}} | |||
| * | |||
| A user has requested that a ban recently implemented here be lifted. I must remark that the ban was placed without meeting the formal requirements of ], which states that there must be '''evidence''' of '''repeated disruption''' by a user. The closing admin {{admin|Kudpung}} stated that they are <s>"cutting and running",</s> going offline for one week. I have no issue with an editor taking a break; <s>but an admin should not make a contentious administrative action if they know they will be unavailable to explain. </s> Before leaving Kudpung refused to explain their actions when I challenged them. <s>Per ], administrators are expected to explain their actions. </s> Regrettably, I am unable to discuss the matter with Kudpung, so we are right back here. | |||
| The text of the appeal: | |||
| : I would like to request the lifting of the ban against WikiExperts, that is now archived here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive254#Community_ban_proposal_for_paid_editing_firm_wikiexperts.us | |||
| : While I believed we were acting within Misplaced Pages guidelines beforehand by treating COI disclosure as a suggestion, we respect the community’s decision that COI disclosure must be mandatory for us for anybody from WikiExperts to edit Misplaced Pages, in addition to all other COI guidelines. Therefore, we will be treating COI guidelines as policy from this point forward. | |||
| : Until the ban is lifted, we have stopped editing as per the ban’s request, and will only do so once the ban is lifted in accordance to the language within it, which read, “The ban should be set so that it can be lifted at once if the company agrees all of its representatives will fully and publicly disclose COI/paid editing and otherwise fully adhere to the guidelines of WP:COI in the future, and contingent that they in fact do so in all future cases.” Once the ban is lifted, COI disclosure will be followed by anyone who edits in conjunction with WikiExperts. | |||
| : As the CEO of WikiExperts I am stating here that from this point forward we will comply with the terms set out for lifting the ban. We have already updated our agreements and are in the process of updating our Ethics page on our website in anticipation of this change. | |||
| : Would you please post my statement at the AN so that we can proceed with the conditions for lifting the ban. Thank you! AKonanykhin (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)'' | |||
| My greatest concern is that the user was banned without '''any diffs''' showing disruptive edits. They were banned for suspicion that they might do something wrong. This shocks the conscience and goes against ]. In any event, the user has stated that they will adhere to policy and to ], and will disclose any paid editing. I think it will be better for Misplaced Pages to encourage this firm to operate in the open rather than driving them underground. We have no practical way to identify their employees, so the ban is a toothless provocation and ensures that these editors will never disclose what they are doing. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Further info from the user: | |||
| : On Friday, I attempted to communicate our compliance to the Arbitration Board, and its representative ] responded that the better way would be to place it on my Talk Page and ask somebody to add it to AN (see below). Yesterday, I complied with Mr. Davies' recommendation, posting our compliance pledge to my Talk Page and asking the admin Kudpung who enacted the ban to add it to AN. As I had no means to contact him directly, I did so by placing a note on his Talk page, and promptly removing it to avoid accusations of unathorized editing; the full text was only left on my Talk page. In retaliation, Kudpung banned IP address of our Hollywood FL office and greatly expanded the ban to any account "operated or assumed to be by Wikiexperts.com" This wide ban was enacted without any evidence of any violation of any rule by our company, as you rightly observed. I personally was banned without having ever made even a single edit in any WP article. | |||
| Thank you for considering his appeal. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :For completeness, what I wrote was:<p><blockquote>"Thanks for your email. We would in all likelihood refer this to the community as it was a community ban decision, with plenty of participation, relating to a hot button topic.<p>"However, it occurs to me that you can appeal to the community yourself - more quickly - by posting this request yourself on-wiki on your user page, with a note asking for it to be cross-posted to the Administrators Noticeboard."</blockquote><p>I have formed no opinion on the merits or demerits of the appeal, ] <sup>]</sup> 15:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' First a minor point - the AN Ban discussion was closed on the 17th while the notice of unavailability was posted on the 20th. It is unreasonable and unfair to assume that Kudpung closed it on the 17th, knowing that he would be unavailable starting three days later. The timing is unfortunate, but that's all it is. | |||
| :That said, I support overturning the ban. I haven't read the entire discussion, but I see enough problems that, as a minimum, we should start over and do it right if a ban is warranted, and ideally, find a way to reach out and determine whether there is a way to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia without declaring that the business cannot do anything. | |||
| :The most important reason, and already noted, is the lack of diffs. Have we ever banned an contributor without citing a single diff? That alone ought to be a sufficient reason for overturning, but I'll not a couple other points. The Morning277 issue understandably leaves a bad taste. However, when one entity involved in paid editing wreaks havoc, we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that all entities involved in paid editing deserve similar opprobrium. | |||
| :Some of the support are in reaction to strong words by the owner, which appear to defy our positions on COI. I agree that there was a bit of a bull in a china shop reaction, however, those concerns appear to have been taken on board, and the owner has changed policies. If we supported a ban based upon his initial position, we at least owe a second consideration when that very position is changed.--]] 15:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''', concurrent with the ban discussion there were ] to try to establish standards for paid editors. One proposal banning paid editing was heavily opposed. Another, drafted by me, requiring paid editors to disclose has receive significant opposition for being ''too strong''. It seems very strange to ban somebody for something that's not yet policy, and especially when the proposal "paid editing is forbidden" has a majority of opposition in the community. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *First of all, the lack of diffs is a lot less troubling to me than to you all. If someone says "I will trash Misplaced Pages" we have every right to say "You may not edit here". Of course his statement wasn't that strong, but "I will not play by your rules" is close enough IMO. That they are willing to follow the rules at this point is wonderful, but I think it's fair to worry if they actually will. I'd say: | |||
| **'''conditional support'''. With the condition being that every editor who has or is editing for them be identified including alt accounts. If and when we find someone editing for them who isn't on that list, we can reinstate the ban. First of all, I think that's how paid editing should work (and I speak as someone who has written a proposal to the NSF to pay people to edit here--it barely didn't get funded sadly but I'd have had all editors identify that they were being paid). Secondly, given previous statements from this company, I think "trust but verify" is important. Without such a bit of clarity it will be impossible to fully verify. ] (]) 15:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC) -- Given that the current offer doesn't include disclosing past accounts I'm '''opposed to unbanning''' under his proposed conditions. ] (]) 13:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ***So you think someone should be banned for thoughtcrime whether or not the actually broke any rules. OK, lets put your theory to the test. I will not play by your rules. I will trash Misplaced Pages. Please take your best shot at getting me banned for making those two statements without any evidence that I have ever actually trashed Misplaced Pages or refused to follow the rules. Let me know how that works out for you. --] (]) 22:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ****There is plenty of evidence that this person has violated COI and our meat puppetry rules in the past. His threat to do so again is credible, yours is not. If you were to trash the main page and then later threaten to do so again, you'd be blocked in a heartbeat. It is unreasonable not to react to credible threats. We do it all the time with legal threats here. Why is this different? ] (]) 03:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *****Obviously I cannot ] but I believe that you are mistaken. If I trashed the main page, was blocked, and the block expired, I do not believe that I could be blocked for simply saying that I will do it again. Legal threats are a different matter; ] specifies the reason why they result in a block: ''"If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Misplaced Pages until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels"'', and of course we have a policy page that says that I cannot make legal threats, so that puts it back in the "violating an actual rule" category. Can you point me to the guideline where me saying (in a non-disruptive way and without breaking any other rules) that I will trash the main page but not actually doing that is blockable? I maintain that our policies forbid blocking someone for thoughtcrime. --] (]) 12:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ******Trashing the mainpage isn't quite the same as sockpuppetry, though. Let's change your scenario. Let's say that on the first day of every month you reveal an act of subtle vandalism that you've previously inserted for "humorous effect" using a dynamic IP sockpuppet account. And let's say that you make a show of telling people that you intend to continue the game indefinitely. Your claims are credible and I wouldn't be surprised if you saw some kind of sanctions. AGF isn't intended to act as a hobble to ]. -] (]) 13:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *******Actually, I am not assuming good faith. That rule would be for looking at something that may or may not be against the rules and deciding whether to assume that it isn't. This is about a hypothetical editor who has broken no rule while expressing an unpopular opinion. And your new scenario would be someone being disruptive (we don't need to spell out every way someone can be disruptive). Both the repeated vandalism and the making a show of telling people that you will continue to do so is disruptive. I am talking about someone who has broken no rule (unless someone wants to point out where we have a rule against thoughtcrime). Even under your scenario, if an administrator responded to the clear disruption with a block that doesn't mention trolling or socking, but instead named something that is entirely within the rules, that would be wrong, and the blocked editor would be well within his rights to ask that the bad block be removed, even if it was only to have it instantly replaced with a good block based upon actual evidence of violating a policy or guideline. --] (]) 17:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *******Ah well I'm right there with you regarding the COI/NPOV bit of this mess. I haven't yet seen any evidence that AKonanykhin had engaged in violations, but only that he expressed his view that COI looks like a set of recommendations rather than like a set of firm rules (on which point I must regretfully agree with AKonanykhin). And my !vote below arises because I too think that basing the ban on this goes too far. If the ban is to be upheld I'd really rather it was clarified that it is related to the sock/meatpuppet admissions from SPI. And I guess that brings us to the point at which we differ in views. I see a substantive difference between blocks based on specific tangible crimes like vandalism or BLP or COI/NPOV violations and those based on intangible crimes like sockpuppetry or my subtle vandalism hypothetical. If a ban is based on a tangible violation (like COI/NPOV violations) then we absolutely should have specific diffs to point to that document the violation. But if the ban is based on reasonable suspicions that intangible violations (like sockpuppetry) will resume then I think the threat of harm/disruption should grant the blocking admin somewhat greater leeway (the block/ban would be subject to review anyway). In the matter at hand, I don't think the proof at SPI is strong enough to indicate that AKonanykhin poses a SOCK threat going forward, but if he does violate SOCK then the ban can always be re-applied. -] (]) 18:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *I would disagree with Jehochman on one point: Wikiexperts was already "underground". The refusal to be open and honest about whose articles they were paid to edit - and lets face it, this is a PR group so AGF or no, NPOV cannot be automatically assumed - was antiethical and counter to community expectations. If they are prepared to act above board, then I am willing to reconsider my previous support of the ban. ]] 15:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support unban''' I supported the ban in the ban discussion, "until they change their declared policy and commit to stating their COI and restricting their edits to talk pages." That appears to have happened. --] (] · ] · ]) 16:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **I read their comments a couple of times and am missing where they say that they will restrict their edits to talk pages. Is that somehow implied by the "following all COI guidelines"? If so, I'd prefer it be made explicit. ] (]) 16:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ***Yes. --] (] · ] · ]) 16:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Given that effective enforcement of the ban would requiring outing every Misplaced Pages editor, it's a self-righteous feel good action, not a reasonable approach to an admittedly very real problem. It will drive paid editing deeper underground and provide yet-another-thing for Misplaced Pages editors to accuse each other of. <small>]</small> 16:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *This appeal, though no fault of the User that represents the corporation states much that is irrelevant 1) "driving underground" has not occurred as the corporation has undertaken not to edit through the ban; 2) the community decision was based on statements of the corporation and through its representative, which in the consensus opinion made banning the needed remedy. Nonetheless, the undertakings of the corporation seem to address the major consensus concerns expressed, so if they follow through, including disclosure and their web page, and under current Wiki norms: not opposed to unban pursuant to these immediate undertakings. ] (]) 16:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Conditional Oppose: While it maybe possible/wise to overlook, all that is truly past (accounts and edits and non-disclosure); the statements below seem to suggest that the corporation will not disclose presently ongoing COI arrangements (the "maintain" article agreements issues), only future arrangements. If they will not upfront disclose relative to any/all COI editing going forward, then oppose. -- ] (]) 12:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Conditional support:''' ''If'' they have indicated that they will fully comply with ] instead of treating it as "unethical" as they were before, then the conditions that led to the ban have been satisfied. However, it should be made clear that reversion to previous behavior will lead to the banhammer being dropped once more. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 16:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * Maybe I'm just a lot more cynical or less trusting than you guys, but I have serious reservations about lifting this ban. The attitude expressed is shocking and appalling on so many levels that it's hard to know where to start. I mean, reading it now, I'm still not totally convinced that it's not a trolling parody. This is someone telling you that their official viewpoint is that it's "unethical" to disclose a financial conflict of interest. How would a sane, reputable publisher respond to a declaration like that?<p>I'm a bit skeptical about the turnaround from the defiant stick-your-guidelines-where-the-sun-don't-shine attitude to the current conciliatory request above, and I've generally found modifying one's actual ethics to be much more difficult than modifying one's corporate Code Of Ethics document. I don't think this is a good idea. I'm opposed to it, unless we have some concrete way of ensuring that they follow through on what are currently unenforceable promises made under extreme duress. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *: {{replyto|MastCell}} I've checked out the user, spoken with him, and am convinced that he's too serious to waste time trolling us. I think the ban was hasty, and there is a principle at stake: we don't ban people for suspicion. The banned account never even edited main space. Why are we so desperate to muzzle this guy? Let's ]. If I'm wrong, ] will be effective. Let's let his editors disclose themselves and promise to treat them fairly, while firmly enforcing ] and all our other policies. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *:As one cynic to another -- if the ban is upheld, do you really think the company will cease editing? <small>]</small> 23:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *::I don't understand the argument that the possibility that a banned user will keep editing should be a valid reason for uplifting a ban. --] (]) 10:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * Comment - I am sure many folks here are aware that in light of the recent uncovering of the SPI network run by WIki-PR, new policies were proposed to ban paid advocacy. See discussion for a sense of the very mixed thoughts of the community. I posted notice of this discussion, there. ] (]) 17:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' at least for now. While it does seem like the process by which WikiExperts was banned was flawed, there is deep discomfort in the community with this kind of activity. We should not allow WikiExperts back in until the community has made up its mind on how to deal with this paid advocacy. I also note that the brief description that appears with WikiExpert's "hit" on Google, reads "WikiExperts handles this task for you, protecting your online reputation." Misplaced Pages does not exist to enhance or detract from anyone's reputation - it exists to provide NPOV information. If you read their page, while it is great that they say they will not remove any well-sourced negative information, at no point do say that they would actually ''add'' negative information about a company, even if that information were well-sourced. This is what I mean, about editors working for WIkiExperts actually not being aligned with WIkipedia's goals. ] (]) 17:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Support''' The whole community ban proposal was a ] intended to out editors and get them banned. That goes against what Misplaced Pages stands for. <span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #003399;">]</span><span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #FF8C00;">]</span> 17:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong support''' Konveyor Belt is absolutely correct. And for the admin who closed the discussion in favor of the ban- shame on you and you should be stripped of your admin abilities, that was an abuse of power and completely not in line with policy or even the community feelings on the issue, there is no way in hell that discussion was in favor of a ban by the Community and should have been closed as "no consensus" at the very least. I am so disappointed. The ban is illegitimate and was never agreed upon by consensus.] (]) 17:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Support''' per Jehochman and SPhilbrick. We do not want to go down the road of banning folks preemptively and without evidence. Especially not with a user/company that is making a good faith effort.--v/r - ]] 17:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Conditional support''' - more or less as per Bushranger above, ''if'' they have indicated they will comply with ] fully. It would also help a lot if the frankly inexcusable statement they made about how it is unethical to abide by our policies and guidelines is very visibly and prominently rescinded and apologized for. I believe I had justification for supporting the ban based on their stated disregard for policy and guidelines, and I believe that keeping the ban in place until that statement is clearly retracted and they agree to abide by all relevant policies and guidelines is clearly indicated, here and elsewhere. ] (]) 17:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Conditional support'''. If every WikiExpert editor declares their COI, and participates via talk page suggestions, I am willing to let them do so. Regarding the absence of diffs; they are not needed. I approve of the banning of an editor who declares the intention to violate Misplaced Pages's policies. ] (]) 17:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. The ban was ridiculous and out of process. ] ] 17:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. I find the reasoning of "no diffs provided" and other process-related complaints about the banning discussion to be a bit circular and more than a bit lawyerish. When someone states they plan to circumvent the guidelines here, I'd say the need for specific diffs of editing infractions is pretty much superseded -- especially when that circumvention is what prevents us from potentially finding any such diffs to begin with. But that said, since I only supported the ban because of their stated policy of non-disclosure, if they change their policy to full disclosure -- an oft-updated list on their site, of the Wikiepdia usernames in their prevue, would be ideal -- I'm fine with letting them back (that is, unless/until we pass something that says paid editing is disallowed altogether). <font style="color:#0059B2;text-shadow:0px 0px 5px #80BFFF">] ] <span style="font-size:88%">17:53, 20 Oct 2013 (UTC)</span></font> | |||
| **So you think that the requirement for actual evidence of of editing infractions superseded if someone says that they plan to circumvent the guidelines here? OK, lets put your theory to the test. I plan to circumvent the guidelines here. Please take your best shot at getting me banned for making that statement without any evidence that I have ever actually circumvented any guidelines. Let me know how that works out for you. --] (]) 22:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ***Of course I wouldn't waste time acting on your issuing a hypothetical challenge just to make a point, but if it seemed like you were remotely as serious about that as this person who posted it as part of his business plan, I would do so for you, and you'd be the first to know how it worked out. <font style="color:#0059B2;text-shadow:0px 0px 5px #80BFFF">] ] <span style="font-size:88%">05:18, 21 Oct 2013 (UTC)</span></font> | |||
| ****Let's pretend I was serious and credible. (] are of no use if the enemy knows that they are Quaker cannons... :) ) What policy would you cite as me having violated? --] (]) 12:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *****]. <font style="color:#0059B2;text-shadow:0px 0px 5px #80BFFF">] ] <span style="font-size:88%">15:31, 21 Oct 2013 (UTC)</span></font> | |||
| ******Sorry, but you cannot invoke ] to justify banning something just because you don't like it. Also, it's an essay, and you cannot ban someone for violating an essay. That section ends with "Editors must use their best judgment". If your best judgement (the generic "your" -- I am not pointing at you personally) says that it is OK to ban someone not for anything they have done but rather for an opinion they hold, then I must question that judgment. --] (]) 18:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *******According to ] you can be sanctioned for breaching guidelines as well as policies... Depending on context, your hypothetical example statement ''in itself'' (and AKonanykhin's initial statements that caused the ban to be imposed) could be construed as ]y and/or ]ive – and sanction worthy. ] (]) 18:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ********The only way that either statement by iteself could be construed as ]y and/or ]ive is by pretty much ignoring what those guidelines actually say and using a definition that encompasses anything someone doesn't like. It makes denying the holocaust disruptive and pointy. It makes arguing against anthropogenic global warming disruptive and pointy. It makes saying that the WMF is going the wrong way disruptive and pointy. In fact it makes anything that a bunch of editors disagree with disruptive and pointy. Of course someone can be disruptive and pointy while expressing those unpopular opinions -- we have plenty of examples of that -- but expressing an unpopular opinion without violating any policies or guidelines is never disruptive or pointy. Remember, next time you may be the target of a thoughtcrime ban instead of the proponent. --] (]) | |||
| *********That's essentially all true. The community decides what's considered disruptive and what makes ] -- pointing to the essay again, which albeit merely an essay, describes what IAR tends to mean. If you think what's transpired here demonstrates that someone doesn't need to violate a particular posted policy in order to be banned, you'd be correct. You seem to find that a disturbing notion since it means there would be no solid rule structure here and everything is therefore subjective, but that's basically how Misplaced Pages works, by its very principle -- for better or worse. <font style="color:#0059B2;text-shadow:0px 0px 5px #80BFFF">] ] <span style="font-size:88%">21:35, 21 Oct 2013 (UTC)</span></font> | |||
| *'''Support''' unban which should never have been enacted in the first place. --] (]) 17:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Conditional support''' for lifting the ban. Clearly reveal all editors being paid by this company, and commit to exercising conformance to all policies ''and guidelines'' by those editors. Guidelines may not be "policy", but they are deemed guidelines because they are agreed by the community to be best practices. Improper conduct by ''any'' editor under the authority of this company may result in a sanctions being applied as to all representatives of the company. ] ] 17:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' The problem last time around was their opposition to our policies. They have committed to abiding by the community norms now, so there isn't an ongoing reason to restrict their editing. Some have suggested that the ban be lifted under the condition that WikiExperts only ever edits talk pages. While I agree this is a good practice to encourage, I don't think we should make the unban conditional on them never making an article edit. {{tld|requested edit}} gets backlogged often, sometimes for ''very extended'' periods of time... and editor retention in that area is poor. This is especially true with respect to editing articles about obscure companies. Uncontroversial edits should be uncontroversial, even if made by their team, and WikiExperts should not be discouraged from making grammar corrections or fighting vandalism just because they're being paid for that purpose. Edits where neutrality is a possible concern should, obviously, be discussed, but I don't want to see them banned in the future just for making neutral changes to articles on their own. We need people to edit these articles. As long as they are being edited neutrally, that is a net benefit to the project. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 18:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''<s>Conditional support</s>''' While I don't support the venture of WikiExperts, per se, insofar as they recognize and comply with the COI policy, there would appear to be no grounds to band them. | |||
| :That said, I don't think that the current policy is adequate, so hopefully this will lead to some sort of evolution vis-a-vis the current (inadequate) policies.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 18:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Oppose''' Upon reading some of the other comments about meat puppetry--setting aside the sockpuppetry--I've decided to change my vote until that issue is clarified. It seems that if you have more than one editor from a paid editing group editing the same article that other policy issues arise; for example, the Misplaced Pages consensus building process is undermined due to the contractual obligations of PR professional to PR client. The ban should be maintained until the community can work out a viable policy-based solution, or WMF imposes one. --]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 04:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''', and make sure that this editor is handled in a fair and transparent manner. The speed of reaction has a knee jerk feel to it. I see no reason ''yet'' to ban this editor because he exhibits fairly ordinary behaviour, despite the paid editing accusations and the firm he appears to head being controversial. However, should his behaviour become worthy of a ban, yes, ban him in the future. ] ] 18:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Conditionally support unban''' as the one who originally proposed the ban. If wikiexperts.us has now agreed to make the requisite COI disclosure, the ban is no longer as a preventative measure and would be purely punitive. Lifting of the ban should, of course, be conditional upon actually doing that going forward. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' this is going to continue no matter how many we ban, better to address paid editors now and establish additional guidelines if needed. ] (]) 18:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I can't find myself supporting this unblock at this time. Just far to early in my opinion, and the exact reasoning seems to boarder on the desperate to unblock over what could be seen as a technicality. We are not a court of law, just volunteers trying to build an encyclopedia. I find the entire subject of a company who's entire existence appears to be about paid editing to run afoul of what I believe Misplaced Pages is. It places an unfair advantage to articles that have editors being paid on a regular basis to edit here with permission. I see almost no way to make this work even with the proposal from below. But what I do see is many editors who have some argument I can understand if not truly agree with. This isn't a block appeal of a single editor. So I oppose the unblock of the entire company being allowed back right now, but would support the single editor himself being unblocked. Let him, as the CEO of this company, first lead by example. If they can be seen to be working within the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages I think we can revisit this in a short time.--] (]) 18:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Absolutely not'''. Since when do we even ''consider'' an unban request just a few days after the ban is implemented? Come back a year or two from now. ] (]) 18:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **Since it emerged that this ban was incorrect in the first place, that the victim of the ban had done nothing wrong at all, and that the ban was placed to enforce a principle that the majority of Wikipedians do not agree with. That's when. --] (]) 18:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''': There were many diffs listed in the discussion showing infringements of ] here: and also here and here . After concerns were first raised that there were infringements of ], user denied and said these accusations were done "falsely" . But at the SPI investigation ], User:AKonanykhin admits to paying an editor to insert a promo shot of Alexander Konanykhin into the ] article. He also admits to paying an editor who was then blocked for insertion of spam and advertising . So, when these concerns were first raised, user's response was to deny. Then, when clear evidence is presented, the admissions come. If the user really is contrite, then surely user would be more than willing to show this contrition by sitting out a reasonable time for a block, not just a few days. The unblock proposal sounds far more like a continuation of the falsehoods in an attempt to continue past behaviour. --<font face="georgia">] </font><font face="georgia" size="1">(], ])</font> 19:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Conditional support''', with heavy emphasis on "conditional". I agree with Hobit and bd2412. Trust but verify, as Hobit said. All accounts must be identified. All accounts must agree to abide by policies and guidelines, same as any other editor. If evidence appears that policies and guidelines are being ignored or violated, the ban comes back. And I want to add that all the comments about the existing ban being improper strike me as wikilawyering hogwash. It was a proper ban, based upon explicit evidence and community norms. This isn't a court of law, and the pleading about process in this particular instance has been utterly groundless. --] (]) 19:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''': A dangerous precedent, banning editors you don't like on suspicion that they might be damaging the encyclopedia. The ] comes to mind. --] (]) 19:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **A straightforward statement that they won't follow COI and strong evidence of socking isn't enough to get over the "might be damaging" thing? ] (]) 20:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ***That is correct. A straightforward statement that they won't follow COI does not justify a ban. Bans need to be based upon actual violations, not on expressing unpopular opinions. As for strong evidence of socking, please show me where in the ban request socking was even claimed. If you want them banned for socking, write up a proposal that says that, and include some sort of evidence. --] (]) 22:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ****A large number of those supporting the ban included socking as a reason for the ban. Just search for "sock". Look, we've got someone who A) admits to using socks and having others edit for him (which would be meatpuppetry) B) we have ample evidence does use socks/meatpuppets and C) clearly indicated an intent to keep doing this. And it would be an unpopular opinion to say "COI is a bad policy". It would be threatening to disrupt to say "I've ignored COI and intend to do so in the future". ] (]) 03:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *****I of course have no problem with blocking for socking (with evidence), but a number of editors on this very page have told me that it is OK to block someone for (in your words) "A straightforward statement that they won't follow COI." Where is the policy that allows that? --] (]) 12:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ******'''WMF Press Release''' The following statement would seem to indicate that there is a general policy violation in not declaring a COI. I don't know what the implications are regarding this ban, but perhaps it should be addressed in this discussion.<blockquote>''Being deceptive in your editing by using sockpuppets or <u>misrepresenting your affiliation with a company is against Misplaced Pages policy and is prohibited by our Terms of Use</u>. We urge companies to conduct themselves ethically, to be transparent about what they're doing on Misplaced Pages, and to adhere to all site policies and practices.''</blockquote>--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 18:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *******Sadly I don't think that could be used to mandate COI disclosures. There's a difference between passive failure to represent your affiliation with a company and active misrepresentation of your affiliation. Even the bit urging companies "to be transparent about what they're doing on Misplaced Pages" is just that... an ''urging''. But think how well that press release would be complimented by an actual policy mandating disclosure of COI. That would be ideal in my view. -] (]) 18:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I agree that a policy directly addressing this issue is needed. Regarding the ban, I think that there is room to find a gray zone between explicitly declaring an intent to not disclose relationships to companies (don't know if they actually edited any articles for clients) and actively misrepresenting a relationship. It is more than a passive inaction, at any rate, based on the explicit expression of intent to not represent the relationship at all--to conceal it. --]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 20:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' lifting ban. Blocks are supposed to be preventative but I don't believe there was evidence of damage done to the encyclopedia. As long as they agree to abide by ] and be open about it, I think they should be allowed to edit on article Talk Pages: | |||
| ::"Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question, or on a noticeboard such as WP:COIN. These changes may or may not be acted upon. Paid advocates are also advised to disclose their conflict of interest." ] | |||
| :I encourage them to join ]. If there are infractions in the future, they should dealt with. I don't believe in blocks based on suspicions, whether it is of a registered account or an IP. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 19:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support… a little dubiously.''' But yes. To get personal and historical for a moment: ] is a trusting guy. I've watched him assuming too much good faith quite often, and getting it flung back in his face. By contrast, the point made by ], the original ], really resonates with me: one's actual corporate ethics don't tend to be so easily changed as one's corporate Code Of Ethics ''document''. Agreed. But I believe, or at least I hope, that the statement by ] above will make it possible to unban on the "trust but verify" principle mentioned by several supporters of the unban proposal. Presumably some of us cynical people will be watching and verifying. It also impresses me that ], the original proposer of the ban, is now prepared to support an unban. <small>And I'd like to second ]'s characterization of the claims that the original ban was improper as "wikilawyering hogwash". It was a proper ban, and it should be immediately reinstated if the unban is gamed in any way.</small> ] | ] 20:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC). | |||
| *'''Support.''' I am quite unhappy with the way that ] was closed. Normally when the result of a discussion goes against me I have no problem accepting and following the consensus, but in this case the closing comments ("There is a clear consensus to support the proposal, based both numerically and on the strength of the arguments. Among the Oppose !votes and comments are strong recommendations for revising the WP:COI guidelines/policy, but that would be the subject of a separate discussion.") do not accurately reflect either the strength of the arguments or whether a significant number of the oppose comments were actually recommendations for revising the WP:COI guidelines/policy. In my opinion, Kudpung let his own POV cloud his judgement. I think that he should have asked for a couple of other uninvolved editor or admins to agree with the closing, as is common in hotly contested proposals. I maintain that a fair reading of the arguments shows that it is the support arguments that are weak and are actually recommendations for revising the WP:COI guidelines/policy by allowing someone to be banned even if they did nothing wrong, simply for expressing an unpopular opinion. That's a ''huge'' change from our policies and guidelines as written. Bans should be based upon actual specific edits that violate specific policies or guidelines, not on having a "contemptuous attitude toward our COI guidelines". --] (]) 21:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Many diffs proving meatpuppettry by people specifically connected to Akonanykhin were provided during previous AN discussion, and I do not see any procedural violations during previous discussion and closing. Where is disclosure? I mean the list of accounts that are currently used by members of this organization? Once again, this is not only a matter of COI, but a matter of proven meatpuppetry. ] (]) 21:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Really, could you show me a few of them? I never saw any such diffs. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think we had ''at least'' four accounts acting his meatpuppets and <u>edited his biography</u>, , , . One of them was blocked by an arbitrator, and rightly so. If anyone is interested in more detail, they can check previous AN discussion.] (]) 22:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :P.S. Key point during previous AN discussion was that Mr. Konanykhin can not comply with Misplaced Pages guidelines (<u>even if they wanted </u>) because they are bound by a confidentiality agreement with their clients. Is it still the case? I understand that it is. ] (]) 21:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::We have no interest in his contracts. If he is required to disclose for future edits, it is his problem to set up his contracts. That is not our concern. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::] I really disagree with you. Based on what you write here, I have a bridge to sell you! My point being, that in any transaction it makes to sense to be sure that the other party can actually deliver what they promise (ie, you make sure i own the Brooklyn Bridge before you give a million bucks for it). If WikiExperts cannot disclose who their clients are, then their promises to do so are hollow and are even bad faith. ] (]) 22:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *He tells: '''we have non-disclosure agreements with our clients and editors''' . It means that they have a number of "their" editors here and can not disclose their COI.] (]) 22:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::It would be surprising, if such an agreement did not have an out for complying with the demands of the privately run website they intend to participate in, but I get your concern. ] (]) 23:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose unban''': as I previously said, I would support unban only if WikiExperts agreed to disclose all accounts they use. They've updated their . It's a step in the right direction, and seems to suggest they won't create or edit articles directly, but it doesn't go far enough. It says they will do their paid advocacy: "Without compromising the integrity of Misplaced Pages, our clients, and our own enterprise" which strongly suggests they haven't changed their previous position about keeping their accounts and client list private. That's unacceptable. <s>Conditional support ''only if'' WikiExperts agrees to publicly identify all past, present, and future accounts of their employees and contractors, disclose all COI relating to their clients, and refrain from editing or creating articles directly. The previous ban was brought up and supported because WikiExperts flagrantly declared their intention not to abide by COI guidelines (see comments such as those ] recently). If they reverse this position, act transparently about their financial COI, and refrain from direct editing, then they are completely welcome on Misplaced Pages.</s> <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">] • ]</font> 22:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong oppose''' The original block was based as far as I am aware, on indications that the "editor" would ignore WP policy. In other words, disruptive editing. Also there were a raft of sockpuppetry issues. I note the strong aversion to paid editing, its ethical and practical issues voiced by the community in that closed conversation. I believe user Kudpung was procedurally quite correct in his action. Why not just create a seperate business WP? I believe this is the thin end of the wedge, and the involvement of money, or worst, commercial profit as an incentive to join and edit WP will ultimately doom the project. If WP wishes to sup with the devil, it had better use a very long spoon. ] (]) | |||
| *'''Comment on proposal to lift ban.''' I think the risk of conflict of interest has to be severe when editors are paid. There are also plenty of unpaid Misplaced Pages editors who are not just subject to conflict of interest but are driven by special interests of their own, not neutral reporting. I agree that to ban a paid editor merely on a risk basis is itself questionable or perhaps unfair. I think that a paid editor should be required to post every one of his proposed edits on the article's talk page and leave it there for a week before posting it to the article. The talk page post should be clearly labeled as a proposal by a paid editor, with disclosure of his fee.] (]) 22:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Support the ban (past tense), as enacted, despite procedural problems with the discussion.. Not because he is a paid editor, but because he is a non-repentant sockpuppeteer in control of <u>undisclosed</u> paid accounts. I don't support a flat ban on paid editing, as impracticable, with undesirable obvious consequences. I do support mandatory disclosure of paid-editor status for every account engaged in paid editing, and declaration of banned status on every person in control of an undisclosed paid account. --] (]) 22:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{replyto|SmokeyJoe}} Please don't be a slander monger. Link to the proof of sock puppetry, or strike your accusation. As far as I know, there has been '''no''' confirmed report of sock puppetry by AKonanykhin. People repeating accusations they heard without demanding to see the evidence is how we got into this mess. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Jehochman, slander seems very strong, I didn't think my reading of WP:SOCK violation was less than obvious. Perhaps I misunderstand something. If {{User|AKonanykhin}} denies being in control of any accounts (whether technical control or by contractual arrangement) used for <u>undisclosed</u> paid editing, then I support unbanning, the ban having no foundation. --] (]) 01:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC). "undisclosed" missing, always intended. --] (]) 02:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::SmokeyJoe, I have no idea who you are in real life, but I know exactly who AKonanykhin is, and so does everybody else. We must be careful when talking about people, especially identified people. We've heard people say "sock puppetry" and "its obvious", but is it really? The hand waving doesn't convince me. We need to see the diffs of his sock puppetry. Surely somebody can reference one diff where he's damaging the encyclopedia, if he's been engaging in sock puppetry. I think what we have here is a bunch of loose talk, and then people come along, look at the thread for 30 seconds and say, "Yeah, me too, I hate paid editing." The lesson to all is to dig into the details and look at the evidence before opining about somebody's behavior. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I do not know who AKonanykhin is. I have not looked at that information, as I do not see this discussion as being about AKonanykhin, but about paid-editing in general. AKonanykhin deserves extra credence for speaking up openly, but I'm thinking that not all paid editors are organised by AKonanykhin. "Meat puppetry" and "sockpuppetry" are unfortunately strong pejoratives. We should talk instead of controlling undeclared alternative accounts (accounts clearly linked to the editors main account). We don't encourage this, but we allow it if it is not abused. The checkusers don't actively look for it in the absence of actual problems. I have no evidence or suspicion of AKonanykhin, or any of his writers, having submitted a damaging edit. However, many undisclosed paid editors, working unmonitored, may become damaging. I am keen to see us monitor paid editing. --] (]) 02:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :On the unban motion, I agree with Jehochman about procedural concerns with the cited ban discussion. I do not specifically criticise the closer, Kudpung.<p>AKonanykhin now seems to say that he, and all his professional associates, his paid editors, will publicly disclose their COI/paid editing. This is a major development, changing the situation. Exactly what "publicly disclose COI/paid editing" means, I am not sure, and would like to know. As I stated somewhere else, I think only a minimal disclosure need be mandatory.<p>Given AKonanykhin's new commitment, '''I support unbanning'''. --] (]) 02:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I do not object to use of undeclared alternative accounts for good reason. Acceptably good reasons are poorly described, but there are reasons. Paid editing seems to be one reason. I am ambivalent on paid editing; it is a difficult reality for Misplaced Pages. On careful consideration, I think we must allow/support it, with restrictions, if the paid-editing accounts are disclosed as paid-editing accounts. Now, given that I'm supporting limited paid editing, I can see that it must be acceptable for respected editors who choose to engage in paid editing to use an alternative account that is not connected to their main account. I assume that AKonanykhin has an anonymous main account, and if so, I wouldn't ask him to declare it. If AKonanykhin employs Misplaced Pages paid editors, it is like meatpuppetry, but I think we must allow him to do this, subject to him committing to requiring his contracted writers to disclose their paid-editing accounts. --] (]) 02:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unban''' ('''Support the ban''') Agree with SmokeyJoe that paid editing by multiple accounts coodrinated from a single center is a violation of ] as meatpuppeting (probably sockpuppeting as well). The only way we could allow paid editing by wikiexperts is if all the involved editors describe the conflict of interests and avoid edit warring. They did not do this so far ] (]) 23:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{replyto|Alex Bakharev}} Please don't be a slander monger. Link to the proof of sock puppetry, or strike your accusation. As far as I know, there has been '''no''' confirmed report of sock puppetry by AKonanykhin. People repeating accusations they heard without demanding to see the evidence is how we got into this mess. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: What proof do you need? Wkiexperts themselves claimed that they coordinate hundreds of Misplaced Pages accounts. Coordinating multiple accounts is of course a form of meatpuppery (if the accounts related to actual people) or sockpuppery (if they do not). Until all those accounts are properly identified and connected to each other for basic srutiny I am opposed to lifting the ban ] (]) 00:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I need diffs showing some of these accounts coming together to corrupt the consensus at a community discussion. For instance, if the Wikiexperts help each others articles survive ], we can ban them. If you don't have that evidence, all you have is hearsay and malice. That's not enough to ban somebody. Mere suspicion that somebody might do something wrong is not a reason to ban somebody. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::But the tune has changed to try and twist out of the penalty. If we say okay, then you open pandoras box upon the website.--] 02:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'd simply ask that you look at the edits made to this person's bio and his various companies. There are clearly a number of paid editors working on those in clear violation of COI and our rules on meat-puppetry. ] (]) 03:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| '''Support''' unbanning of AKonanykhin and his company, on condition that any accounts used in the future by him, his company, regular employees who edit on its behalf, or its subcontractors are listed on a Misplaced Pages page (] would be the obvious place). Naming the clients is unnecessary. —] 02:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Conditional support''' pending full and retroactive disclosure of ''all'' accounts. I'm not convinced that this appeal is genuine based on past experience with paid advocates, but disclosure will go a long way towards addressing the concern. ] 04:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I disagreed with the reasoning of the original ban, but I hoped that the issue would lead to some sort of consensus on how we should tighten the currently toothless "strongly discouraged" COI wording. It didn't. That said, we need to make it worthwhile for editors to disclose their COIs. Currently, it is in the interest of paid editors to hide their relationship with their clients - they gain nothing from disclosure in spite of leaving themselves open to harassment, and yet risk nothing by non-disclosure. By respecting WikiExpert's offer to disclose their COIs, we finally do the opposite, providing value for the disclosure of COIs that makes it worth their while to do so. It may not work, but I think we should respect the offer and give it a go. - ] (]) 04:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - For what it's worth, I oppose this, since it's clear to me that the purposes of public relations people are antithetical to those of people who are attempting to write a NPOV encyclopedia. PR people serve a valuable purpose to the business community, and I have (indirectly) been the beneficiary of their work, but the usual course of business is that a PR person sends their info to some intermediary (a reporter on a newspaper, for instance), and the '''''reporter''''' decides how much of the info to use. It may provide a guide to the reporter for further investigation, or it may (in probably more cases than we'd like to know) be reported verbatim, but at least it has had the chance to be filtered through an intermediary who can use their independent judgment to weed out the worst of the promotional tendencies of the professional publicist. Reporters who pass along PR without vetting it have a tendency to be fired, or become PR persons themselves, because media outlets live and die by their reputations for accuracy.<p>However, when a PR person has '''''direct access to the means of dissemination''''', as is the case with Misplaced Pages, there is no longer an effective filter between their output and the encyclopedia. (Those who think that the cumulative result of all editors watching over he encyclopedia is an effective safeguard might be interested in doing a search of the project for "penis" to see the extent of the run-of-the-mill vandalism which hasn't been reverted by such means.) This is where the danger lies. If we allow public relations people to have clear and unfettered access to edit the articles in the encyclopedia, it is inevitable that we will eventually lose whatever reputation we have built up for neutrality and accuracy. Yes, people will still come to Misplaced Pages for information, since that habit has effectively been formed, but we will no longer be a free source of neutral information, we will be just another media vector for promotion and publicity. Those who think otherwise are, I believe, sticking their heads in the sand and ignoring the blatant reality of the situation. Those who protest that we can't effectively police PR misbehavior are like inner-city cops who let crime get out of hand because it was just too hard to keep fighting against it. Yes, obviously, if we were to ban paid editing (as I believe we should) those editors would work overtime to get around our defenses, and that might require some policy changes on our part, such as loosening the restrictions on CheckUser investigations, but new strategies from the opposition require such responses on our part, and using such we can keep PR-fluff to a reasonable level.<p>I am absolutely certain that the vast majority of those opposing taking steps against PR-editing are sincere in their beliefs, but I believe that are entirely and utterly wrong. The game changed when Misplaced Pages became the first stop of choice for many people when they want to get a quick bit of information, and such a vector cannot be ignored by people who live and die by their ability to get out their clients' message to the most people possible. We are no longer '''''amateurs''''' here, regardless of whether we get paid or not, we are '''''professional information providers''''', and it's our responsibility to see that the information we provide is as accurate and unbiased as possible. To do that in a context where we give free reign to those '''''other''''' professionals, the PR people whose job it is to provide '''''biased and celebratory information''''', is much more difficult, which is why we should not be unbanning '''''any''''' admitted PR person. ] (]) 05:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*This is excellent comment. I completely agree. It matters a lot who edits. As ], What is that he does? What is his nature? For example, contributors who are students, journalists, professional researchers or educators are relatively well fitted by their occupation to contribute here (sure, they can have a bias). However, paid professional propagandists are not. They should not be allowed edit here at all, or at least required to disclose their occupation and be closely watched by community. Such is life. Now, speaking about this particular PR company, they are ''openly telling at their website: .'' ] (]) 14:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * Conditional support. I am very troubled by the statement above that "I believed we were acting within Misplaced Pages guidelines beforehand by treating COI disclosure as a suggestion." This isn't just a matter of deciding that some particular conflict of interest wasn't worth disclosing. Unless I'm very mistaken, this was an ongoing, systematic patter of undisclosed conflicts of interest. This suggests that you had a policy of asking "Am I doing something that doesn't absolutely break the rules" instead of "Am I doing something that (1) is ethical and (2) should be a positive for Misplaced Pages? I don't mind people being paid to write here, honestly and ethically, on topics of genuinely encyclopedic value that might not otherwise be covered. Writing puff pieces on topics of dubious notability while concealing one's economic interest in the matter is a very different thing. If you need someone to tell you that, it makes me wonder whether you even understand what ethics ''are''. Before lifting the ban, I'd want to see a firm commitment not just to not outright breaking rules but to doing one's best to do intellectually honest work, including that you will be open to do warts-and-all writing. For an example of what I'm talking about, I did a piece about my own great-aunt ]. I disclosed this connection on the talk page and ''actively researched'' to find a citeable source stating that her so-called "consultant bureau for pregnant women" included illegal abortion referrals. - ] | ] 05:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strongly Oppose unban''' Way too soon given that this was only enacted a few days ago. As this company's conduct amounted to utter contempt for Misplaced Pages's rules (it's not like ] is anything new, and there's evidence that they were taking steps to avoid being caught out using multiple accounts), we need to see evidence that they're actually willing to abide by our basic terms and conditions before any commitments they make can be taken seriously. {{unsigned|Nick-D}} 08:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Very conditional support'''. According to their website (as of right now): (my bolding). It's unchanged from . To me this implies that they promise their clients that they will perform conflict of interest editing on their behalf while ensuring that no one will be aware of it. It's unethical and a statement of continued intent to evade scrutiny of their edits, unless they now plan to deceive their prospective clients instead of us. I'd need to see '''exactly how''' Konanykhin and his company plan to implement yesterday's promised disclosure of their editors' conflict of interest here, because it clearly removes one of their big selling points to clients. Of course, getting himself and his editors banned has removed an even bigger selling point, so they might just decide to go for the lesser of two evils. I also strongly agree with ] and ] that the original ban was proper one, and it should be immediately reinstated if WikiExperts.us attempt to game it any way. ] (]) 09:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unban'''. Way too soon. And the statement on their talkpage should be followed by corresponding changes to the policies listed on their website. Until that occurs they should stay banned here. --] (]) 10:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I'd sooner have WikiExperts in than Wiki-PR, but there's the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS problem. We understand that, but a lot of the people who have just started something like a social media site for the Bloggui tribe can't see why they're not allowed in, but Facebook is. I don't object to people with what is classed as COI editing - so long as they follow the rules and we get articles and changes that are suitable. Hell, if they are OK, how do we know who they are unless they use a user name like BloggsCoMarketing? How do we set a standard to say WikiForHire can come in, but GetOnWiki can't? Other, that is, than the simple enforcement of the current rules. No corporate accounts, no advertising, notability shown and referenced. Market forces may play a part here - the creators of crap won't get any recommendations from their customers and may be subject to Trading Standards inspection if they claim things they can't deliver, or cash loss if they are foolish enough to offer money-back guarantees... ] (]) 11:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support unban''' (and monitor for further SOCK violations), the evidence of wrongdoing in this case is almost entirely circumstantial. Yes paid advocate editors tend to violate NPOV when it suits them, but unless some minimum threshold of evidence is presented that NPOV has in fact been violated I find the punishment to be out of keeping with the crime. AKonanykhin had stated in the past that he didn't intend to abide by the suggestions in the weakly-worded COI guideline. And perhaps the most damning evidence against him is that presented by Atethnekos in the SPI case. But I find AKonanykhin to be much more forthright than many in his position. He has disclosed his affiliations, he has credibly stated that he intends to abide by the site policies, and he is seeking to unblock his account rather than simply sockpuppeting which as we all know is infinitely easier than a request for unban. If there were policies against COI-editing or that mandated disclosure then that would be one thing, but under the current rules there is no evidence that what he has actually ''done'' is ban-worthy. If Misplaced Pages wants to impose bans for this kind of editing behavior then it has to get its house in order first. There are currently 3 proposed policies on this topic which I see receiving large opposition. Voters seem to jump at the chance to vote down imperfect proposals rather than to vote up the best of them. The result is that none of these proposals will pass. If we can't get our act together then we can't hold third parties to our heightened personal standards. -] (]) 12:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **Note: I'm strongly sympathetic to the requirement for AKonanykhin to declare all sock and meat accounts too. My unban vote isn't conditional on this, but I do think it is a very reasonable imposition. -] (]) 13:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::No. It is not circumstantial, when based on writings of the blocked/banned party - and writings of the blocked/banned party are always the only evidence. Every block/ban decision is a predicted calculation of present and future risks, including logical inferences from the present facts. As for "our house in order," every user has the responsibity for our house's order (see, eg. ) -- that's why the Pedia sometimes blocks/bans. -- ] (]) 14:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, his unsubstantiated claims that if push came to shove he would elect not to heed WP:COI's suggestions are quite clearly ] of wrongdoing. They may possibly be direct evidence of his lack of moral compass or perhaps even his ''intent'' to do wrong things, but intent is an exacerbating factor when it comes to COI/NPOV violations and it is rarely if ever an essential element of the wrongdoing. Furthermore he has controverted this evidence with an explanation that he does not read the guidelines as defining his actions as "wrong". I have to say the weak wording of the present guideline sadly strengthens his claims. There's an ocean of difference between "strongly discouraged" and "forbidden" even when it's written in bold. That's what I mean when I say that we must get our act together before imposing bans like this. Until we can agree as a community that paid-advocacy-editing is forbidden (not just discouraged) as a matter of policy, it's unfair to hold editors to this elevated non-consensus standard even when direct evidence exists (as it doesn't in this case) that they have actually engaged in conflicted editing. I personally think disclosure should be mandatory, but that is only my ''personal'' opinion, not yet policy. By the look of the three ongoing proposed policy discussions it will probably never become policy. -] (]) 15:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::They are not unsubstantiated claims, they are acknowledged evidence of past and future acts (and whether those acts are discouraged or forbidden makes no difference - either way they should not be done); and they are credible given the statements that were made and the actions they described. As for whether the User was mistaken, that is the risk one takes when one chooses to skate the edge - the lesson there is 'do not skate the edge.' -- ] (]) 18:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Where have these claims been substantiated? Are there any diffs that can be provided that will show that AKonanykhin bridged the distance between simply ''saying'' that he would not take the suggestions offered in COI and actually ''editing'' in violation COI/NPOV? Because that's what I mean by "substantiated". His words would have to take substance in the form of edits for me to considered them as factual proof of misdeeds. If no such evidence exist and all we have is intent without a crime then we are punishing thoughts. -] (]) 18:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::] adds promotional material and removes negative information from the ] article . Camper-mann continues to infringe rules against promotional editing (all related to Alexander Konanykhin), and is subsequently blocked for inserting advertising into Misplaced Pages . After initially denying any wrongdoing, when confronted with the evidence, User:AKonanykhin says "As for User:Camper-mann, his actions were a very long time ago, in February of 2009. To be honest, I may well have sought out an editor at that time to adjust our pages, long before I ever got into the Misplaced Pages editing business. Obviously that user did a bad job." (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wexperts&diff=577308061&oldid=577187191). | |||
| :::::::When User:AKonanykhin was first confronted with the concerns of infringements of ], user should have come clean, admitted the errors and committed to not doing it again. Why did the user not do this? The answer is obvious: User:AKonanykhin hoped that those users (like ]) previously involved with the Camper-mann etc. investigations would not show up for the discussion and that the evidence of previous misdeeds would not be seen. It was only when these hopes were dashed that the concessions occured. I call this lying: Using falsehoods to gain an advantage. This is an obvious cynical infringement of ], a policy which rightly enjoins every editor to act honestly. The same is the case with the promise to disclose conflicts of interest. User:AKonanykhin user previously said it "cannot" be done , but now says it can. How is it possible that it both can and cannot be done? The answer is obvious: Either User:AKonanykhin was lying then, and hoped that the community would accept that it cannot be done even when he knew it can, or is lying now and hopes that the community will believe that any disclosures he does will be full disclosures, even when he knows that they won't be. Either way, this is another cynical infringement of ]. --<font face="georgia">] </font><font face="georgia" size="1">(], ])</font> 19:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::There are significant chronological holes in this argument. AKonanykhin only made the statement that he would ignore COI's recommendations in the interest of his clients a week or so ago. I don't think he has had time to make good on his claim yet. The diffs you offered actually predate AKonanykhin's having even joined (and thus implicitly agreeing to abide by the rules of) Misplaced Pages. Likewise as far as I know he hasn't yet had an opportunity to demonstrate that he won't make full disclosures although he said he would so your accusation that he is a liar seems to be as premature as the ban. That AKonanykhin ''would have'' violated COI and that he ''would have'' failed to make full disclosures remain hunches, assumptions, and speculative projections. Holding him accountable for the actions of another person from nearly 2 years before he even joined the project goes a step too far. I think some kind of actual misdeed should precede a ban, not a gaze into the crystalball to nail him for future crimes. -] (]) 21:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I do not say assertorically that User:AKonanykhin is lying on that count. Rather, I say disjunctively that either the user is lying on that count or the user lied when it was said that disclosures cannot be done. How can one sincerely promise to do something but also believe in one's heart that it cannot be done? Such could not be a sincere promise. --<font face="georgia">] </font><font face="georgia" size="1">(], ])</font> 06:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::That's no more a lie than my statement that "It's impossible to force an advocate editor to disclose because we have no policy mandating this" will be a lie once such a policy is adopted. When AKonanykhin made his initial statement he was accurately reflecting his company policies as written. Now that they have been rewritten he has changed his claim, but that doesn't make his previous claim a lie. You're not presenting the full picture. -] (]) 11:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::When editors first complained to User:AKonanykhin about not following disclosure requirements, the user's response was to say that it "cannot" be done, and that such disclosures would be unethical, and would put clients at a competitive disadvantage (because others would not disclose despite the requirements) . And this is in a context of a "crusade" or "jihad" supposedly being waged by Jimbo Wales and other editors against (partially) the user and WikiExperts, in which is a prerogative to avoid scrutiny . Then the user is banned. And then also the user sees that other users will largely only agree to lifting the ban if these disclosure requirements are agreed to. So, when, in the mind of User:AKonanykhin, did agreeing to these requirements stop being an unethical concession which simply cannot be done in this holy war? Your theory is that the hyperbolic claims of it being unethical were the sincere beliefs of User:AKonanykhin, but then he coincidentally changed these sincere beliefs right when doing so would allow an unban. My theory is that he was or is being insincere at some point, either then or now. That's not me failing to give the full picture, that's me having a different interpretation of motivation than you. --<font face="georgia">] </font><font face="georgia" size="1">(], ])</font> 17:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::No, failing to give the full picture is to leave out the fact that the business policies have been modified when you say that "First he claims that he can't disclose for business reasons and then a few days later he claims he can disclose". If the business policies have been modified then this explains why he can now disclose. The same is true at Misplaced Pages. If there's a rule against vandalism then we can say that we can't vandalize. If this rule is repealed then we can now say that we can vandalize. That's not an example of us lying. That's an example of the policies that bind us changing. It would be presenting an incomplete picture to say "Look at these liars! One day they say they can't vandalize, then the next day they say they can! Something is fishy!" without mentioning the policy change. The same is apparently true in this case with AKonanykhin. -] (]) 12:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unban''' - the ban was implemented by the community, and I do not see any good reason why this one user should not be subjected to it. ]] 12:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{replyto|GiantSnowman}}, please show me one diff where they have done something wrong to an article. One diff and I will shut up. Aren't you an administrator? Do you look at evidence, or do you just ban people who you don't like? ] <sup>]</sup> 12:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's the principle of the matter. A ban has been enacted by the community as a whole; the burden is now on you/AKonanykhin to show why the ban should be lifted. FYI, your "do you just ban people who you don't like?" comment makes you sound like a stroppy teenager, or wose. ]] 13:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Giantsnowman - was this meant for the section above?--v/r - ]] 13:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, apologies, this thread is too bloody long! ]] 13:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I could care less whether AKonanykhin gets unbanned. My concern is that we the Misplaced Pages Communittee act ethically. The ban was improperly placed. No evidence of wrongdoing was presented, and the closing admin misjudged consensus badly. There need to be diffs of wrongful editing. We do not place bans for political reasons. Bans are for '''repeated disruption''' of the encyclopedia, not for suspicion or simple dislike for a person. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There is plenty of evidence of puppetry (meat vs. sock being unclear). There is plenty of evidence of folks editing articles related to this person and company with a COI. And there is evidence that he was ignoring COI and plenty of evidence that he intended to continue to do so. How is that not enough for a ban? That said, if he's willing to fix those things and identify all COI (past and future) I'm fine with removing the ban. But this isn't a ban based purely on "suspicion or simple dislike". ] (]) 15:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{ping|Jehochman}} - where have I said I dislike this person? FWIW I think he's actually come across rather well. Your lack of good faith is disturbing. ]] 15:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. Actually, I believe all PR companies and individual propagandists must be forbidden simply per ]. This is because their openly stated goal is promotion of their clients.] (]) 15:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support unban''' - I'm agreeing with the opening statement of the initial flimsy case, and maintain my view that they shouldn't ever have been banned. Not only that, but the user in question has very clearly made attempts to line themselves up with the majority of the policies. I've seen several users publicly state that they will reject policies as they see fit on their user page/talk pages, without any action; another sign of double standards. ] ] 15:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*This is not about the user, but about this user and his company. Did this user and his "friends" follow policies, in particular WP:SOAP? No, they have been heavily involved in promotion using multiple accounts , , , , exactly as they suppose to be as PR people. ] (]) 15:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::*You're going to have to do more than show a few 2008 and 2009 transgressions to convince me. As for Eclipsed, the only recent account, almost all of the articles they've written have plenty of references, and I'm not seeing many deleted for being non-notable, or being pure puff pieces. In fact, even AKonanykhin's own article isn't a pure puff piece, given the presence of two immigration trial sections. These articles are less biased than a large amount of those written by non-paid authors. ] ] 07:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Speaking about their "merits" per WP:IAR, we do not know it, because we do not know who and what edited on their behalf. However, their presence caused significant disruption: these two huge AN discussions and a couple of earlier ANI discussions I remember. That's for sure. ] (]) 21:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Since when was the number of AN/ANI discussions even remotely a relevant factor? Several editors in very good standing have had multiple AN/ANI threads opened against them. Should we ban them essentially because other people have issues with them, even though these users are contributing effectively and well? ] ] 23:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::And a lot of other people were banned, because they created more disruption (unhelpful discussions on ANI and other places) than contributed positively to content. In this particular case, we simply do not know if this organization contributed positively to the project at all (we are talking about ''organization'') because we do not know who their editors are and what they did, just as few people knew much about Wiki-PR, until their actions have been investigated. ] (]) 01:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Comparisons to WikiPR are not warranted here, as the two are indeed very different in their approach to policy and Misplaced Pages in general. No two paid editors are cut from the same cloth and we shouldn't try to categorize them. <span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #003399;">]</span><span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #FF8C00;">]</span> 01:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin - arbitrary break=== | |||
| *'''Strongest possible oppose''' I'm seriously thinking of retiring. Misplaced Pages has fallen so far that now we allow and encourage paid editing and corporate interference with our articles. We no longer have any integrity left. The way we are heading, I no longer have much respect for this place as an independent source, or a project that I can put my time into. I have always admired our integrity and ability to call bullshit when it comes to conflict of interest editing, but in the last several years we have rolled over and let ourselves become nothing more than a giant billboard for hundreds of different companies. The lack of a good COI/Paid Editing policy, policies such as "outing" that are exploited in situations such as this, and strong, deep COI inflitration. This group of editors has abused our sockpuppetry policy, our notability guidelines, and our policy on using Misplaced Pages for advertising, like hardly anyone else in our history. If there has ever been somebody to ban it is WikiExperts. Under no circumstances should they be allowed anywhere near our articles. ''']]]''' 16:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is not a battleground, and therefore we need not "prevent them at all costs" or worry about "infilteration". <span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #003399;">]</span><span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #FF8C00;">]</span> 16:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{replyto|Themfromspace}} If you can't make your point without needless profanity, hyperbole, and threats to resign you might consider ]. We don't need this sort of diatribe in the midst of a rational conversation. The community is deeply divided over paid editing. We can't even agree on a policy, yet. We need to find common ground. Treating this topic as a battle is not helpful. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is no hyperbole. Infiltration by advertisers, which is happening, is the greatest threat to our integrity that we face outside of the longterm decline in neutral editors. This is something we need to say NO to. Loudly. Anything less is unacceptable. This is not a battleground mentality, it is an antivandalism mentality. ''']]]''' 17:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What has changed? Advertisers started "infiltrating" Misplaced Pages over a decade ago. We have robust policies and processes to deal with that issue. Nothing has changed except a group of users have started a ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' unban. Maybe one banned editor soured me on paid editing forever. But what I saw was (and still is, as I'm sure that banned editor is still socking away), was pure advocacy for profit. ] ] 16:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{replyto|Doc9871}} If you are going to denounce a named, living person, you need evidence. Can you please show me the evidence of sock puppetry? This is a rumor that's been oft repeated but never substantiated. Where's the sockpuppetry report? ] <sup>]</sup> 17:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I pointed out below, I was not referring to this editor. I was alluding to {{user|MooshiePorkFace}}, an editor that started out openly promising on elance to create and "maintain" articles for money, creating any notability required as a WP "expert". Sorry for the confusion; I've mentioned MPF in so many comments concerning this issue that I took it for granted that it would be understood that he was who I meant. My bad. ] ] 17:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * The banned user, unable to participate here in the discussion of their fate, has emailed me to say that he updated his website to explicitly state that Misplaced Pages's COI guideline disclosure requirements will be followed. http://www.wikiexperts.us/en/ethics That may address some of the concerns expressed previously. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*I didn't mean this particular banned user, FWIW. I don't see how WikiExperts is going to make much money if they abide by the same rules for content that we all do. Paid editing is usually about promoting your product, ensuring notability and keeping out all the negative stuff. Meh. ] ] 17:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::* We're trying to discuss whether to unban this particular user, not the general principle of paid editing. There are a ] pending. Please do help us resolve them! ] <sup>]</sup> 17:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Doc - paid editing can also be moving a process along that would otherwise wait for a disinterested editor to come to at some point. For example, removing primary sources used to cite negative information (someone hated their spaghetti, blogged about it, and then updated a Misplaced Pages entry for an Italian restaurant that managed to escape CSD). Or it could be writing a ] for a person who has plenty of references but has not had anyone on Misplaced Pages get around to writing an article about yet. Or it could be handling any other perfectly legitimate concern without some silly PR rep bludgeoning it because they don't understand our processes.--v/r - ]] 17:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I see no difference between this guy's firm and . I think we're screwed with companies like this around and more popping up. They are just going to sock to evade detection when they realize that they pretty much have to. Really look at what they promise to do. This sort of paid editing is, IMHO, totally against what the encyclopedia is for. ] ] 21:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::But your making an assumptions and then making a factual comment about the assumptions. ie "A could be B, and B is really bad, so A is really bad."--v/r - ]] 00:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::''"Are you being unfairly treated on Misplaced Pages? Our Crisis Editing team helps you navigate contentious situations. We'll both directly edit your page using our network of established Misplaced Pages editors '''and admins'''. And we'll engage on Misplaced Pages's back end, so you never have to worry about being libeled on Misplaced Pages."'' My emphasis on "and admins". Like I said: we're screwed already with this. ] ] 02:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And the "mission statement" of WikiExperts is just so wrong. ''"You cannot afford to leave the editing of your Misplaced Pages profile to strangers - or worse, to the competition."'' Seriously?! "Strangers" can't edit "your" article? An unbelievably stupid fucking joke is what that is. ] ] 02:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ]. Perhaps the community should play ] in this drama?]] | |||
| :*This seems to be more of the same behavior from the user. As documented above , User:AKonanykhin, when first told of ] violations, denied; and then, when shown the evidence, conceded. Now we see here the same behaviour: When first told of COI disclosure requirements, user denied and said this was not contractually possible , but now that the community presses, the user has conceded. This seems to be a pattern with this user of using falsehoods to try to get benefits. This is both an infringement of ], in not acting in good faith with other users, and ], in not acting collaboratively to build an encyclopedia, tearing down two of the ]. Which of course makes sense: User fully admits to being here not with the end goal of making a better encyclopedia, but with the end goal of making better money. It's become increasingly clear in my mind that when the interests of this encyclopedia get in the way of the interests of this user, this user sacrifices the former for the sake of the latter. --<font face="georgia">] </font><font face="georgia" size="1">(], ])</font> 18:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::*You've misrepresented what they've said. That "is both an infringement of ], in not acting in good faith with other users, and ], in not acting collaboratively to build an encyclopedia, tearing down two of the ]." What he said was, that he has rewritten the contract for his future customers which allows for open declaration of a COI and disclosure of whom he is working for. He's still contractually obligated not to reveal the others unless he can contact those customers and negotiate an amendment.--v/r - ]] 19:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::*If what you are saying about the meaning is true, then either the falsehood is the same as I identify, or it is even worse! Either User:AKonanykhin has dropped, or will drop presently, all the clients for whom work cannot be done while meeting disclosure requirements such that all editing will meet these requirements, in which case the previous statement that disclosure "cannot" be done was the same falsehood. Or, User:AKonanykhin has neither dropped, nor will drop presently, all the clients for whom work cannot be done while meeting disclosure requirements such that all editing will meet these requirements, in which case the promise to meet disclosure requirements is a shameless lie! --<font face="georgia">] </font><font face="georgia" size="1">(], ])</font> 19:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Or it's not a "shameless lie" at all and your continued rhetoric only serves to obscure and derail factual discussion. Business doesn't happen overnight. A promise from the CEO to change business practices takes time to renegotiate contracts. Your confusing unrealistic idealism with legitimate business expectations. Please stop doing that. Be realistic and quit accusing them of being liars simply because they cannot ] and make it all happen in an instant.--v/r - ]] 20:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*I never intend to use rhetoric, I only intend to give the facts as I see them, to the best of my ability. I don't expect anyone to make anything happen in an instant. I assumed that your interpretation was not the case. According to User:Jehochman, who I take to be trustworthy on this matter, User:AKonanykhin now intends to meet disclosure requirements (). As I said, either they do intend to meet the disclosure requirements, in which case their previous statement that this "cannot" be done, was a falsehood, or they do not intend to meet disclosure requirements, in which case the current promise is indeed a shameless lie. --<font face="georgia">] </font><font face="georgia" size="1">(], ])</font> 20:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You yourself are tearing down pillars, namely 3 and 5. <span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #003399;">]</span><span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #FF8C00;">]</span> 21:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Disclosure is not a "requirement". It is a recommendation. They've agreed to ''follow'' (not meet) disclosure recommendations (not requirements). ] "you are '''advised''' to...provide full disclosure of the connection".--v/r - ]] 22:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::That's the wording Jehochman ascribed to the user: "The banned user, unable to participate here in the discussion of their fate, has emailed me to say that he updated his website to explicitly state that Misplaced Pages's COI guideline disclosure requirements". If there is a real difference between the meaning of "following requirements" and "meeting requirements", just read "following" whenever I have said "meeting". --<font face="georgia">] </font><font face="georgia" size="1">(], ])</font> 06:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question'''. When the company says it will abide by the COI guideline, does that mean it will disclose its accounts and require its contractors to refrain from editing articles directly (as the guideline advises)? Or is it offering something more restricted than that? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*Same here. @], I'll believe it when I see it. So now their ethics page says "including Conflict of Interests (COI) disclosure requirements" although their "Why us" page continues to promise their clients confidentiality. There's enormous scope for gaming this. As you and several others have been at pains to point out, our COI guidelines don't explicitly require disclosure. However, quite a few of the editors in this discussion who do not outright oppose lifting the ban, require declarations of COI from ''this group of editors'', and for well-founded reasons. None of their editors are banned from editing their talk pages. It would be a good start if each of them declared their conflict of interest on their talk pages now and ] linked to those talk pages on his talk page so that this can be verified. ] (]) 17:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::* I'm tired of being a middleman in this discussion. I'm not his spokesman. Please go talk to AKonanykhin directly. This is why it was so stupid to ban him. It's hard for concerned editors to talk to the guy when he can't even edit his talk page. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::*His block log doesn't indicate that his talk page access has been revoked, and indeed, he has it since he was blocked. I'm also quite sure he's reading this discussion, as are his employees. ] (]) 18:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support unban'''. I have yet to encounter a cogent argument for the position that paid editing creates a bias that is somehow more problematic than any of the other myriads of biases all editors are influenced by, and, so justifies special treatment. I see no reason to address any particular bias, including this particular bias. Regardless of what an editor's biases are (and it's a matter of what the biases are, not if there are any), what matters is that the edits are made in compliance with NPOV and our other ''content-oriented'' guidelines and polices. ], anyone? And, yes, paid editors can edit in good faith. --]2] 17:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*Yes, I agree, an editor who was simply paid ''can'' edit in good faith. However, an editor who was ''paid to conduct propaganda'' type editing (and that is what PR companies do) should not be allowed to edit per ]. Well, perhaps they might edit per ], but only if they openly disclose their affiliation ''prior'' to any incidents resulting in blocks, such as promotional editing of Mr. Konanykhin biography (see my links above). ] (]) 19:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :**{{User|My very best wishes}}, edits in violation of ] are violations of SOAP regardless of whether they are motivated by payment, and should be dealt with accordingly. There is no need for a separate sanction targeting paid editing. Since there is no reason to disclose any other bias (like one's race when editing an article about race, or one's religion when editing a religious article, or one's political leanings when editing a political article), there is no reason to disclose the specific bias created by paid editing. Attempting to do so resolves nothing and pushes the behavior even more underground. Let's show a little more faith in our content-guarding policies and guidelines like NPOV, Notability, ], and, yes, ]. --]2] 05:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''This is not about bias''. An editor who belongs to an outside organization makes promotional edits (including removal of important reliably sourced information - yes, I saw this a number of times, and this is the reason I do not edit in certain subject areas) not because he has a bias, but because he was told to do them by his superiors. ''He acts as a proxy''. He acts essentially as a ]. Therefore, the disclosure is necessary.] (]) 12:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Actually, I do not mind when people work for educational or scientific organizations (although a disclosure would be appropriate/necessary even in such cases), but when it comes to political PR, such as removal of well-sourced information about crime, ''no''. ] (]) 14:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, I question the prohibitions on meat puppetry as well. But that's a bias too... it's a bias favoring the views of the meat. I don't care ''why'' people edit as they do - I care whether the ''result of their edits'' -- the affected content -- is in compliance with our content-specific policies and guidelines. That's it. --]2] 06:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Strongest possible oppose (of unban)''' | |||
| **The current proposal is based on the proposition that, since there were few diffs given during the banning discussion, the rules on banning were ignored. There are no rules that require diffs during the banning discussion. There was clear and solid evidence -AK's own statements made in the media and posted on his own website, that he had violated the rules of Misplaced Pages hundreds of times, and that he intended to keep on violating our rules. His statements on this page were enough to show meat-puppeting. The ban was quite proper. | |||
| **I don't find ]'s statement that he would follow the rules in the future at all convincing. There are no details showing that he knows what he did wrong. There is no acknowledgement or reporting of the history of what he's done wrong, so that we can't easily correct his advertising and promotion. He needs to disclose his clients and contractors, and give dates and articles. His claim that he can't disclose because of contracts he's signed is self-serving, and any such contract provisions would be unenforceable as it is public policy in the US that promotional and advertising claims must disclose the relationship between the sponsor and the person making the claim (if it is not obvious that the person making the claims (here- the editor) is working for the advertiser). | |||
| **Konanykhin's website wikiexperts.us '''is currently breaking the law''' by making false advertising claims. For example he currently promises his clients to "Increase the visibility and credibility of your company, brand, or product by creating or improving your Misplaced Pages presence." He cannot deliver on these promises for at least two reasons: 1) promotion is explicitly forbidden on Misplaced Pages; and 2) he and his employees are currently banned from editing on Misplaced Pages. If he continues to make false advertising claims on his own website and break the US law on deceptive advertising, even after he is banned here, how can we expect him to follow the rules here. At a minimum, he needs to take down his advertising of Misplaced Pages editing services on his own site, before we can even consider unbanning him. | |||
| **Two more example from wikiexperts.us of deceptive advertising (the first also promises POV editing) | |||
| ***"Article Monitoring and Repair: When someone edits your article, WikiExperts are alerted immediately. Our staff reviews the article to check whether it is still objective, representative and above all, not unduly damaging to your brand’s image. If needed, the changes are reversed." | |||
| ***"Updates: Just as your business is dynamic, so too should be your Misplaced Pages entry. Every time your company’s situation changes, we will update your article, applying the same care to keep it compliant with Misplaced Pages policies." (How can he update an article - compliant with Misplaced Pages policies - when he is banned?) | |||
| :]<subj>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 20:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is an interesting argument. However, he acts rationally. Why change their web site? He overcame Russian justice, INS, FBI and US Department of Justice. Sure thing, he can deal with Misplaced Pages. I am looking forward seeing him and his people around. ] (]) 20:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::'''"Why change their web site?" because he is breaking the law if he doesn't.''' It's pretty simple. Is your argument really that he should not be held to Misplaced Pages's rules and US law, like any other person, simply because he has won some cases in court? It seems like an incredibly cynical argument - "because we can get away with it" ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 00:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, I am simply trying to explain why ''they'' did not bother to fix their web site (yet) - from ''their'' perspective. They think they will edit here no matter what, I believe. Let's see if this unblock passes. If it does, I am right. If it does not, they will do something else (possibly new statements and yet another request for unblock). ] (]) 00:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Qualified support''' for an unban. On the one hand, I (and I believe I speak for many here) don't ''like'' the idea of unbanning known paid editors—paid editing is distasteful and disruptive, and can be fairly assumed to carry a certain level of bad faith. I say that last part in that the ultimate goal of a paid editor is ''to get paid'', rather than improve the encyclopedia—that's my distinction between "bad" paid editing and acceptable paid editing (e.g. the ], or paid Wikipedian-in-Residence positions at GLAMs, et cetera). That being said, given that we cannot prevent all paid editing, it is in our interests to bring it "above-ground" as much as possible. By allowing paid editors some freedom ''when they disclose their actions and are subject to scrutiny'', we ultimately gain greater control over paid editing's influence because it can be measured and regulated more effectively. It also gains us greater leeway to penalize paid editors who try to slip under the radar and fail, since there'd be an established best practice that they are demonstrably trying to circumvent. <br>The freedom that I believe paid editors should enjoy when their work is disclosed and meets our standards is tempered by greater freedom on our part to block and ban paid editors who do not meet these standards. If a paid editor is found to also be operating "underground" or operating sock puppets, etc., that should result in an immediate and permanent ban. We cannot tolerate behaviour that is manifestly in bad faith. For that matter, if paid editors produce poor-quality work, we should not be tolerant of that, because it can produce so much clean-up work for our unpaid volunteers. I'd support a "sticky proposed deletion" process analogous to those for BLPs.<br>I'm rambling, so TL;DR: Unban this time, and let's move to incentivizing good behaviour and punishing bad behaviour more consistently in the future, please. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">{{]|]|]|]}}</span> 16:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Simply a poor-quality work is not a forbidden, unless an editor is ]. It does not really matter that these editors are paid. However, they work for a propaganda/PR company. ''That'' should be forbidden per ].] (]) 00:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ** | |||
| *'''Support''' unban, not because I like PR companies editing, but because we can either '''A''' unban and have all PR accounts disclosed, or '''B''' don't unban and drive PR accounts underground. It's very simple. ] (]) <span style="font-family:Tahoma;">00:49, 22 Oct 2013 (])</span> 00:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*Despite the disclaimer on their "ethics page": ''"You cannot afford to leave the editing of your Misplaced Pages profile to strangers - or worse, to the competition."'' Does anyone here seriously not see how this statement sums it all up? It's astounding. ] ] 07:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Firm Oppose'''. Per Smallbones and Nyttend. While some people here claim that the banning process was "flawed," the fact that it's an editor with his own article we're talking about here, who has made repeated intentions of violating WP policy, and suddenly seeking an unban roughly two weeks after Kudpung closing it? Jeez, as per Nyttend, try going off the grid for six months! | |||
| :I agree with Smallbones' points on the subject being alerted of possible edits to a client article and their people will fix it. That's already ] it in my book and they dare other people to edit client articles. AKonanykin's making a really stupid facade of declaring that his company will suddenly follow all WP guidelines despite all his rhetoric about violating them, hypocrite much? An unban will only play into his hands.--] (]) 14:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unban''' per two points: | |||
| :# ''']''', basically. I believe AKonanykhin is a good businessperson and will do what good businesspeople do, which is serve the needs of their paying clients. What they have stated they do for their clients seems patently incompatible with Misplaced Pages's goals. I just don't believe their culture, aims and methods can turn on a word like that. I read the latest on AKonanykhin's User Talk and there's a lot of "Yes, but..." there setting up loopholes. Yes, ] but also ]. | |||
| :# '''Where are the diffs?''' - Several commentors here supporting the unban have asked for diffs showing the ban is justified. However, this is ''not'' another !vote on banning. This is an UNBAN vote. We normally only grant an appeal to lift a ban after it has been demonstrated that the editor can contribute productively and in line with Misplaced Pages's rules. Where are the diffs demonstrating this? If AKonanykhin provides a complete list of their paying clients and accounts the company uses, and demonstrates that well-sourced content that meets Misplaced Pages's content policies but reflects badly on their paying clients won't be challenged or removed, I might reconsider. | |||
| :<code>]]</code> 15:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unban''' As someone else wrote, ''"I find the entire subject of a company who's entire existence appears to be about paid editing to run afoul of what I believe Misplaced Pages is."'' Paid editing is advertising, and Misplaced Pages does not allow ads. ] (]) 01:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::In fact, hiring of an experienced participant by a business can be a ] - ''if'' the payment alters to the worse editing behavior of the recipient.] (]) 04:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support Unban''' with proviso that all Paid COI edits ''must'' be identified on talk pages of affected articles, under penalty of return to banned status. The marketing of this company implies NPOV is the least of their worries. We need to make sure that it is on their radar, and the only way to do that is if we know where to look. ] (]) 05:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is no consensus to unban this account. We can talk about why that is for months. ] ] 11:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support unban''': As much as I am opposed to paid editing, as it truly does undermine the spirit of Misplaced Pages, I am unconvinced by arguments that this ban should stay in place. If the ban was to be kept in place until a promise to declare conflict-of-interest was made, then there really is no reason to keep the ban in place. A lot of the arguments to keep the ban in place revolve around the implicit mistrust we have in paid editors, and that in many cases may be well founded. However we set a ban in place and gave specific guidance as to how it could be removed, and if we do not follow through on our word here, then we are just as untrustworthy. Do we really set expectations for people without meaning them? Do we really set bans or blocks in place with instructions as to how it can be removed, then reneg on those terms when someone complies? | |||
| : It appears that a major concern is that we have no idea whether or not the company will comply with the terms of the unban. I’m a little sceptical of that line of argumentation. If they are unbanned and hey, look, there doesn’t seem to be any Wikiex account anywhere doing anything whatsoever, I think we’ll have our answer—they’re not following the rules. And if contributions do pop up, we’ll know immediately if we need to revert them or not. So I think we can see pretty easily whether or not to trust the company’s word if there is future disclosure, or if there is not. Considering all we have to go off right now is a couple of stale diffs from before the editors went into business that would be very beneficial in terms of seeing what potential problem lies here. On top of that, we can see what their editing patterns are and if we want, continue searching for problem patterns that might have popped up elsewhere, and address such patterns as they arise. So if they can’t provide past accounts, I don’t see the issue personally, as if they were problem accounts we’ll find them. Misplaced Pages isn’t fragile or incompetent, we can easily see if the unban should stay or a ban reimposed by a small sample size of disclosed edits. So again, no reason to reneg on our word. ] (]) 14:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Real problem here is not paid editing, but use of multiple accounts by the same organization when every individual account acts as company's proxy. Yes, I agree, such bans can be appealed, but only under one standard condition: complete disclosure of all their ''current'' accounts to asses potential damage (or possibly benefits) of their activities. Actually, we have this below with regard to another company: ''This ban as a whole may be appealed at WP:AN at any time that XYZ as an organization is willing to (a) divulge a complete list of all past accounts that they have used, (b) divulge a complete list of all articles they have edited that they have received any financial benefit from whatsoever, and (c) pledge to, in the future, only edit under transparent, disclosed accounts and adhere as closely as they are able to all of Misplaced Pages’s content policies.'' ] (]) 16:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* A standard could be set, but I don’t see where it has. I’ve reread the ban again and it does not mention retroactive disclosure, so are we not moving the goal posts here? In retrospect, if the ban had included retroactive disclosure, the vote could have turned out differently. In addition, if the ban had not included a clear pathway to reinstatement, again the vote could have turned out quite differently. There is no way of knowing if the ban would have been agreed to with the new standard of retroactive disclosure. It’s not that retroactive disclosure is a bad idea, it’s that no one agreed that it would be necessary. I dislike these types of people as much as anybody, and would prefer no paid editing whatsoever on Misplaced Pages. But the language used was pretty specific, and ignoring that language in favour of new conditions strikes me as strange. | |||
| ::::: The other thing that bothers me is the assumption of bad faith in past edits, which was also not a part of the ban. You mention WikiPR, where there is evidence of bad faith edits, but this case provides none. For all our searching (I’ve done some myself too) I can’t find examples of bad faith editing—and definitely nothing that would make me feel comfortable with establishing new conditions for unbanning. Maybe that’s all beside the point though, because from what I read the ban doesn’t state anywhere that there was an assumption of bad faith edits. It only states that it was unethical (and, quite frankly, abhorrent) to lambaste Misplaced Pages in the way that it was happening and at the same time not disclose accounts that could prove good faith editing. The logic behind this wasn’t that the company must be editing badly, but that we didn’t trust it to edit without supervision. Anyhow, I’m uncomfortable with the apparent shape-shifting of the argument not to unban and the setting of new conditions that did not appear in the ban, as when I apply the arguments here to the ban language, I feel it is starting to slip away from the original decision (which I agreed with, by the way). I think that is dangerous for the long-term development of a paid editing policy that keeps Misplaced Pages safer, as it doesn’t show continuity in our decisions. ] (]) 18:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::] policy is only about individuals, not organizations. Importantly, even though we have AGF, we also can and ''should'' trace contributions by individual editors to identify those who actually damage the project - this happens all the time. When it comes to corporations, there is an additional dimension: activities of people who work on behalf of the same organization are normally coordinated from the same center. Is it an ]? We do not really know without having their disclosure. We can't AGF that activities of between different people from the same corporation are uncoordinated because they usually are, almost by definition. Yes, I believe they must make retroactive disclosure as a precondition of their unban, so we can check they did not do damage like Wiki-PR. Did this particular user and his employees were actually engaged in doubtful coordinated activities? Yes, at least four their accounts (one of them blocked) edited biography of Mr. Konanykhin. ] (]) 20:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::* Just as a point of interest, nowhere in ] does it state what you are implying it does. Groups of people are not treated differently from people by the policy, which is besides the point, as I was only pointing out that there was no breach of ] retroactively in the ban language and that therefore I find that imposing it now is contrary to our mission—which is to root out any potential problem we might have. I am clearly not saying that no tracing should occur, I in fact stated that we can trace patterns much more easily if damage exists by allowing ourselves a recent sample of their edits. As a complete aside, I’m not sure that making charges of illegal activity is in line with ], as you are implying that crimes are taking place and that legal action may be needed. But I could be wrong on that. | |||
| ::::::::: Really, ''I agree with you'' that perhaps in the future retroactive disclosure requests could be made a part of any cban. But it wasn’t in this case, and again, I think that trying to impose it regardless doesn’t respect the original community consensus. Is there evidence enough to ignore the consensus and impose new sanctions? The evidence you present for unconstructive editing is pretty old. One is an attempt to post material that was shut down pretty easily by us four years ago, and which occurred before the company we are talking about came to being. The second is a case where conflict of interest was actually disclosed, so the policy we’re trying to imposed (and rightfully so) wasn’t circumvented. That second edit was just to add a photo, I would add, and one we still have on the Commons and in use. I’d want to see far more in terms of recent, damaging diffs to determine the impact of this situation on the site, and in fact, believe that we will never be able to determine such potential damage if we do not respect the language of the original consensus and disallow ourselves the ability to see what new edits we receive. That’s fighting this battle with one hand tied behind our backs. ] (]) 21:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Where did you find that I am "implying that crimes are taking place and that legal action may be needed"? I never said anything even close. I only said somewhere that I saw how certain editors remove well-sourced negative information (including information about crime) from articles about certain rich/influential living people and organizations, and I am sure this is COI problem. Unfortunately, based on my experience here, this is all unprovable (no one declares their COI in political subjects of course), can't be fixed, and only will get me banned. So I would rather avoid editing these subjects, and that is exactly what I actually did.] (]) 00:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin - 2nd arbitrary break=== | |||
| *'''The original ban stated :''' | |||
| ::''"The ban should be set so that it can be lifted at once if the company agrees all of its representatives will fully and publicly disclose COI/paid editing and otherwise fully adhere to the guidelines of WP:COI in the future, and contingent that they in fact do so in all future cases."'' | |||
| :People might argue in how to interpret the first "will", but to me it's stating the company's editors must disclose that they have been paid to edit articles prior to the ban and that any new employees must do so if/when the ban is lifted. It does not require that they name their clients, although that can be reasonably inferred from the articles they have edited since 2010. In fact, although they later attempted to make that information harder to find, several of them had been openly declared, along with their articles. See for example, ] , (uncollapse the thread). The user pages of two of the four editors whom Eclipsed "adopted" (and at one point referred to as his "team"): , . All four editors can be found . See also (uncollapse the "Declarations"). Plus after . I will notify all the editors I've mentioned here, although apart from Eclipsed, they now appear to be inactive. There is another editor who is almost certainly from WikiExperts who has extensively edited ] as well as all the other articles on ]'s various companies, his wife, her associates, etc. I won't name them here as they have made no attempt to declare their COI. ] (]) 07:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Three points. (a) Yes, this is written in text of ban: ''all'' accounts (including current ones) should be disclosed. (b) Konanykhin said that they have a non-disclosure agreement not only with their clients, but also with "their" wikipedia editors and that they ''currently'' have a number of editors here, rather than these old accounts (in his another statement too where he tells that their people stopped editing during the ban) (c) Making such non-disclosure agreement means creating a Cabal; and we know several cases when members such "teams" (even not bound by any agreements) were sanctioned by Arbcom in the past. ] (]) 14:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The original drafter of the ban language himself has stated he supports an unban in the above discussion. I believe that they would have the closest understanding of what the language was supposed to mean. A number of other users who supported the ban have changed their minds, so I am reasonably assured that these individuals have the right interpretation of the language. In addition, there was very little discussion of disclosing retroactively in the commentary that led to the ban, so I'm relatively convinced that your misinterpreting it. No retroactive disclosure was agreed upon by the community. That said, we can go round and round like this for weeks. On your other point Voceditenore, I would indeed like to hear from ] to see how his or her Misplaced Pages activities are related to this discussion and what they have to say about the things being said about him/her. ] (]) 14:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It does not matter what drafter or anyone else tells. It only matters what was actually written in the ban, because that is what people voted for. ] (]) | |||
| ::::: We're saying the same thing here, just from two different sides. I believe it is a stretch here to say the ban intended for retroactive disclosure, and that moving the goal posts doesn't help us deal with the problem at hand. I'm also saying, I guess, overall, that smacking away the hand that is being extended by the company in question and gaining the "upperhand" so to speak by actually seeing if what we fear exists (potentially attrocious editing) is not in our best interests either. I'd rather keep ] in my grips while I can (no offense to the company/person described meant, I'm purely using an analogy). ] (]) 14:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Two points. 1. Retroactive disclosure to some extent may well be the incidental result of present and future disclosure, but present and future disclosure should occur, nonetheless. 2) Are there current claims that present/future disclosure cannot be made? If so, those should be rejected, as incompatible with the ban condition. ] (]) 15:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: Yes, nothing should stand in the way of present and future disclosure. Any claim that full disclosure post-unban is not possible due to potential retroactive disclosure would be a cause to reinstate said ban, if made. ] (]) 16:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{Outdent}}@ ]... You want to know what role of ] is in all this? Read this posting he made to AN in November 2010, when this company was first brought to the noticeboard: | |||
| . | |||
| ] (]) 16:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :This is perfect example what happens when political PR companies are working in Misplaced Pages. Eclipsed was a well-intended participant who contributed just fine since 2005. He was recruited in 2010 (based on his statement), which led to COI problems and finally his retirement from the project. This incident alone could be a reason for banning the company. What they do is ]. ] (]) 16:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::In that same post that I linked Eclipsed claimed that he was already working as a free-lance paid editor here, but finding it hard to make a go of it until he met Konanykhin. If he is to be believed, he wasn't exactly corrupted by his current boss, although if you read (uncollapse the thread), several editors disputed the accuracy of his narrative. ] (]) 17:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Thank you! Strange that there was a disclosure of COI on User:Eclipsed's edits instead of being done in secret. It's not all that relevant to the ban/unban discussion though I guess, as it is an example of disclosure that has already taken place and not of undisclosed contributions, in line with what we are demanding. We can use it in other ways though perhaps. Maybe as an example of how the company might have in the past been able to edit in the way we need them to, for those on the fence, or at least that sample size of edits I was talking about, in terms of the kinds of potential edits we are trying to ferret out. Good information. ] (]) 18:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *This is a disorganized discussion because people commented and voted with regard to three different issues: (a) paid editing (this is not necessarily a bad thing, but better be declared), (b) WP:COI (editing in the area of your expertise, paid or not, is not necessarily COI), and (c) working on behalf of an external political PR/propaganda organization by multiple editors coordinated from the same center (potential ] and WP:SOAP problems). I think (c) is the most serious issue that requires complete disclosure of all ''recent and current'' accounts used by all external ''organizations'' currently working in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 20:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: I fully respect your opinion, though I've heard almost nobody in the above thread describe anything like your option "c", and find it mildly bombastic--equating public relations people to propagandists and whatnot, or assuming that there are multiple tag teams of editors out there (no one has provided evidence of that). Your use of ] is apt though; I would add that if any significant amount of unambiguously promotional material is found and deleted in association from the organization we're discussing, that there could be grounds for restrictions outside the language of the ban in any unban. I just don't see any such clear examples of such unambiguous promotional activity right now, which makes me concerned that we're imprinting our own worst fears on a phantom that may or may not have any of the organs we might be attributing to it. ] (]) 16:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposal for Disclosure=== | |||
| What if: We have the editors who work for WikiExperts create separate COI accounts, like WMF staff members, that they use while making edits for WikiExperts? For example, if I were employed by them (which is not to say that I am, because I'm not), I would use ] for all paid editing by WikiExperts and ] for all of my normal editing. Using the WMF Staff member model, this could make it very clear which edits are by WikiExperts. The way it stands now, if we identify who their editors and customers are, we still do not know if each, and which, individual edits are being paid for or not. This solution would take all the ambiguity away. Thoughts?--v/r - ]] 18:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :This strikes me as being maybe workable. That is provided these individuals actually do any editing that isn't for pay. There could be a bit of a blurry line, though, if I as a paid editor (which I am not) were to, perhaps, try to add some information on the topic of my COI to marginally related articles. An example might be trying to add a link to my business' building (which may or may not be prominent in the community) to the article on the city in which it exists, or something like that. Such edits might be seen as problematic if the editor, reasonably, thought the building should be mentioned, which perhaps it might be, but others, just as reasonably, might disagree regarding the amount or location of such content. In such cases, to what degree might COI be considered relevant, and, as a secondary concern, to what degree might, potentially, problematic paid editors (which would probably include only a comparatively small number) seek to excuse such problematic edits with this perhaps dubiously defensible reason? ] (]) 18:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' This leads directly to witch hunting. If an editor sees they are paid 10/10 times thy will revert. If they explicitly state in their names they are a paid pr firm they will be reported to ANI and generally harassed. <span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #003399;">]</span><span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #FF8C00;">]</span> 18:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*Not exactly. I've been paid to write articles and I've even managed to get them put on DYK: ].--v/r - ]] 19:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*It has been my experience the Misplaced Pages community is actually protective of COI editors who follow the ]. Konveyor, you keep making claims about disclosure leading to harassment, but you never point to any specific examples. Evidence, please. --] (]) 22:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*] is out and proud and manages to get the job done. No doubt it is very much more uncomfortable and difficult to do it that way than to simply hide, but he/she nevertheless behaves ethically. Like TP, above. We could make it easier for them by reviewing their talk page requests and ] submissions in a timely manner. But we can't welcome a team here that openly defies community-agreed norms. --] (] · ] · ]) 01:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. I'm not persuaded that we actually need it to be part of the username for the account, the way that "(WMF)" is used, but I do believe strongly that some kind of identification is needed, perhaps by way of userpage disclosure. I don't really buy the argument directly above, about inevitable reverting of good edits, because that's what discussion and consensus are for. --] (]) 19:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm fine with this. Might be a good way to go with all paid editing. ] (]) 20:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. <s>I think this ban can be lifted if they provide list of all their accounts (here and right now), so that everyone will be able to check what exactly they are doing. ] (]) 21:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)</s>I believe all PR companies and individual propagandists must be forbidden simply per ]. This is because their openly stated goal is promotion of their clients. ] (]) 15:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' Other paid editors, such as {{U|WWB}}, have used this method successfully. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">] • ]</font> 21:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' - I agree that the affiliation of paid editor should be in his/her username; disclosure upfront (like scientists with COI do in their scientific papers) is the way to go... don't bury the information. As volunteer editors our time here is precious, and I for one don't want to be suspicious of everybody I am working on an article with, to the point where I go check their pages to see who they are when there are disagreements. I think too that all their paid editing accounts should be listed on one page, so that it is easy to find the relevant editors and audit their compliance, for any editor or admin who wants to see how well they are keeping their promises (assuming we un-ban them) Responding to ]. I know what it is like to be witch-hunted, so please know that I am sympathetic with that concern. But we need to work toward compromise and consensus, and it would be helpful if you acknowledged that there is a big chunk of the community that is really concerned about paid editing - we need to work toward solutions everybody can live with and avoid exaggerations like "10/10 times they would be reverted." I hope you can see that.... ] (]) 22:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' as a general solution in such cases, but not in this particular case, where I think the ban should stay. ] (]) 22:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - every paid editor should indicate their allegiance otherwise it constitutes violation of ] ] (]) 23:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: It's not a violation of sock unless the employer asks all its employees to work together to subvert consensus. If there are 100 employees of Apple editing Misplaced Pages, which there probably are, should we block all of them for sock puppetry (starting with ] who freely discloses her Apple affiliation)? ] <sup>]</sup> 01:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - Makes sense. Now, if we can just get ] and ] to fall into line when editing race or acupuncture articles, respectively, life will be much simpler here. --] (] · ] · ]) 01:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - Really this sounds no stronger a policy or guideline than just requiring the user to create an account with that companies name in it like, oh...I don't know..] and follow that example. But they should still not be allowed to edit, but can make drafts and suggestions on the talk page. As I understand it, TParis is suggesting we just allow the paid editors to just edit any article with a new user right....one that we have been attempting to fight against. No, I'm not for allowing paid editing on Misplaced Pages, no offense to those who have admitted to having already done so. I see this as a way that more experienced editors could easily take advantage of their expertise and experience to profit from and....I don't know that anyone can talk me down from that position but please try, I am all ears. Volunteer should be our goal and if someone is slipping through our policy cracks by editing an article specifically because they have been hired to do so....well, I would think we would want to fill that crack, not widen it.--] (]) 02:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*Hi Mark. Are you offering the example of {{User|Arturo at BP}} as a good example of a paid editor? Because it is moderately disclosed, and has no mainspace edits? I think it looks good. --] (]) 06:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - Why not run a test case on this? Make it optional, and get feedback from them and the community after some time. We can then broaden or scrap the idea based on its success. Contrary to Konveyor Belt's claim above, a named account would seem more trustworthy to me; the editor is choosing to be transparent and is obviously knowledgeable about our policies and his responsibility to manage his COI. I don't know if ''requiring'' them to have named accounts is the best plan when we don't have such a policy in place for other paid editors, so I'd oppose a requirement on those grounds. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 03:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would only argue that we do have such a policy or guideline in place for other paid editors. In fact we have, what I thought was a pretty clear set of policies, not perfect, but getting stronger and clearer on the subject. | |||
| {{cot|Disclosure polices}} | |||
| ::Per ] '''"Usernames implying shared use"''': | |||
| {{quotation|...usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person, such as "Mark at WidgetsUSA", "Jack Smith at the XY Foundation", "WidgetFan87", "LoveTrammelArt", etc. | |||
| <br> | |||
| Remember that promotional editing is not permitted regardless of username. The conflict of interest guideline advises all users to exercise caution if editing articles about businesses, organizations, products, or other subjects that they are closely connected to. If you choose to edit articles that are in any way related to your company or group, you will need to carefully follow Misplaced Pages's advice on editing with a conflict of interest.}} | |||
| "'' | |||
| ::Per ] '''"Paid advocacy, public relations, and marketing"''': | |||
| {{quotation|If you have a financial connection to a topic – including, but not limited to, as an employee, owner or other stakeholder – you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection. You may use the article talk pages to suggest changes, or the {{t|request edit}} template to request edits. Requested edits are subject to the same editorial standards as any other, and may not be acted upon. | |||
| The writing of "puff pieces" and advertisements is prohibited.}} | |||
| ::And of course '''Declaring an interest''': | |||
| {{quotation|Some editors declare an interest in a particular topic area. The benefits of this are that most editors will appreciate your honesty and may try to help you; you lay the basis for requesting help from others to post material for you, or to review material you wish to post yourself, and public relations professionals may be required to abide by code of ethics, such as the GA code of ethics or PRSA code of ethics. The disadvantage of declaring your interest is that people outside Misplaced Pages, such as reporters, may identify you and generate negative publicity for you, your group or your company. Some COI declarations have the effect of announcing your real name (see WP:REALNAME). Do not publicly declare an interest if this could put you at harm in the real world, e.g., from stalkers.}} ::. | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| ::I think it is safe to say we have a few policies in place for this very thing.--] (]) 04:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Every paid editor should disclose their COI. This is a very straightforward way of doing so and is about as good as it gets. ] 04:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * Support TParis' line of thinking. These paid editors are here and prohibition will not eradicate them. A ] account would be the best disclosure for edits to mainspace. I would not insist on having the tagged alt account linked to the main account, as I think there would be lots of paid editors not ] enough to do this. I would have untagged, undisclosed paid-to-edit accounts declared preemptively banned, with their work subject to ]. I think only this will motivate compliance from the majority of paid editors. I would allow tagged accounts the freedom to edit as per any editor, and to restrict their editing privileges if they edit poorly. --] (]) 07:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*Hey SmokeyJoe. Is the statement: ''"These paid editors are here and prohibition will not eradicate them."'' something of a false argument? We have a set of guidelines and policy in place and have been through a good deal of discussion from the BP article in regard to paid editing and paid advocacy editing. I am not sure if I understand the logic of the proposal if not to simply allow editing of the article itself by creating a new user right or user category. I would say if we are allowing them the ability to gain financially against the very policies we have in place right now and in mass to the very question of meat puppetry, we should probably hold off any decision until we have a Village pump proposal made to the full community. If there is consensus for some special user group with the point blank disclaimer embedded permanently into the editors name...then won't they also want to have an alternative account for when they are not being paid? How far will this really take us? Will everyone be allowed two alternative accounts? If not, how does one get this new user right? What are the criteria for it? If you get it and don't have a regular account would you be able to work around the all editors being able to have double accounts...one for volunteer work and one for payment from an outside entity for the best price I can get? Can this be be implemented without the foundation and a full look into any implications on community reaction and editor retention. Would legal need to look into this first. This sounds like something that would need a straw poll, and go through a more thorough process of community vetting and consensus to me.--] (]) 11:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Hi Mark. The statement is my working premise. There are some high profile admissions of undeclared alternative accounts used for paid editing. The existing policy on paid editing is weak. It is discouraged. Disclosure of COI is encouraged. They are not forbidden/required. I think "requiring" disclosure of paid editing is a reasonable small step worth trying. --] (]) 20:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::*I think one step is to tighten the policy to require disclosure of paid advocacy and paid editing. I think it is a step too far to then..."Release The Kraken" upon the community by then saying just by a stamp of disclosure we should let them edit articles. Disclosure and proper COI editing is not direct and it may not be exactly what companies and editors may want in regards to paid editing policy but I can't support actually giving them a green light with the collateral of the whole thing being alternate accounts, mass groups of editors from different companies with different agendas and a political nightmare of campaigns and PR firms etc, this will attract. This isn't really just a matter of one company, but allowing everyone the right to do the same thing...and they do have the same right to do what this company does. Now we have to decide how to react to it. I agree. We should require disclosure of paid editing. I do not agree that we should allow paid editors to edit articles directly.--] (]) 03:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Hi Mark. Agreed, we should require disclosure. When disclosed, should we allow them to edit mainspace? If it is a hard no, does this mean we require them to post edit requests on the talk page, and will these be ignored? My problem with a hard no is that they will reject the deal and stay underground. --] (]) 06:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strongly oppose''' per the name of the company. The Foundation accounts are used to speak with some sort of authority. Non-regulars at AN will see (WikiExperts) and think these are more expert than the other poor sods who just have plain user names. ] (]) 11:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strongly Oppose Proposal for Disclosure'''. What's next? A special user account for editing political articles identifying your political affiliation (])? And another for editing religious articles (])? And yet another for one's favorite football team when editing football articles (])? And, of course, everyone should be required to disclose their place of residence in order to identify nationalistic biases, etc. (]). <p> There is nothing about the bias created by paid editing that makes it require special treatment relative to other biases. There is no reason to identify paid editors, ever.<p> Focus on content, folks, not the editors. It ''is'' that simple. --]2] 18:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::" There is nothing about the bias created by paid editing that makes it require special treatment relative to other biases". Then find ways to deal with other means of bias too. That's like saying we shouldn't block vandals because we can't block all disruptive editors. When we can deal with obvious forms of bias, we should. ] (]) 00:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I suggest you're underestimating the effect of all other kinds of bias, and thus overestimating the relative significance of ''this'' one kind of bias. We deal with all bias in the same way: ], ], ], etc. The beauty of WP is ''bias'' does not matter! WP all about putting all of our biases (and we all have them!) aside and creating NPOV notable content that is well-founded in reliable sources. This whole issue reveals how little understood and ''appreciated'' this aspect of WP is, even by very experienced editors. Sad, really. --]2] 00:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Per declaration here . ] (]) 00:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposal number 99999: Declare that you do paid editing=== | |||
| This seems by far the most sensible and lightest solution. If you engage in paid editing, place a notice on your user page or talk page that says you do. This bit could be compulsory, if that's what consensus says. If all your edits, or the majority are paid for, then you should say, but this bit isn't required. No need to disclose exact clients, or their exact requests. No messy signatures, no outright bans, just a simple notice. ] ] 17:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support''' as proposer. ] ] 17:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support''' as long as this is not interpreted to mean that this is the only thing that needs to be done. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 17:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| #:Depending on exactly what you mean by that, then no, it doesn't suggest that this will resolve the entire problem. I'm not that naive. :) ] ] 19:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support''' This is one of the simplest things to be done and one of the best. Declaring any COI ''before'' you start editing will hopefully defuse tensions. <span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #003399;">]</span><span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #FF8C00;">]</span> 17:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support'''. This makes sense; we need to wake up to the reality that paid editing is going to go on (just as unpaid biased editing is going to go on), and our best defense against error is to have it out in the open. <small>On a slightly more maudlin note, I feel bad for Luke, since this is Proposal number 99999, and Proposal number 100000 wins a free Hawaiian vacation. Well, I'm off to make a proposal...</small> ] ] 17:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| # '''Support''' I feel the issue isn't being paid for editing, ''per se'', but whether or not a person clearly profits from the edit: consider two cases. If someone fixes a typo or adds a minor detail to a biography (date of marriage or graduation from college), no one's response would change if the edit was made by the subject, his arch enemy, or an objective person who jsut happens to know the fact. On the other hand, if someone questionale material to a controversial subject, thus tilting the POV of the article in one direction, the community response will be in proportion to just how vested that person is in the subject -- viz., a newbie is far more likely to simply be educated on Misplaced Pages ways than someone being serious money by an advocacy group or business. -- ] (]) 19:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| # '''Support''' I think this has already been agreed upon by the prior consensus, and by this one. ] (]) 18:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| # '''Oppose'''. Clients' identities ''must'' be disclosed if disclosure is to have any value. Otherwise, what does this accomplish? The whole point of COI declarations is to put other editors on notice so they can apply additional scrutiny to your edits are they deem appropriate. A bare declaration that you've done some paid editing, for who knows whom and for who knows what, provides very little guidance, if any. In addition many editors (especially those with less experience than the ones patrolling this noticeboard) don't often look at other editors' user pages, so a COI disclosure on an article's talk page (such as a ] tag) would be much more effective. Moreover I see nothing wrong with requiring paid editors to disclose their client lists. This is not ]. If they signed NDAs, well, that's their problem. And expecting them to follow a "paid editor honor code" is sheer folly, given the empirical evidence. --] (]) 18:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::* '''Comment''': I have a feeling, based on people's reactions, that the proposal isn't being read very carefully. The proposal isn't for full disclosure, but rather for partial disclosure. I'd like to see other editors weigh in not only on whether disclosure of paid editing is warranted but also whether disclosure of clients is warranted as well. --] (]) 18:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::*No, clients identities don't have to be disclosed. That's never been a thing, it's just many people wish it was (including you, it seems); it also borders on ] to force it to happen, as you are expecting confidential information to be put into the open. If you see a spammy article from someone with an "I engage in paid editing" notice, then it's almost certain that they were paid for it, and that they need to be watched carefully. Since paid editing is not a policy violation, there is at present nothing more that ''can'' be done. At the end of a day, someone can be neutral or biased regardless of payment. Good, neutral pay editors should not be discouraged; those who act in a biased or policy-violating manner should be dealt with on ''those'' violations, not solely the issue of payment. ] ] 10:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Your proposal ''already'' goes beyond the strictures of WP policy, so by your logic here your proposal must be rejected as well. And yes, you're correct that my position is for paid editors to disclose their clients. No, this doesn't border on WP:OUTING. OUTING is about personal information that exposes the editor to harm, not about confidential information. And frankly I don't give two bits about confidentiality agreements entered into by parties who are subverting our project. --] (]) 06:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Comment''' This does not appear to be the right place to discuss a policy proposal. As is the proposal seems ambiguous, ("but this bit isn't required"?) also disclosure for our readers (and editors) sake will need to be on the talk page of the affected article, in addition to the user page. ] (]) 16:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per unenforceable due to privacy policies of WMF. <small>]</small> 11:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Another Proposal: Certification Course=== | |||
| I'm just full of ideas this morning. What if we organized a certification course? It wouldn't be a precursor to editing, nor would it prevent a paid editor who is advocating a POV from getting blocked, but what if we offered this course that companies like WikiExperts can enroll their employees in and they'd get a userbox identifying that they've been through this course and have a basic understanding of policy? I'd imagine it could be modeled after our current mentorship programs. It would go a long way toward trusting folks.--v/r - ]] 20:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Also liking this idea. ] (]) 20:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::From what I've seen in the past, Wikiexperts.us tends to hire subcontractors with prior WP editing experience, and often with considerable experience. It isn't surprising, in that new editors tend to make more mistakes which see the articles deleted. So it isn't lack of knowledge of the processes that is generally the problem. - ] (]) 21:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Indeed, this is probably why they are successful. Their editors are pre-certified. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well the idea was more general than just Wikiexperts. I'm talking about paid editor companies all around.--v/r - ]] 01:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Just so. A provocative question: would we rather have a bunch of bungling corporate marketing people edit Misplaced Pages, or would we prefer that they hire professional help who know how to write to our standards? ] <sup>]</sup> 01:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *If you're serious about this idea, then the objective should be a program for *all* new users, an area where we already have severe deficiencies. NPOV is the key issue for all new users, whether they're paid advocates, paid editors, unpaid advocates, or just want to add something about their favourite TV show. The mentorship program is on its last legs due to a lack of volunteers. The idea is a good one, but it needs to work within our existing resources and target actual problems for the project, not just the perceived ones or the ones that are currently high-profile. We've had paid advocacy here for more than 10 years (my own first encounter with it was in 2007, and Misplaced Pages was a key part of a multi-pronged publicity campaign), so this is not a new problem. ] (]) 01:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::New users shouldn't have to slog through a bureaucracy just to edit. It must be fairly intimidating to have to go through a complex course just to fix a typo. After all, Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia that '''anyone can edit''', and we should try to keep it this way as much as possible. <span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #003399;">]</span><span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #FF8C00;">]</span> 02:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Here is a question, then, Risker. Would anyone object if I, and maybe a few other volunteers (or someone else entirely, I won't patent the idea), were to "incorporate" a small business as a 'school' of sorts for these types. Off-wiki and what not, but with the sole purpose of teaching these paid-editor types, those whom are not already savvy, on how to edit Misplaced Pages. Could also teach public relations teams for companies how to do it right. Would that solve the problem?--v/r - ]] 02:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The encylopeadia anyone can edit as long as they have the money or connections, eh? So you want to create a business enterprise to teach WP policies, of course for a fee. I am aware you in fact do not, but this will be the logical end result. As I said above. the project is doomed if money becomes a major criteria. No money should be involved, no one should make a penny from WP. We are all unpaid volunteers. See my proposal for a purely business enterprise related WP below. All monies recycled into local companies enviroments on a charitable basis. They would have to sign up to this explicitly. It would be hived off from the real project. I am taking it to Meta, and I think it will generate some support. ] (]) 02:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm more or less weighing the idea in general as such an endeavor wouldn't require the approval of anyone here. However, if the community were to see it in a good light, we might be able to determine a route that would give us the 'feel goods' needed to make paid editing in a limit function acceptable. Money and connections couldn't possibly affect the encyclopedia itself, as such a company wouldn't edit the encyclopedia. All it would be is to teach policies and then cut those editors lose. Then they are on their own and liable to the very same policies as everyone else. All of fee would get them would be knowledge of how Misplaced Pages works to give them the best chance to be successful within policy. I, personally, would charge to teach others this. I'd need to cover expenses such as a gotoMeeting subscription, a website, and business fees. But it's an idea. It's also an idea I'm not attached to, I already work two jobs and I don't need a third, so if anyone else likes the idea they are welcome to run with it. Misplaced Pages is part of the 'free culture' but this is a sensible business niche and reason should trump idealism.--v/r - ]] 03:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{tq|such an endeavor wouldn't require the approval of anyone here}} This is exactly the attitude that got Wikiexperts and WikiPR into trouble when they started ignoring policy. <span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #003399;">]</span><span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #FF8C00;">]</span> 18:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm sorry. I need to take a shit, can I get your approval for that? Creating companies related to Misplaced Pages is not the same thing as creating companies to edit Misplaced Pages. So no, it's not the same attitude. Take your rhetoric to someone who wants a bite.--v/r - ]:] 19:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::If taking a shit was an inherent, natural part of Misplaced Pages, it'd be approved. Process is important. If your business is designed to make money off Misplaced Pages without approval there would be a problem. Businesses are a natural canvas for soapboxing and MEAT. <span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #003399;">]</span><span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #FF8C00;">]</span> 22:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::That's the militant-ignorance that is causing the problem we have now that managed to site ban a user without evidence of misbehavior (no, meat puppetry has not been proven). People make money off Misplaced Pages all the time. Our content license is specifically written to allow it. I could print and bind the entire encyclopedia and sell it. So no, making money off Misplaced Pages is not disallowed. Making money teaching people how to use Misplaced Pages is actually a great idea, doesn't affect content in the slightest other than improving the general quality of new editors, and the only reason not to do it is a fear of threat to the "free culture" that permeates throughout this project.--v/r - ]] 22:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Making money off of a nonprofit organization is not disallowed, yes, but it is completely unethical. It certainly affects content. For example, someone could be assigned to add a part to an article by you or someone else, and that part contains POV material, although the student doesn't know it. Who is at fault here? The horse or the master? <span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #003399;">]</span><span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #FF8C00;">]</span> 23:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Clearly you haven't been around very long. People make money often reusing Misplaced Pages content. It's specifically licensed to allow it. The only restriction on Misplaced Pages content is that it has to be attributed and shared in the same fashion. But you can bundle it on a CD and sell the CD and make a profit. There is nothing unethical about it. What credentials to you have to make an ethical determination here?--v/r - ]] 00:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::@]: I've made money from Misplaced Pages. To be specific, directly from the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization responsible for hosting Misplaced Pages. I had a several month long contract with them, one that paid quite decently. Although they no longer employ me, the Wikimedia Foundation still employs quite a number of other people. I see problems with unethical paid editing practices, but I think saying making any money whatsoever related to Misplaced Pages is unethical is going too far.. if no one made money off of Misplaced Pages, Misplaced Pages would not exist. If nothing else, a site of our size could not realistically survive without some full time tech people, and it'd be remarkable if we could find enough solid tech people willing to work for free. ] (]) 05:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: So far as I am aware, no one has objected to John Broughton making money from sales of '']''. If an author can profitably write a book about how to edit Misplaced Pages, why can't an instructor profitably teach a course on the same subject matter? Why can't an expert individually advise a client on the same subject matter? ] ] 15:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Isn't there a relatively simple corporate editing training module already on this site? I thought I saw something like that. --] (] · ] · ]) 02:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Don’t know if they have a formal programme, but there’s ].—]]] 07:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===A separate business WP=== | |||
| * A separate WP should be created. | |||
| * It would adhere to WP procedures and agreements, and users would sign up to that. | |||
| * All monies would be donated to companies local enviroment, including charities. There will be no profit made. This should be a red line. | |||
| * Companies should agree to any monies being paid to their local communities to foster good works. This would be cast - iron AGF, and would indicate the ethical solidity of interested companies. ] (]) 23:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Bring this to . ] (]) <span style="font-family:Tahoma;">23:09, 20 Oct 2013 (])</span> 23:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Excellent. I need to knock this up into a more detailed proposal though. What metawiki portal would be most appropriate Ross? ] (]) 23:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I think somewhere, someone actually suggested something like this on Jimbo's talk page and frankly this sounds like the best route. Maybe not as proposed above but using the model. Perhaps something like "Wikispotlight" (sounds better than Wikibusiness or Wikiforhire) and leave the entire subject of paid editing as ambiguous as it is at Wikivoyage. As I recall there is no such policy of paid or promotional editing on that site or any particular rule about a business writing their own information if it is relevant for the page and section.--] (]) 02:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I do think the concept of the ultimate desination of any monies paid through using this mooted new sub-Wiki would be revolutionary. Companies would agree that any monies paid would go to charitable or local good cause foundations. It would attract some potentially huge revenue, (I think BP would love it :)) and would indicate that participating companies have a strong ethical semse, or perhaps merely a sense of positive PR. Any monies accrued using WP would be small change, and they would gain great kudos. The foundation may need to take it on, but potential revenues for positive charitable or educational programmes could be considerable. Just initial thoughts here. I agree this model is the way to go. ] (]) 03:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::So we'd have 2 Wikipedias - shall we call them PRpedia and NOPRpedia? With the PR folks banned from NOPRpedia, but free to pitch as much as they want at PRpedia? Lots of questions on the details here, but there is one very big problem. If we disclosed to the readers that PRpedia editors were allowed to put in "hidden" PR pitches into their encyclopedia, then they'd have very few readers. They'd also tend to have pretty poor articles outside of business areas - except that they could just copy NOPRpedia articles. They'd also have very biased articles on business, so when readers figured out what's up, they'll all go back to reading NOPRpedia. PR folks are not idiots, so they'd just go back to undisclosed editing at NOPRpedia, and PRpedeia would die, no readers, no editors. If anybody disagrees, of course, they can just form their own PRpedia and see how successful it is. The WMF will supply the software for free, and probably even help them download all the articles to start. Actually there are mirror sites that do this already, but I'd guess all the successful ones have one thing in common - no hidden PR in the articles. | |||
| ::A more direct approach might be for the WMF to just provide space for declared PR companies or business to just write whatever they want about their clients or themselves in the form of CC-BY-SA licensed articles. They wouldn't be good secondary sources, but we could use them as primary sources as needed, as long as the companies provide adequate info that the writer is who he/she claims to be - i.e. the public can hold them responsible for what they write. Again, the companies can do this themselves if they want on their own websites, but heck - why not as long as they agree not to put their advertising into our articles? As above, they could pay the costs of keeping the site open. A couple of problems here though. 1st the PR folks won't do it - they wouldn't fool anybody if their "info" was in this form; and 2nd the WMF has always said that it wouldn't take advertising. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 03:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Great feedback. Appreciated. I dont agree with large chunks, but we have a coherent dialogue on this path started. ] (]) 04:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC) ] (]) 03:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Agree entirely with Smallbones. It's not realistic. Feel free try it anytime. These companies want to be listed and covered by Misplaced Pages-proper. --] (]) 07:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I've thought along these lines myself - and rejected the idea. There already are Facebook, MySpace, AboutUs and so on where they can post their PR speak twaddle for free. Why provide them with another space for the same? These PR people already seem to think people love their stuff - I saw a van belonging to a well-known mattress manufacturer the other day, and on the back it said "Follow us on Twitter @xxxx!". Mattresses? People who are that desirous of finding the latest news on mattresses? Cameras and computers I could understand, but mattresses? PR gone barmy. Keep Misplaced Pages free from this nonsense. And don't lend the name to a PR pushing venture. It's bad enough with xxxx-Leaks and Conservixxxx around. ] (]) 11:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::<small>Apparently several mattress companies use Twitter. Tweets include "NOTHING ELSE MATTRESS..." and "Students! Be careful of buying a used mattress from Craigslist." Comedy gold.</small> <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 11:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :The problem with a spinoff wiki is that it will '''never''' achieve the same level of Google importance that enWP has. I remember during the MMA wars when a great faction of the supporter camp up and decided to set up a MMA wiki after irreconcilable conflicts with the generally accepted Policies/Guidelines/MoS/Best practices. Whenever you search for a MMA topic Misplaced Pages is typically one of the top 5 sites simply because we do uphold a specific set of editorial practices. I don't think we want to give any opportunity for free-advertising to have any linkage to Misplaced Pages's good name ] (]) 12:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Uhm...have you edited Wikivoyage Hasteur? I have actually been collecting some information from business' on my travels and taking pictures of some of the more interesting California Hotels/Bed & Breakfast to add to articles eventually, but I have added images and other contributions to a number of articles. It's great fun I think. Take a look at the article for . Note that there is contact information, addresses, and very "pamphlet" style writing with what some might call "promotional tone". And that article could use some expanding as a travel page. Why couldn't we have something similar that isn't specific to travel. Maybe "Wikimarketing" if we want to be blatant, but I think it needs to be purpose driven and have a need to feel in the right manner and the best idea I come up with is "Wikispotlight" or something similar sounding that is simply a place that allows a magazine style of formatting. It would be filling the nich of "this need" for paid and unpaid advocacy of subjects in a little more graphic looking and slicker format, as paid code writers would be able create far more complex templates and creative ways to us mark up coding. I think if we ever tried to fill a "need of paid editing", this would be the way to do it.--] (]) 23:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''''' - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 18:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry, I didn't mean to shoot down this proposal entirely. I've had the same thought as this proposal many times. It would solve the problem of our readers being deceived, and the endless arguments that paid editors will give when they are edited. But the likely failure of this experiment to draw in advertisers only highlights the fact that the advertisers don't want to just advertise here, they want to deceive our readers, and steal our credibility. It just wouldn't work as far as attracting the advertisers to the new site. | |||
| ::But it could likely work in another sense. Going to court against the advertisers would likely be quite complicated under the current set-up. The courts would likely address questions like: What rule did they break? Why is this a cause of action in court? Having this alternative advertising site, with a small fee required, would make it all very simple: theft of services. An advertiser who had the opportunity to pay for an ad, but instead just inserted it in an article would not have any case in court. They'd be in and out in 5 minutes. Guilty as charged. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 20:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::So I take it consensus indicates its an idea so bad, it will stampede an octopus. ] (]) 18:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I wouldn't put that much weight on it. I think TParis even mentions somewhere that something like this wouldn't even need a decision here. I think it might be something being proposed to Meta.--] (]) 20:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It already exists. It's called ]. It's full of ads and promotion. Most of the content is fancruft. That's what a "business-friendly wiki" looks like.] (]) 01:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Exact wording people are supporting?=== | |||
| I've proposed conditions that I'd be comfortable with for unbanning this user. But I've yet to see a clear idea of what conditions, if any, we'd require before we unbanned him and his company. I'd like to see a specific proposal from the user directly (I believe he can edit his talk page and if not perhaps through ]. In particular I'd like it made clear if he is agreeing to have all folks editing for his company identified (and if it's just future ones or would include the past) and how exactly he'll have paid editors proceed. I'm pretty happy with the changes to his website, but I'd like to get some kind of sense that those will stay around. Basically I'd like to hear what he's committing to (if anything). I feel it's really unclear what people are supporting (or not supporting) above. ] (]) 17:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :What they support is in fact ''unconditional'' removal of ban. ] (]) 19:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Actually there are at least 11 !votes under the unban proposal for conditional support, the condition being that all this company's COI accounts here are openly declared. That's just a first count. There are probably more if you read the various statements carefully. So I think Hobit's question is very apt. ] (]) 13:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, you are right. And since they are not going to declare their ''current'', but only future accounts (if I understand correctly from their statement below), these 11 vote probably should count as "oppose"... ] (]) 19:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I asked on his talk page and the following is the reply to the question above (] (]) 22:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)): | |||
| :::As the founder and CEO of WikiExperts I am happy to state clearly that, if WikiExperts is again able to edit Misplaced Pages, we agree to follow all COI Guidelines to the letter for every edit we make moving forward. That includes disclosure of any account used to make an edit from that point forward, as per the condition set within the original ban regarding the condition for unbanning. Disclosure will take place in full adherence to the COI Guidelines. Prior to the ban it was our opinion that it was unclear whether or not COI disclosure was mandatory, and if it had been made known to us that it was mandatory and not an issue for debate, we would never have made previous edits contrary to the guidelines. Now that we know disclosure is mandatory, we have altered our practices to adhere to the new set of rules. I have reviewed the above proposals for how new forms of COI declarations could occur, and state here that WikiExperts is fully willing to work directly with the Community to develop a system of declarations that makes the Community comfortable and provides an additional level of neutral scrutiny for all our contributions. We will not be posting, and have not posted in the past, anything that is/was not meant to help develop a more accurate and better Misplaced Pages, and we are comfortable working with the Community to prove our work can be beneficial to Misplaced Pages. Because of previously signed NDAs, we have no ability to reveal the past clients, however, we pledge to no longer sign agreements that would disallow us from full COI disclosure, so that all future work can be verified as within Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. The Ethics page on our website already states as such, and past references to confidentiality of the service have been removed. We would very much like to prove that we are not harmful to Misplaced Pages, and to show that we add neither promotional nor non-notable material to the website when allowed to edit. ] (]) 21:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)) | |||
| :::: This is probably unrealistic, but I would love a requirement that editors working for a paid editing company be required to put in, say, 500 productive article-space edits per month on topics unrelated to any of the company's paying customers. Think of the typos to be fixed! The uncited assertions to be sourced! The disambiguation links to be fixed! ] ] 15:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Thanks all, I appreciate everyone working to make this clear. Personally, I don't think this goes far enough. I'd certainly want a list of all articles/subjects they were hired to edit before I'd think it reasonable to have them come back. It's pretty standard to ask people to clean up their own messes or help others clean them up before getting restrictions lifted. If they signed non-disclosure agreements, that isn't our problem IMO. But I am pleased we have some idea how things would improve. ] (]) 17:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The defense that WikiExperts has "no ability to reveal the past clients" because of "previously signed NDAs" is legally specious. WikiExperts, its clients, and its employees/contractors are fully able to renegotiate and/or rescind any NDAs as necessary, and they all have the incentive to do so. So I call Mr. Konanykhin's bluff on that point. --] (]) 18:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] here is the answer to your question above. It appears that WIkiExperts does '''not''' intend to follow the COI guideline, in that they do intend to edit pages directly as opposed to limiting themselves to suggesting content on Talk. The relevant quote is "We will not be posting, and have not posted in the past, anything that is/was not meant to help develop a more accurate and better Misplaced Pages, and we are comfortable working with the Community to prove our work can be beneficial to Misplaced Pages." I ] to ]; I will copy the reply here when it comes.] (]) 21:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Need help figuring out what to do about in-Misplaced Pages copyvio == | |||
| If you look at {{la|History of Lower Saxony}} it seems to have been moved/merged to another article here and renamed Theodor Gottfried Liesching. Then recently he was given his own article and a large amount of material was restored to this page and it was renamed again.. Now this is clearly copyvio, presumably from our own articles, but there's no way of knowing where it comes from. The editor, {{user|Izraías}} didn't discuss this anywhere and also made other page moves I don't quite get, and I'd like help sorting it out. I think History of Lower Saxony needs reverting to remove the copyvio, and then if anything is replaced (hopefully with a discussion) it needs to be clearly attributed so it isn't copyvio. I'll notify the editor. ] (]) 13:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :So, the original page was ''Württemberg''; then it was moved to ''Theodor Gottfried Liesching'' which in its turn was moved to ''History of Lower Saxony''. Thus, ''Theodor Gottfried Liesching'' was effectively "deleted" and ''Talk:Württemberg'' ended up in ''Talk:History of Lower Saxony''. There is indeed copyvio from our own articles (particularly, ], ]). (Note that -Ilhador-, Jack Bufalo Head, and Izraías are apparently the same editor—already blocked many times before for copyright violations and sockpuppeting; I'm about to open an SPI and then maybe organize a ban.) I for T.G. Liesching in order to avoid copyvio but I would like to request to restore the old one . If I'm not mistaken no article about the ''History of Lower Saxony'' existed before -Ilhador-'s meddling; so if it's a copyvio from our own articles it should be turned into a redirect to ''Lower Saxony''. The difficult task, though, is to avoid eliminating any page histories. --] (]) 15:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::G11 deletion is normally appropriate in egregious cases of internal copyvio, but this is complex enough that we really shouldn't start off with any G11s. Let's figure out the page history and then make any necessary deletions, which I suspect will require more extensive use of G6 for history merging than G11. I'll be happy to try to help when I have time later. ] (]) 16:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Okay, so I've spent a bit of time looking over the articles, and I'm quite confused. There's no way I'm going to do ''anything'' without input from others, lest I accidentally make things worse. Let me propose the following actions (NB — "history" is page history; "History" is the article about Lower Saxony): | |||
| *Delete ], ], and ] under G6 | |||
| *Restore the Liesching edits from History, move them to Liesching, and restore the deleted Liesching edits | |||
| *Restore the Württemberg edits from History, move them to Württemberg, and restore the deleted Württemberg edits | |||
| *Restore History | |||
| *This would resolve the history splitting for Liesching and Württemberg, if I'm understanding rightly. After that, we need to deal with the stuff that's been merged into History. | |||
| *Cut out everything from History that derives from ] | |||
| *I don't see anything in History that derives from Welf. Unless I'm missing something, we can ignore Welf. | |||
| *Cut out everything from History that derives from ] | |||
| :::At this point, we're left with a rump: the first 1½ sentences of subsection 6.1 and perhaps subsection 6.2. It was added by a disruptive sock, and it might be copied from somewhere else. Let's delete it with ] and a dash of IAR. ] (]) 22:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There is further complication since ] and ] (effectively "deleted" by -Ilhador- ) were eventually rewritten from scratch by ]. Also note that ''History of Lower Saxony'' could also redirect to '']''. Give me one more day to check if the suggested solution can work. --] (]) 12:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::To sum it up the problematic moves are the following: , , , . Regarding ''History of Lower Saxony'' and ''Theodor Gottfried Liesching'' I agree with Nyttend. But we must retain the articles User:Fadesga created. 'Baden' and 'Württemberg' are historically ambiguous names; they may refer either to a series of historical polities or to their respective historical regions. Especially in the case of 'Württemberg' none of the historical polities could be described as a primary topic in either English or German usage. That is why the German Misplaced Pages has a dab page for 'Baden' and a geography-related article about Württemberg and that is why the English one should have them, too (see ] and ]). So I propose that there should exist two different articles: ] and ] as they stand now. --] (]) 12:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And now that ] is settled with 3 socks blocked (thanks Omnipaedista for doing the legwork on this) I'm available for any necessary article deletions. ] (]) 13:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Paid PR by Single purpose promotional accounts == | |||
| Because of the current high profile discussions about Misplaced Pages and paid editing, I am becoming increasingly sensitive as I patrol new pages to fully formed articles with a substantially promotional tone, yet concealed as well referenced articles, but created as the only contribution of a new editor, one who only edits in this area, or even this article. I'm sure you don't need examples, but they are easy to find. | |||
| Because of the fully formed nature of the articles, created with a skill that takes almost every ordinary editor a while to learn, I smell sockpuppetry. Because they are SPAs I see no easy way for the ordinary editor to reach a conclusion. I suspect that an experienced sock hunter and the checkuser tool is required to sniff them out. However, I see no way of reporting what I might term a ''suspicious editor''. | |||
| I hope to catalyse a discussion, here or elsewhere, that will create a place for we ordinary editors to place suspicious editors for investigation. Some will be innocent. Good. Others will lead to a PR organisation, perhaps the same PR organisation. The outcome of WIkipedia's discussions about paid editing will be relevant to this class of editor. | |||
| Such an investigation platform ought to make it easier for our hard working SPI clerks and others to form an educated view about the extent of the problem. ] ] 14:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : I think it would be worthwhile to identify traits of such editors, but I wonder per ] if we ought to be doing so in the open. I'm a big fan of conducting as much business as possible in the open, but some things appear to be legitimate exceptions. (It occurs to me that ] isn't quite the right metaphor I need a beans inverse or !Beans or something like that.)--]] 21:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Perhaps the statement can help how you approach this, particularly the parts about "required disclosure" and the part about violations of terms of use. ] (]) 23:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Doubtful, Sue Gardner has less than a newbie's understanding of the English Misplaced Pages. She knows how to run a non-profit, not how to edit Misplaced Pages.--v/r - ]] 23:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Disrespecting Sue Gardner is irrelevant and gratuitous, it is the Foundation she is speaking for and the Pedia runs because of them; they have tons of experience here. ] (]) 13:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Really? That must be why they don't hire community liasons.--v/r - ]] 01:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Perhaps a tool that can identify near-orphan articles predominantly edited by an SPA account? --] (]) 23:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Indeed, creating multiple throw-away accounts is a common sock-puppeteer and PR editing tactics. A trow-away account is not just an SPA, but an SPA active for a short period of time to make a very limited set of edits (a lot of such accounts are actually legit). The most efficient approach would be an automatic global check of all throw-away accounts to see which of them originated from the same IP address - under a supervision by Checkuser. Some of detected accounts would have to be blocked as sockpuppet accounts; contributions by others would have to be posted somewhere and checked. Unfortunately, such method contradicts the currently accepted philosophy of user-checking (as a privacy violation; I personally do not think so). With advent of numerous PR people around here, this will be necessary, I believe.] (]) 01:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::See and . ] (]) 13:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I see. Thanks to everyone and especially Dennis Brown who helped to fix this problem. I am afraid we will see more of this in the future.] (]) 01:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And that, with precision, is the reason we need to discuss what is required, followed by how to implement it. There are private pages that things get handled on. Some of the filters, for example, are on pages that I can;t read because I don;t have the permissions. So things can be done in a non beansy manner if we wish. But we need to wish it. ] ] 12:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Topic ban appeal by Dolovis == | |||
| Following the advice given to me , I am requesting that the topic ban imposed upon me on January 5, 2012 be lifted. I am an experienced editor, and a review of my edit history will demonstrate that a topic ban is not required. This topic ban is preventing me from legitimately contesting controversial moves per ] such as , or from even taking part in move discussions such as . I thank you for your consideration. ] (]) 22:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Diff for the topic ban is , if I understand rightly. ] (]) 22:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' The requirement of any request to reduce a topic ban is to, in the request, prove: | |||
| ::# The editor has been able to successfully edit elsewhere in the project, without similar problems | |||
| ::# The editor shows how they will behave in a future, assuring the community the the problems that led to the ban will not recur | |||
| : This request meets neither of these <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 22:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Perhaps you could explain to us what led to your topic ban, and what steps you will take to avoid the behaviours that resulted in it? ]] 23:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' pending answers to ES&L's questions. ] (]) 08:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *: '''Response to Resolute's questions''': | |||
| *: I was topic banned as a result of . At that time I thought was editing in accordance with instructions found at WP:REDCAT. I was adding '''Template:R from diacritics''' to redirects (a common practice as can be seen with redirect edits at ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ect.) however, because adding a second edit to a redirect prevented non-admin edits from moving articles without going through WP:RM, it was characterized as “gaming the system” and I was blocked and also topic banned from editing diacritics. | |||
| *: '''Response to ES&L questions''': | |||
| :: I was blocked from editing for six months in April 2012, but I did not return to editing until a full year later in April 2013. In the past six months that I have returned to being an active contributor to Misplaced Pages, I have stayed away from the issue of diacritics, and have demonstrated that I have been able to successfully edit elsewhere in the project (mostly within the ice hockey project) without similar problems. | |||
| :: In the future I will not directly move any articles which contain diacritics in their title, but will only follow the written policy and procedures as outlined at ]. ] (]) 17:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I will preface this with the statement that Dolovis and I severely disagree with each other on several points (and diacritics is one of them), and are on less than friendly terms... I do think your answer above is a tad simplistic, as you were banned from moving pages, then once that was lifted, banned from diacritics for resuming similar actions. However, I presume that you will not be gaming the system in this same fashion in the future, so I see little threat there. Likewise, I will vouch that your editing under the Dolovis account has not repeated such behaviours since you returned. The six-month block, however, was for ] and involved using sock accounts to continue your anti-diacritics push. You are not banned from using alternate accounts, but I do trust that you are not actively using any undeclared socks in circumvention of this topic ban, and will not do so in the future? ]] 22:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Reply to Resolute: Given the amount of interaction we have on Misplaced Pages, and the large number of edits we have made on common subjects, you probably are better aware of my editing style than anyone else on this project, and I appreciate you vouching for my editing behaviour. If you are looking for a declaration, I will give one: I am not using any socks in circumvention of this topic ban, and will not do so in the future. Do I have your support to lift the topic ban? ] (]) 14:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Truthfully, I expect that lifting this ban will result in our opposing each other in various diacritic-related RMs. As much as I personally would rather not deal with that, I can't use our difference of opinion to keep you on the outside. So yes, in this case I am willing to support your request for another chance. ]] 17:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: I'm still '''not convinced''' Topic bans do not come out of a single incident. They only come to AN/ANI when everything else has been tried first. When multiple members of the community tried to guide Dolovis, they refused - continuing down their path of "editing in accordance with instructions" - even though advised time and time again that they needed to stop. The ANI was a culmination of many, many attempts to get Dolovis to stop, including (if I recall) more than one trip to an admin noticeboard. This outright refusal to follow guidance was a key to the topic ban, and I do not see those behaviour addressed above, in fact, it's suggested that the topic ban was due to a one-of incident, which is patently false <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 08:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: What would it take to ''convince'' you? The topic ban was for an indefinite period, not permanent. Please advise me what more I need to demonstrate for you to support lifting the topic ban? ] (]) 16:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Honesty, perhaps. You state that the topic ban came out of a single situation, which is patently false. You were told again and again to stop, but you refused. You therefore FORCED the community to topic ban you. In other words, you have proven that you do not have the ability to actually LISTEN to policy and advice, and require enforcement action to be taken - which is an absolute waste of time and energy that should have been directed towards useful article work. If someone tells you that you're acting out of policy again in the future, what will be your reaction? What steps will you take? Do you even yet understand what was wrong that led to the topic ban in the first place? There are so many unanswered questions here, and the silence is deafening. "I'm a good editor, who cannot do a task" was basically your original request - sadly, you could not do that task because you were ''not'' being a "good editor". You're asking the community for a favour, and completely refusing to give the community the warm fuzzies that might actually permit them to grant you a favour - you seem to wholly misunderstand how much of a timesink you have been in the past <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 11:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposed formalised community ban for Wiki-PR == | |||
| {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" | |||
| |- | |||
| ! class="navbox-title" style="text-align:center; background-color:#f2dfce;" | Wiki-PR is community banned with the original suggested text. The alternate proposals didn't get a lot of support compared to the original one. I'll list the ban at ], and at ]. Please drop a note and any other page that needs to be alerted about this. ] (]) 08:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| |- | |||
| | style="text-align:center; font-style:italic;" | The following discussion has been closed. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> | |||
| |- | |||
| | style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | | |||
| '''Please note, this is *not* related to WikiExperts, the other recently discussed PR firm. Please look at the LTA before considering !opposing.''' | |||
| Wiki-PR are already de-facto community banned where discovered through the Morning277 SPI case. I would like to formalize this ban to make it clear that we do not as a community condone the mass sockpuppetry, meatpupppetry, block evasion, subversion of neutrality, spamming, and other consensus damaging practices that Wiki-PR has engaged in. Please note that this proposed formal ban is *not* intrinsically related to paid editing, and should not be taken as an attempt to ban other forms of paid editing. I have included a clause suggesting that any appeal require Wiki-PR to divulge a complete list of articles they have edited for financial gain; I have done this not because I object to paid editing, but because they’ve proven themselves unable or unwilling to edit these articles in accordance with ] in the past and because saying ‘disclose all articles you have broken ] on’ isn’t feasible. | |||
| There is a lot of evidence of disruption from the organization behind Morning277, as evidenced in the SPI and LTA cases. The SPI can be found and the LTA can be found Disruption has included but not been restricted to falsification of sources, sock/meatpupppetry to disrupt consensus, and large-scale spamming and block evasion. I can provide any number of diffs beyond the SPI/LTA as requested to demonstrate specific violations of policy. | |||
| I propose the following text be applied to Wiki-PR:<blockquote> | |||
| “Employees, contractors, owners, and anyone who derives financial benefit from editing the English Misplaced Pages on behalf of Wiki-PR.com or its founders are banned from editing the English Misplaced Pages. This ban has been enacted because Wiki-PR.com has, as an organization, proven themselves repeatedly unable or unwilling to adhere to our basic community standards. | |||
| This ban as a whole may be appealed at ] at any time that Wiki-PR.com as an organization is willing to (a) divulge a complete list of all past sock and meatpuppet accounts that they have used, (b) divulge a complete list of all articles they have edited that they have received any financial benefit from whatsoever, and (c) pledge to, in the future, only edit under transparent, disclosed accounts and adhere as closely as they are able to all of Misplaced Pages’s content policies. Individual accounts blocked under this ban may be unblocked if any uninvolved administrator honestly believes that it is more likely than not that the individual account in question is not connected to Wiki-PR.”</blockquote> | |||
| I realize that a cban against Wiki-PR is only going to be partially enforceable since many of their accounts are hard or impossible to detect, but I believe it is worthwhile because a strong statement from the community against this organization is likely to lower their ability to successfully subvert our content in the future. I honestly believe that many of Wiki-PR’s past clients were unaware that Wiki-PR’s business practices are as shady as they are, and would be less likely to use their services in the future if the organization was community banned - thus, even with limited enforceability, passing a cban is in our interests. I'm fine with someone else tightening my proposed wording up. ] (]) 04:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| '''Support''' Procedural support, as I agree with Kevin's rationale above, although it is also going to be damn near impossible to find everything that they have done. ] (]) 04:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| '''Support'''. Kevin Gorman is right. Those customers deserve to know what they are getting into. And who knows, maybe they will turn out to have someone like Edward Snowden on staff who leaks out a list of every edit they have ever paid for. Stranger things have happened. --] (]) 05:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| '''Support'''. ] ] 05:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| '''Support''' - I agree with Kevin Gorman for the most part, but I also feel it isn't the point to ferret everyone out, but discourage mass violations of our policies.--] (]) 05:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| '''Support''' - prudent and necessary.—] (]) 05:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''' Is it possible to clarify the evidence for a relationship between Wiki-PR and Morning277? Or are we able to proceed irrespective of that relationship? I ask, because I've always felt that Morning277 was independent of Wiki-PR, and nothing in Wiki-PR's official materials make this connection. - ] (]) 05:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can't speak to the particular account Morning277, but most of the accounts under that SPI are definitely Wiki-PR. ] in particular is a pretty obvious connection. There's a lot of other evidence of many of the morning277 SPI accounts being Wiki-PR connected, including a couple contractors who admitted as much. I also have some lines of evidence I can't post on wiki, per ]. Several confirmed Wiki-PR clients, such as ] (who was named in the VICE article,) had their articles created by socks blocked as Morning277. I can't say that Morning277 is Wiki-PR explicitly off the top of my head, but can say that 98% of socks blocked as Morning277 were. (Edit: apparently Morning277 *is* cbanned per a previous ANI discussion that I missed. I would still like to explicitly extend that to Wiki-PR.com as an organization.) ] (]) 06:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{edit conflict}} A quick look shows the following at ]: | |||
| ::"</br> | |||
| :::This is a group of hired writers who collaborate without ''ever'' using talk pages to communicate with each other. As of September 2013, 323 accounts have been confirmed, with another 84 suspected. | |||
| :::Off-wiki investigation by the media and others has identified as the company behind this sock-farm."--] (]) 06:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've read those investigations, but they seem to be using our SPI as the source. So if our SPI is conflating Wiki-PR and Morning277, then they would be doing the same thing. From the beginning, Morning277 ran his own business, and mostly seemed to use the freelancer sites to get clients. So either he joined Wiki-PR, but not as anyone listed as working or running it, or we've been mixing the two. I think any case for blocking Wiki-PR - which I'm not opposed to - needs to be independent of Morning277. - ] (]) 06:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think it's likely that we've mixed some non-WikiPR editors in to the Morning277 investigation, but I think the behavior of Wiki-PR on its own is a prima facie case for a cban. The account I linked earlier (bioengineer+attorney - think about who else shares those professions) has an obvious connection to Wiki-PR and participated in CU confirmed manipulation of an AfD. Emad Rahim was created by a sock blocked as Morning277 who was confirmed to work for Morning277 - several other blocked accounts have confirmed links to Wiki-PR. I think the demonstrated disruption by accounts that certainly are Wiki-PR, combined with their public statements, make a fine case for a ban, even if we were to disregard most Morning277 socks. It's also worth noting that there is a lot of interplay between contractors and that Wiki-PR has been documented to hire off some of the freelance sites, which I suspect is likely the origin of any confused interplay in the SPI. ] (]) 06:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I think the actual problem is that we mixed Wiki-PR, Morning277, and completely different paid editors into the one SPI. :) And that we've used that as the basis for making broader claims, which were then fed into the media accounts. I'm happy to proceed with this, but in the discussions we need to avoid assuming that the scale of the SPI is accurate in regard to any one group, and that Morning277 does not equal Wiki-PR - we need to look at them as separate. | |||
| ::::::My biggest problem is that the SPI is such a mess, I don't know how many of those cases are Morning277, how many are Wiki-PR, how many are different sock farms, nor how many are individual paid editors being caught up in the mess. On the plus side, I'm also certain that Wiki-PR have been hiring subcontractors on the freelance sites, (as has WikiExperts, but that's a different case). So many of those accounts are likely to be Wiki-PR ones. Hopefully knowing that is enough. - ] (]) 06:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{replyto|Mark Miller}} "Off wiki investigation" sounds a lot like outing. Do we really want to encourage our editors to investigate other editor's real life activities in an attempt to connect them with WikiPR. This sounds like a very poor idea. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Off Wiki sounds like outing? Really. Because you know we all have "off wiki" lives. Just saying the phrase does not evoke the wrath of the gods. I don't know what that means but frankly...I have had to send "off Wiki" e-mails to admin over issues that needed to be addressed and it had some connection to a master sock puppet and I did my own "off wiki" investigation to know who the person was. oddly enough the editor had already disclosed their real name long ago and the trail was just there. Since then there have been more than a few socks either confirmed or suspected. I do nothing on Wiki with any personal information and neither should anyone else. But, as I say, it doesn't take a rocket scientist or a mad scientist to figure out some socks and the thought of mass socks would probably be a reasoning for an editor that was involved to at least look into the matters, but not disclose them. Remember, our policy states that even if an editor makes a public on Wiki disclosure, they may simply remove the information and ask editors to respect their privacy and no longer refer to them publicly as that real life person. There are real people that we write about and they exist off Wiki. all of our subjects are "off wiki". The ethical reasoning and practice is not to disclose someone personal information. It does not have anything to do with knowing it and looking for it. Being a major contributor to Misplaced Pages comes with a set of ethical codes, some written and some merely discussed, but the fact is, some editors know more about situations, editors and issues on and off Misplaced Pages by the mere fact that they were involved in a discussion, dispute with someone who then makes comments off Misplaced Pages about the on wiki situation. This is very common and one of the reasons I hear expressed for some editor's disdain for social media and Misplaced Pages mixing. I happened to be running through the history of an BLP one night and began to see some edit summaries stand out I can't even begin to say anything about, but suffice it to say, Wikipedians can sometimes find things that are not always obvious. It's what we do. We research. We write and we discuss. Outing is discussing any editor's personal information and is harassment. See ], but under ] it also, clearly states we don't really have a consensus about some issues but we do have some Arb Com statements and we shouldn't be posting e-mails but can send them to directly to Arb Com. I would see the precedence as covering sending such e-mails to an admin and not just the committee itself, but perhaps we should clarify that.--] (]) 20:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' Just today, , Wiki-PR claimed that "There is a rather silent majority on Misplaced Pages that supports paid editing." and that what they do is entirely within our policies and is a benefit to the encyclopedia, according to them. I do not believe that editing with hundreds of accounts with an undisclosed financial conflict of interest is a benefit to the encyclopedia. This kind of mass secret paid editing undermines the ability of readers to trust Misplaced Pages's neutrality, and does not jive with ]. Their public statements strongly suggest we need to send a message as a community that this kind of work is not okay. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">] • ]</font> 08:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' per nom. ] (]) 08:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - paid editing goes against everything Misplaced Pages stands for. ]] 08:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per nom, but without the appeal clause. I don't think that disclosure and promises in this case would be credible given their extreme dishonesty and blatantly unethical behaviour. (I also oppose paid advocacy in general, but prohibiting that is impractical.) ] 10:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - per above. The activities described above undermines the integrity of the encyclopedia. -] (]) 10:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per not here. ] (]) 11:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' If we ban this group, it might get a message through. If not, we ban the next one that comes to light too. ] (]) 11:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' paid editing is the antithesis of our mission and will invariably undermine NPOV.--] 11:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Really? Why then MONGO can't we support a policy to ban paid editing or at least require disclosure? Have you seen the two policy proposals? It looks like neither one of them will generate a consensus. I initiated one of them. It seems like editors will jump to ban a paid editor ''they don't like'', but are happy to ignore paid editing by popular editors, or by themselves. It's a case of ''ban the other guy but don't ban me''. Very strange. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm all for banning paid editing. Is the rest of retort directed at me or the general audience?--] 13:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' They're breaking so many rules on an almost daily basis. ]] 11:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I've looked at a random sample of their articles and they were all (6 out of 6) puffery of non-notables. Leave the door open for them to return with declared COIs and a commitment to abide by our content policies. '''We cannot oblige them to disclose past employee accounts or past articles edited as that may be obliging them to break a confidence''' - though going as far as they can in that direction would be an awesome gesture of good faith. <small> (Struck while waiting for more info' 14:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)) Restored as best option (with my bolded exception) 17:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC))</small> --] (] · ] · ]) 11:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * This thread is merely symbolic. The proposed ban is unnecessary because the user in question is already banned, the activity is already precluded by policy. This is just a bunch of editors having a wikidrama for their own amusement. It is filling the noticeboard with unnecessary text and distracting attention from encyclopedia writing. It will lead to false accusations that newbie editors are associated with WikiPR, and unjustifiable blocks of those editors. Please consider ] and ]. Many people come to Misplaced Pages and start writing puff pieces. If we are kind to these people and explain the proper use of Misplaced Pages, they can turn into productive contributors. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*A newbie who writes a puff piece will no doubt change their ways when they are informed about how we operate; a PR company will not. The two are completely different. ]] 12:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::*And what magic crystal ball do you have that will allow you to distinguish between the two cases? ] <sup>]</sup> 12:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::*] and ], which you have already cited. Do you really think this ban on paid advocacy will mean anyone who isn't 100% neutral is immediately and automatically assumed to be operating for cash and banned? Get a grip! ]] 12:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*This ban will be misused to summarily block editors as "Sock of WikiPR" when in fact they are just an unrelated newbie writing a Misplaced Pages article about their own non-notable company. It happens all the time. Each editor needs to be judged on the own behavior. We already have a policy to indefinitely block promotion-only accounts when they cause multiple incidents of disruption and have ignored warnings to stop. This ban adds nothing to our toolkit for controlling disruption, but provides an excuse for abuse of tools. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*Why would we immediately assume that somebody trying to promote a company is from WikiPR or any other similar company? Those kind of editors have been here long before WikiPR, and they will be here long after. ]] 12:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::* Again, my question about the crystal ball. How will you know a spammer is associated with WikiPR? The answer is that you can't. This ban is merely symbolic. It has no practical benefit. It is a violation of ]. Please, would you all stop giving these run of the mill spammers lots of free publicity by talking about them endlessly? ] <sup>]</sup> 12:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::* I've got answers but I've not sharing them per ], feel free to e-mail me - that has the added bonus of you being able to see that I am, in actual fact, an "identifiable living person." If you are so concerned about giving them "free publicity" why are you making a big song-and-dance about defending them? If you are truly that concerned then stop whipping up so much drama over this (and related) ban. ]] 13:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::* We will know when they trip up and out themselves, or when one of their employees blows the whistle. They will then look sleazy and bring their profession into disrepute. They know this. If they have any brains, (never mind ethics) they will do the ]ed thing, and conform to our norms. ---] (] · ] · ]) 13:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::* Good answer. In that case, can we please clarify that any ban does not authorize outing or off-wiki research? If an editors comes here and says "I work for WikiPR", we can block them. If somebody notices a series of throw away accounts trying to repeat the edits of Morning277 or its socks, sure we can block those accounts. We need to be clear about how the ban can be enforced. Arbitration rulings often specify precise procedures for enforcement. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::*No account should be blocked unless they are confirmed - either via SPI or self-confessed - to work for one of these companies. That much should be obvious. ]] 13:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::*If you want to summarise the existing outing, privacy and other relevant policies somewhere in this thread I won't object, but I see no need for that. Did you notice my comment about them not being required (or able probably) to disclose the accounts of their employees and articles of their clients? --] (] · ] · ]) 13:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' ban of {{userlinks|Morning277}} and any technically related accounts. '''Oppose''' ] the real life identity or employment of any editor, even banned editors. '''Oppose''' guilt by association. ] does not have an exemption that allows outing of banned editors. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: To be clear, the ban proposal as written is misguided. If an investor gave a loan to WikiPR, but they have no say over the policy or management of the company, are we banning them? There should not be guilt by association. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::This ban is a complete waste of time as we cannot identify who is working for whom and who is claiming to in order to bait us into a PR disaster. Just edit the edits not the editor. They are either inside our rules or they are not, and that is something we can detect. ] (]) 13:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::WikiPR will want to advertise their service. They can either do that while under a community ban, which will say a lot about their ethics to their clients and the profession, or they can advertise their service as a company that respects Misplaced Pages's norms. Don't underestimate the importance of reputation - the PR industry doesn't. --] (] · ] · ]) 13:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Exactly....this isn't about a company that will edit the website for hire by those that don't understand wikimarkup.--] 13:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What about my question about how the ban is written? Should we ban people who might be affiliated with WikiPR but have not personally done anything wrong nor directed anything wrong to be done? ] <sup>]</sup> 14:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''': I have been in touch with Morning277 and believe he is unrelated to Wiki-PR. He has written about his paid Misplaced Pages work in the past (on a business website, well before this story broke) and has his own business, whose name is known to me. In today's Wall Street Journal piece, Jordan French of Wiki-PR declined to comment on whether Morning277 was one of their accounts. Basically, the sockpuppet investigation appears to have conflated at least two (probably more) distinct cases. ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 13:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: What evidence do we have to tie Morning277 to WikiPR? Aside from the echo chamber press, do we actually have evidence '''on wiki''' or from our Checkusers, to connect WikiPR to this activity? ] <sup>]</sup> 14:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*I gather from comments further up that that is acknowledged either on the ] page or the ] page. What are the implications for WikiPR's culpability? In the they admit to being a bit flexible with ]. --] (] · ] · ]) 14:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::You ought to look a little deeper. The LTA report cites the press. I want to make sure this isn't a circular reference that resolves to null. Somebody here should be able to provide a concise synopsis of the evidence with diffs or links. I've looked and didn't see it. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, as I say, they admit that they’ve made bad calls on notability. I would like to hear from someone involved in the SPI. What '''''can''''' we know for sure about the '''''quality''''' of WikiPR editing? Can they isolate a list of contributions that are definitely the work of this company? --] (] · ] · ]) 14:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Tying Morning277 to Wiki-PR: in , Simon Owens wrote that he emailed companies from the Morning277 investigation list, and | |||
| ::<blockquote>"Of the few dozen companies I emailed for this article, four got back to me. All requested I keep their names out, and all told the same story: They hired a company called Wiki-PR to make pages for them."</blockquote> | |||
| :::] (]) 14:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you so much. We do not conduct or condone off-wiki sleuthing, but we are also not obligated to disregard reliably sourced info from public sources. Since a reporter has done the sleuthing, we are allowed to take note that Wiki-PR is most likely behind these accounts. I suggest we enact the ban text below. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So, ], to be clear, we're confident, certain even, that everything on the Morning277 investigation listlist (?) is controlled by (sock or meat) one person or company – WikiPR – and that list isn't a conflation of more than one farm, each controlled by a different person or company. Is that right? --] (] · ] · ]) 15:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The sockpuppetry investigation was closed without Checkusers checking a large number of accounts. It is possible that there's been some conflation, but I think there's enough evidence of wrongdoing to pin this on Wiki-PR. That done, Wiki-PR could help a lot by coming forward and disclosing things so we can clean up the mess, and sort out the different sock farms. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I disagree there. There is certainly evidence that Wiki-PR was responsible for at least employing some of the listed accounts. And it is also clear that some of the listed accounts were used by or hired by Morning277. However, it isn't clear that there is overlap between the two. If you randomly try to contact clients from that list, and if it is the case that the two groups have been conflated, then the clients you contact could be from either camp. Accordingly, the Daily Dot could have contacted clients employed by Wiki-PR who were not connected to Morning277. | |||
| ::::::In short, we don't know that Wiki-PR and Morning277 are connected. But we do know that both have engaged editors to edit articles on WP, and between them this covers a very large number of accounts. Morning277 is community banned, so the question is whether or not Wiki-PR should be community banned as well. We don't need to assume that they are the same to determine which way to go. - ] (]) 15:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{ping|Anthonyhcole}} no, we are certainly not confident that everything on the Morning277 list is controlled by one company. There are others out there like and there may well have been some conflation. This is not a situation where you will get certainty. ] (]) 15:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Can somebody point to some work by '''''cast iron confirmed''''' WikiPR editors please, if there are any cast-iron confirmed WikiPR editors? I'd like to see some examples of the kind of problematical editing we're banning these people for. --] (] · ] · ]) 15:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :See, for example where someone I will not name to spare his blushes tells how he paid Wiki-PR $1,500 to help him in "''developing my brand as a thought leader in higher education and entrepreneurship''"; his article was decisively deleted at AfD as non-notable, he complained and was told "''You're in the queue for reuploading''" and "''It wasn't rejected. It was approved and went live.. Your page was vandalized.''" However, when reposted it was deleted again. ] (]) 15:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::The only thing those ''Daily Dot'' examples tell us about WikiPR's editing is that it includes creating articles on non-notable topics, something the owner has acknowledged in the ''WSJ'' article, and something I expect they will commit to avoiding in the future. Are there ''any'' problematical diffs you can identify as coming from WikiPR editors, ]? --] (] · ] · ]) 15:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you take a look at ] - who is definitively connected to Wiki-PR - he was involved in an AfD where Wiki-PR participated with multiple accounts in an attempt to disrupt consensus. I'll be back by with more diffs later, but honestly just woke up. ] (]) 20:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks ]. ] is pretty damning. Can you point me to the evidence definitively linking that editor to WikiPR please? --] (] · ] · ]) 08:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Unfortunately in an SPI where we a handful of accounts that belonged to different paid editors were mixed in, it's really hard to post on-wiki evidence that definitively links any given account with a particular off-wiki individual without violating outing. I'll drop you an email in the immediate future, and can dig up more diffs afterwards if needed of other bad behavior (yesterday ended up really busy.) But bioengineer+attorney is most certainly a Wiki-PR acocunt. ] (]) 13:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::The problem is not individual bad diffs (though the LTA mentions some whitewashing of clients' articles) but the systematic insertion, for money, with an undeclared COI, of tidy-looking articles, with references that look OK until checked, on non-notable subjects. Having been caught, Jordan French may "''admit that we’ve made bad calls on “notability”''"; he doesn't say he won't do that any more, but even if he did, why should we believe him when his paid editors do not disclose their interest? To see why it's a problem, look at ] I referred to above - ] "''tried to fix it, but I gave up, as there was not enough underlying notability''". Why should DGG have to spend his freely-given time trying, and failing, to clean up an article someone else has been paid $1,500 to write? ] (]) 20:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''support''' I think a formal ban is important as it will likely reduce the number of companies working with them and thus reduce the amount of trouble that show up on our doorstep. And certainly support requiring them to come clean about past issues before unbanning them. ] (]) 18:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Advertising has no place in an encyclopedia. ]] 21:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Largely symbolic, unfortunately, but it does help send a message to potential clients that no, we do not find this behaviour acceptable, and no, Wiki-PR does not have the support of any so-called "silent majority". ''Caveat emptor''. ]] 22:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - ] (]) 12:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - malicious sockpuppetry is unacceptable. ] (]) 16:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - one of the '''unpaid majority'''. ] (]) 02:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong support''' - while paid editing is acceptable, paid sockpuppetry, meatpuuppetry, and promotion is unacceptable. ] (]) 05:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''': As per Resolute. ] (]) 14:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' This is not entirely symbolic even at this point, a clear statement by the community is required. This is also overwhelmingly supported (I count 24 to 0) so it might as well be closed at the earliest reasonable date. The proposals below look like mere distractions. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 17:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Alternative ban text=== | |||
| Assuming suitable evidence can be found to tie Morning277 to Wiki-PR, better ban text would be: | |||
| ::''Anyone who would edit the English Misplaced Pages on behalf of Wiki-PR or its affiliates, broadly construed, is banned. This ban has been enacted because Wiki-PR has, as an organization, has repeatedly violated ].'' | |||
| ::''This ban may be appealed by emailing any Misplaced Pages administrator who will then post the appeal at the ]. The Misplaced Pages community has decided that the conditions for unbanning are that Wiki-PR must (a) provide a list of articles created or edited by Wiki-PR staff so those articles can be inspected for policy violations, and (c) pledge to only edit under transparent, disclosed accounts and to adhere to all of Misplaced Pages’s content policies. Individual accounts may be blocked under this ban if there is on-wiki or Checkuser evidence connecting them to Wiki-PR or previously identified Wiki-PR accounts. This ban does not authorize ] of any editor, nor does it authorize off-wiki research into editor identities. Off-wiki research to identify bogus sources habitually used by Wiki-PR is allowed.'' | |||
| The initially proposed text has a number of problems. I think this text is better. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :<small>I've corrected a typo - hope you don't mind. ] (]) 14:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::<small>Not at all! ] <sup>]</sup> 14:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)</small> | |||
| : I've taken out the company name because it's not yet clear who Morning277 is working for. We are looking into that. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::And now put the name back in because of this: http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-network-history-wiki-pr/ ] <sup>]</sup> 15:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' if I'm allowed to support both versions... So long as something gets done. BTW that article is interesting, but I longed for an edit button. I hate seeing things like 'flaunted' for 'flouted'... ] (]) 15:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - similar to Peridon, will just be happy to get rid of these guys who have no care for our ethos. ]] 15:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''', and request the WMF to do everything they can to publicise the ban so that news of it reaches potential clients. Two additional points: | |||
| :*Potential customers should realise that not only may their paid-for article be deleted, but they may find themselves effectively blacklisted. Add something like: <blockquote>"Articles created by Wiki-PR editors may be speedily deleted under ] and may not be re-created without an independent review process".</blockquote> | |||
| ::Otherwise (as has been happening) they simply create more socks and throw the articles in again. That would need a "Wiki-PR article appeals board" of experienced and undoubtedly independent users - requiring AfC would be no good because they could simply create more socks to approve their articles. | |||
| :*'''Why''' rule out off-wiki investigation and outing? This case is so serious, and the spammer has so many advantages, that we should not commit ourselves to fight with one hand tied behind our backs. | |||
| :] (]) 15:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is not a battleground here, we are trying to be civil but strict, not trying to combat them. <span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #003399;">]</span><span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #FF8C00;">]</span> 16:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::] refers to internal discussions. When Misplaced Pages's neutrality is under threat from large-scale spamming by an organization which never declares its interest but conceals its operations by constantly starting new accounts, we certainly '''are''' trying to combat them, and it is no exaggeration to call it a battle. ] (]) 17:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - enough is enough. ] (] - ]) 18:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *''''Oppose''' I think a condition of unbanning them should be for them to identify who they've hired so we can more easily clean find and clean up issues as they exist. ] (]) 18:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *: I don't think we need a list of editors. If they would give us a list of articles they worked on, that would allow us to check all of them, delete the non-notables, and review any remaining. Once the articles are fixed, we then insist that any future editing be done transparently and in compliance with our policies. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *::If it were a single editor with a couple hundred found socks, we'd certainly require them to identify all old socks. I don't see why a company should have a lower bar than an individual. In any case, it is needed to identify and clean up any bad edits that didn't get noticed and/or fixed. ] (]) 17:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *The first point is too wobbly; 'you must work with us to help unfuck what you fucked' has too much wiggle room for them compared to requiring them to disclose every article they've touched. I also oppose the idea of forbidding off-wiki investigation. Simon (author of the DD piece) and Martin (author of the VICE piece) were both able to confirm Wiki-PR clients as Wiki-PR clients by simply emailing them and asking. If we get an OTRS ticket from the 100% confirmed subject of an article asking why their article was deleted after they had paid Wiki-PR so much money, that would not be acceptable evidence to block the account that created the article under this wording. ] (]) 21:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *: If somebody spontaneously publishes an article or tells us that Wiki-PR created an article for them, we can take note and respond accordingly. What we don't want is our volunteer editor community looking for enemies. That's not what we do. It is caustic to the community when editors to suspect and investigate one another. During many incidents over the years we've learned this lesson. I like the suggestion that we require a list of articles they worked on. We have every right to demand that information. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::*As currently worded, it also wouldn't let us use conclusive behavioral evidence as a justification for a block. As an example of what this could look like: it's been established in media coverage of this that clients of Wiki-PR who failed on notability guidelines were often referred to 'Scarsdale Media' - a company run by someone related to the founder of Wiki-PR - to buffer up their notability with faux news stories. In the past, the use of these sites as cites was a valuable tool in identifying Wiki-PR sockpuppets; if someone used vatalyst.com and a bunch of citizen journalism sites misrepresented as being their parent sites (i.e., cnn ireports listed as cnn,) they could be reasonably assumed to be a sock/meat of Wiki-PR. But, with no off-wiki investigation, someone wouldn't be able to point out the fact that vatalyst wasn't a legitimate news site and was run by a family member of one of Wiki-PR's founders, facts highly suggestive that anyone who wrote articles based off of vatalyst sources while otherwise fitting the behavioral pattern of Wiki-PR was in fact a Wiki-PR employee. I understand your concern about a witchhunt to some degree, but there's no reason to cripple our ability to get rid of people who constantly break our rules (while making a hell of a lot of money in the process.) ] (]) 14:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' either version; the line is no longer bright. ]] 21:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support with caveat'''—We need to be practical. Like illicit drug use, if you legislate against it you just drive it underground, where it's totally unregulated. I bang on about de.WP's approach, which I see as being more practical: let them take out a company username; monitor them; ensure they're good citizens or break their nose, so to speak. The belatedness of our discovery of this mass abuse is proof that we are hopeless at ferreting out the miscreants. ] ] 06:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Prefer the first proposal's wording. - ] (]) 08:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *In response to Anthonyhcole's request for evidence of "cast-iron confirmed WikiPR editors": Sinclaip wrote " {{quote|1=I work for oDesk.com and was hired by a person called Darius Fisher who is the co-founder of Investment Underground. He asked me to post the Exosite information to my sandbox (the information looked legitimate). I had no idea that I would be blocked.}} | |||
| The Wiki-PR Web site lists a Darius Fisher as "Co-Founder, Chief Operations Officer" (archived at and ). | |||
| I posted a (which was not honoured) to have investmentunderground.com blacklisted. In the request I listed numerous mentions of the site in ]. | |||
| Mattwalker78, another editor who was blocked in the Morning277 SPI, {{quote|1=4/28: add the following information to Southwest Energy's page in a neutral and encylopedic way. Darius will bill for an additional $500 for this update.}} | |||
| For those who find the above unconvincing, consider that the ''Wall Street Journal'' article quotes Wiki-PR's CEO as writing "we do pay hundreds of other editors for their work"; on the company's site is a claim that it employs a "staff of 45 Misplaced Pages editors and admins" , archived at . The company has not disclosed any of the accounts used by it or its subcontractors. Even if it were unconnected to the activity found in the "Morning277" SPI, the company's own description of its services demonstrates that it disregards ], ] and ]. | |||
| Part of DeltaQuad's explanation for shutting down the SPI was that there are multiple people working for this company, and there was no mandate for the use of checkuser information ("We do not have the power given by the community to 1) CU meatpuppets") . The alternative ban text, if approved, would seem to give such a mandate, <s>and I support it for that reason.</s> ''I'd like to propose just that addition to Kevin Gorman's proposal: see below.''' —] 09:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't feel that this should influence your vote, but I wouldn't expect any change in the SPI/CU decision - that is independent of a banning decision here. - ] (]) 12:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks. That Sinclaip quote seals it for me. Meatpuppetry by any definition of the term and clearly at the direction of WikiPR. --] (] · ] · ]) 12:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::<s>'''Support'''. --] (] · ] · ]) 12:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)</s> (Moved support back to original proposal.) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' this wording; completely banning any off-wiki investigation is too limiting. See example I gave above. ] (]) 14:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. I think the conditions outlined for appeal in first version are better. ] (]) 16:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per MVBW. The first version is overwhelmingly supported in any case. There is no reason to try to distract anybody from that. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 17:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Alternative ban text version 2=== | |||
| Base on feedback above: | |||
| ::''Anyone who would edit the English Misplaced Pages on behalf of Wiki-PR or its affiliates, broadly construed, is banned. This ban has been enacted because Wiki-PR has, as an organization, has repeatedly violated ].'' | |||
| ::''This ban may be appealed by emailing any Misplaced Pages administrator who will then post the appeal at the ]. The Misplaced Pages community has decided that the conditions for unbanning are that Wiki-PR must (a) provide a list of articles created or edited by Wiki-PR staff so those articles can be inspected for policy violations, (b) pledge to only edit under transparent, disclosed accounts, and (c) promise to follow all Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Individual accounts may be blocked under this ban if there is on-wiki, behavioral, or Checkuser evidence connecting them to Wiki-PR or previously identified Wiki-PR accounts. This ban does not authorize ] of any editor, nor does it authorize off-wiki research into editor identities. However, off-wiki research may be conducted to identify bogus or obscure sources habitually used by Wiki-PR staff.'' | |||
| Please comment. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Whatever relates to privacy was already defined in existing policies. No need to mention anything about it here. This version provides an exemption from the policy that protects violator, in my opinion. ] (]) 16:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *I pretty much feel how MVBW does. You've written in the one exception I pointed out in the earlier section, but I can think of plenty of other reasonable exceptions. We have a policy against outing - a strong one, at that - that should be sufficient to guard against violations of privacy. If a trail of public off-wiki research leads to the firm conclusion that someone works for Wiki-PR then that trail can be sent off-wiki to an administrator or arbcom as is outlined in ], just as would be the case in any normal sock or meatpuppetry investigation. We don't need to give these people special protection on the basis that their rule violations are more egregious than most peoples' are. ] (]) 23:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per MVBW. The first version is overwhelmingly supported anyway - why distract attention from it? ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 17:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment=== | |||
| I am not quite sure why this hasn't been brought up before, but ] who has been extremely active in this case and been the proposer of several policy changes seems to be having a rather obvious ] problem themselves regarding this subject. | |||
| On their user page they have disclosing that their professional specialties are: "website development, website security, online marketing, search engine optimization (SEO), search marketing (SEM), and pay-per-click (PPC) advertising". When on their talk page (my bold) that: | |||
| :"For the record, I do not do any paid editing, because it's not time-income effective for me. If a client asks me about Misplaced Pages I may advise them how to work with the community to get things done within policy, e.g. post suggestions to talk pages, announce themselves and answer any question. '''Once in a while I might introduce them to an editor who is willing to fix up their article in exchange for a charitable donation'''. My feeling is that if Misplaced Pages gets a better article, the business receives value and pays for it, and the editor is happy that some charity benefited, then it is ethical. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)" | |||
| Whether they themselves perform the paid editing or that they advise clients to other paid editing services is not really important. It seems to be an obvious COI-problem either way. And attempts at hiding probes into this problem as reveals just makes it more obvious that everything is not as it should be. --] (]) 02:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't like the removal of Hobit's comment. There is overwhelming support for banning WikiPR, and I see little need for alternate text. ] ] 08:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I remove dull comments from my talk page. Don't like my talk page rules? Don't post there. For years I've been subject to harassment in the form of, "Jehochman has a COI because he works in marketing." It's annoying (and dull) when people keep beating that dead horse. Thanks Saddhiyama for joining in the chorus of the ignorant. Thanks. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I also don't like you guys trying to out editors as being COI. Saying you disagree with his proposals and then trying to prove he has a COI is in obvious '''bad faith'''. <span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #003399;">]</span><span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #FF8C00;">]</span> 17:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::No it's not. Asking about COI is a reasonable thing. I'll do it on a corporate article and I'll do it on a bio if I think someone is editing in a way that indicates they have a COI. I felt that two editors stood out as editing in a way that indicated a potential COI so I researched both. One I found what appeared to be a real conflict, one I did not. I didn't out anyone, I only used what they'd posted on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 19:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :My plan was to bring this to ] after all the current discussions about paid editing blew over. It seemed to have the potential to generate a lot of heat and very little light in this current discussion but that it was worth addressing for future discussions. I do have serious problems with someone who potentially has a COI on the matter taking such a large role in the discussion without clearly disclosing that conflict. As far as his talk page goes, he is welcome to remove comments from there--it's his talk page. Though I didn't like him claiming I was ABF by asking the question. I felt I asked it in a reasonable way and that I was expressing reasonable concerns. ] (]) 19:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Yet another variation=== | |||
| I'd like to propose what Kevin Gorman requested, but with the following tacked on: {{quote|1=Even though Wiki-PR employs more than one person, the community nonetheless endorses the use of ] information in enforcing this ban.}} —] 02:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *I wouldn't oppose this addition, but would ask that an uninvolved admin find consensus in this thread and close soon. The sooner the better, really. ] (]) 05:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == Action History == | |||
| hi. →] .--] (]) 17:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't see anything problematic with the page history. Could you explain what's needed? Are you saying that the pages need to be ]? ] (]) 17:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :There are multiple Sarans in Iran, so a disambig page is required. What's the issue? ] (]) 17:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I (8 April 2011), But .] (]) 05:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's a completely different page; it wasn't a ] or anything else that needs repair. ] (]) 12:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :History must be moved.I created first article.] (]) 15:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's only necessary to preserve attribution histories; Carlos didn't take anything you wrote when he created the second page, so no histmerge is necessary. ] (]) 17:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == IP editor making controversial copy/paste moves == | |||
| {{User|108.235.225.44}} has been making copy/paste moves, which is not only wrong but these moves are also pretty controversial and should've been discussed first. Somebody with the appropriate powers should fix whatever's happened here and make sure there's a good consensus. ] (]) 22:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : I have restored redirect at ] and another editor has reverted at ]. But IP 108.235 is correct in saying that AdBlock is not specific to chrome. So AdBlock(chrome) should be a redirect to AdBlock, not the other way around. I request an admin to do the move properly ( due to a history at AdBlock, move is not possible by non-admin).--<font size="3" face="Corsiva Hebrew" color="green">Vigyani</font><sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 02:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Move's done, with a history swap to preserve the redirect's non-trivial page history.--] (]) 11:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: may be non-trivial, but it's not ] or particularly useful. 108.235.225.44 made an exact copy ({{diff|AdBlock|573509511|572029296|cross-page diff}}), and there were {{diff|AdBlock (Chrome)|577024360|573509511|no substantial edits made}}. ] (]) 04:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ANRFC thread open for over one month == | |||
| ] has been open for more than one month. --] (]) 12:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : You might consider posting this at ]; there's quite a queue for admin action right now. -- ] (]) 14:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is ''about'' ANRFC, I believe.''' — <u>]]</u>'''] 16:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Oh thanks Pink. I guess I should have had coffee ''before'' replying; my bad. -- ] (]) 18:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''' Reply ''' - Good morning Diannaa, thank you for your reply. While I appreciate the suggestion, posting twice in the same forum will put me in the exact same position as we were in before. -- ] (]) 22:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Post to prevent automatic archiving. --] (]) 20:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Two userpages with same picture and text == | |||
| {{resolved}} | |||
| ] and ], please check. Thanks--] (]) 13:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : {{admin|De728631}} has deleted both under ] (unambiguous advertising or promotion). ~] <small>] ]</small> 16:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Same userpages created again and also user talk page added same spam.--] (]) 18:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've re-deleted both of them and blocked both users as spam/advertising-only accounts. ''']'''<font color="green">]</font> 05:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == IP from ] complains about User:CorporateM's edits to their company's article == | |||
| *{{article|Suburban Express}} | |||
| "Suburban Express has initiated about 200 lawsuits against its own customers since 1994 and ten civil suits against competitors." | |||
| Here is the citation: | |||
| http://www.dailyillini.com/news/local/article_43a45b74-ae1a-11e2-9a0d-0019bb30f31a.html | |||
| The article does not say Suburban Express filed 10 lawsuits against competitors. | |||
| It says this: | |||
| In the past, Sub | |||
| urban Express has filed 10 civil suits, including lawsuits against Amtrak, Champaign-Urbana MTD and then-Lincolnland Express, better known as LEX. | |||
| The three named companies are competitors, but it does not logically follow that all 10 lawsuits were against competitors. Champaign County Circuit Clerk's website reveals that suits have been filed against non-customers who are not competitors, ie Pitney Bowes. | |||
| This is the game that CorporateM is playing: He is relying on the laziness of readers. He expects that he can say something that seems like it is true, but which is not actually true, and that nobody is going to actually check. He constantly lies in his edits, which are biased and not consistent with NPOV. | |||
| Most of CorporateM's edits to Suburban Express article contain significant errors. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| Please also note that CorporateM's edits are not consistent with NPOV, that CorporateM is making numerous negative edits without discussing edits beforehand -- even as he criticizes other user(s) and reverts their edits for not discussing before editing. CorporateM has admitted elsewhere to being a paid editor, and he seems to have an undisclosed COI wrt Suburban Express. | |||
| An adult in charge needs to get this user under control. ] (]) 15:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * Relevant links: {{article|Suburban Express}}; {{user|CorporateM}} ~] <small>] ]</small> 15:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *CorporateM is a paid editor who usually identifies him/herself as such on the talk pages of articles they edit. We don't accept county clerk records as reliable sources because they are raw "]" sources. If there is something noteworthy about the cases you refer to, find mentions of them in ''''']''''' "secondary" sources and discuss it on the article's talk page. --] (] · ] · ]) 15:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Before making accusations that CorporateM is a paid editor, you should come up with a better justification than baseless speculation. Also, you should not be complaining about "paid" editors when you admit to being a paid representative of Suburban Express. | |||
| On the subject of the 10 civil suits you filed, you seem to be conviniently ignoring the fact that you filed 3 lawsuits against LEX and that you filed a lawsuit against Peoria Charter. | |||
| --] (]) 00:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Suburban Express is here to remedy false statements and false citations which appear in the Suburban Express article. Suburban Express is, in fact, advocating for Suburban Express, within the rules and frameworks established by Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 01:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: County clerk records are not necessary to refute CorporateM's false entry. The article cited simply does not state what CorporateM claims it states. You may find it difficult to accept that a wikipedia editor is doing sloppy work and/or lying, but that is absolutely the case here. Before you fire back defending CorporateM, look at the article and look at the cited source. Until you do that, you are just speculating. ] (]) 16:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * And what is your connection, if any, to these articles, 99.147.28.113? ] <sup>]</sup> 15:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Seeing the extreme accusations and insults against a very cautious and diligent editor over what at worst (and IF true) is an editing error makes this a good candidate for a boomerang. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 15:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <pre> | |||
| erinacity:/tmp | |||
| alisonc $ whois 99.147.28.113 | |||
| NetRange: 99.147.28.112 - 99.147.28.119 | |||
| CIDR: 99.147.28.112/29 | |||
| OriginAS: | |||
| NetName: SBC-99-147-28-112-29-1104201844 | |||
| NetHandle: NET-99-147-28-112-1 | |||
| Parent: NET-99-128-0-0-1 | |||
| NetType: Reassigned | |||
| RegDate: 2011-04-20 | |||
| Updated: 2011-04-20 | |||
| Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-99-147-28-112-1 | |||
| CustName: ILLINI SHUTTLE-110420131800 | |||
| Address: Private Address | |||
| City: Plano | |||
| StateProv: TX | |||
| PostalCode: 75075 | |||
| Country: US | |||
| RegDate: 2011-04-20 | |||
| Updated: 2011-04-20 | |||
| Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/customer/C02741096 | |||
| </pre> | |||
| According to ] record , Illini Shuttle (aka Suburban Express) own this ip address range. ~] <small>] ]</small> 15:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :!!???? --] (] · ] · ]) 15:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Article has been subject to a long history of socks/meats/paid editors consistent with this company's behavior on Reddit, where they allegedly used sockpuppets to attack users that criticized the organization for alleged corrupt business practices. Frustrated students involved in litigation with the organization have also made COI edits, but their conduct is less egregious. | |||
| ::POV pushers that do not get their way will almost always resort to personal attacks and a COI disclosure is an easy hand-hold for them to latch onto. It serves as good "bait" into making POV pushers self-out themselves by focusing on it. Who would possibly pay me? The students? I originally became involved in the article more or less to protect Suburban Express from legal antagonists. | |||
| ::An article protection, sock-puppet investigation, a few IP blocks and/or other administrative actions are long overdue, but I am too lazy to go through our bureaucratic processes. I have previously notified admins ], ] and ] on the issues on this page. | |||
| :: | |||
| ::As for the "correction" suggested above regarding the number of lawsuits, they may be correct or not. It would be worthwhile for someone to check. ] (]) 15:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| No attempt is being made to hide the source of the IP edits. The ip address used to post this message is registered to Suburban Express. We are here expressing our concerns regarding wild inaccuracies and misattributions by COI/Paid editor CorporateM. ] (]) 16:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| A large percentage of citations in this article are inaccurate. There are multiple examples of CorporateM misrepresentations in the talk section. Here is another one: | |||
| "Another False Edit by CorporateM: | |||
| The student did not receive a letter demanding $570 for liquidated damages. The contract specified $500 liquidated damages for, among other things, disruptive behavior. | |||
| The diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Suburban_Express&diff=573947756&oldid=573926939 | |||
| The alleged source: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130429/07194422871/bus-company-threatens-redditor-with-lawsuit-meets-ken-white-runs-away.shtml" ] (]) 16:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| The two examples provided are not isolated examples, they are two data points in a pattern of bad edits. | |||
| We at Suburban Express object to the Suburban Express wikipedia article containing false information and false attributions. ] (]) 16:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*If CorporateM is habitually misrepresenting sources in such a way as to slant the article (something we call tendentious editing), please make a concise, coherent and complete case here. You are across the issue here, so you're the best qualified to do this. Provide a diff (enclosed in square brackets , then quote what the source actually says, and quote what CorporateM represented it as saying. | |||
| ::You might want to familiarise yourself thoroughly with ] and ], too. At a glance some of the sources being used to pillory you seem a bit dodgy (but I'm no sourcing expert - the people at ] are.) And ]: again just glancing (it's bedtime here) but that article seems heavily negatively weighted, verging on an attack piece. I'll have a more careful look in the morning. --] (] · ] · ]) 17:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::If I remember correctly, some of the sources conflict on the exact numbers. Many of the sources are tech rags, like TechCrunch and Ars Technica, which are reliable, but should be used with caution, because they don't necessarily share our editorial mission. This small college bus company is arguably best-known for suing their own customers and allegations of astroturfing Reddit to insult students, but a certain amount of balancing media sensationalism is right and proper and has been reasonably accounted for already - though regular editors may reasonably disagree on the precise balancing. ] (]) 18:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Excuses and double-talk. CorporateM has been made aware of numerous false attributions and the response here is manipulative and disingenuous. ] (]) 18:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Evidence, please. --] (]) 18:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: There is already a bevy of evidence in the article's talk page. This evening or tomorrow evening, a concise and current list will be posted here. ] (]) 20:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} speaking of lazy, the following text is directly out of the link you posted "Suburban Express filed 209 lawsuits since April 1994, when the first lawsuit was filed in Champaign County. Eighty-four of these lawsuits were filed prior to 2013." which seems to back the 200 lawsuits just fine. ] (]) 18:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Compare the statement in the wiki article to the source. ] (]) 20:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :And from your second link "He received an e-mail from the company that said he was being fined $500 for "liquidated damages" and was permanently banned." also sufficiently sourcing the statement in your diff. Stop trolling. ] (]) 18:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not finding anything in there to support the "10 civil suits against competitors" though. 6, yes (see sidebar), but nothing directly to support 10. Gah, hate supporting obvious corporate trolls, especially one so foul. <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 18:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::] "Champaign County Circuit Court records also show that Suburban Express brought a civil lawsuit against the Peoria Charter Coach Company in 2009. In the past, Suburban Express has filed 10 civil suits, including lawsuits against Amtrak, Champaign-Urbana MTD and then-Lincolnland Express, better known as LEX." The source is ambiguous on this point, so we may need to tweak the article text, but this certainly doesn't rise to an AN issue as our text is a reasonable interpretation of this source text. ] (]) 18:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Agreed about both this isn't something for AN and that the text can be tweaked. In fact, when I checked the article text after posting, it had been revised to say that civil suits had been filed against 4 competitors. I think it could have been revised as 10 civil suits, including cases against 4 competitors so that both the number of cases and the number of competitors are included. <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 19:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Suburban Express -- if you go around suing lots of people, you will get a certain reputation, and that reputation will appear in your Misplaced Pages article. If you don't like this reputation, you might need to behave differently. Misplaced Pages does not whitewash its articles to please business interests. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: Suburban Expres sues cheaters. That is a well-established fact, and not something we dispute. The issue here is that the article is riddled with inaccuracies and false citations. We do not take issue with the article containing factual information from credible sources. We do take issue with false statements which cite sources which do not support the statements. Simple as that. ] (]) 20:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::You need think about this from a public relations point of view. It might be within your legal rights to sue these people, but lawsuits can generate dsnews coverage, much of it adverse. It's like negative advertising. Maybe you need to balance the pros and cons. Unfortunately, your service doesn't seem to have much coverage in reliable sources except all the suing. You've made the company become notable as a lawsuit mill. Maybe you need to find a better way to deal with cheaters. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| --><noinclude> | |||
| ::::Suburban Express does not profit-maximize in matters of theft and fraud. Suburban Express pursues cheaters even though it is not the profit-maximizing solution. Suburban Express will continue to vigorously pursue cheaters, much like many retailers vigorously pursue (and prosecute) shoplifters. Suburban Express will not be blackmailed or shamed, by cheaters or the bloggers who support their cause (what cause?), into not pursuing cheaters. ] (]) 20:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Open tasks== | |||
| :::: WRT your statement that "doesn't seem to have much coverage in reliable sources except all the suing". That is false. Suburban Express exists because it exploited a regulatory loophole and brought inexpensive, reliable service to a market that was poorly served by a company with a monopoly granted by the Illinois Commerce Commission. Suburban Express increased service and decreased cost for hundreds of thousands of students. Conventional media has covered Suburban Express well in its 30 year history. Online detractors of Suburban Express seem to delight in the fact that only recent (mostly negative) articles can be obtained online, while older conventional-media articles cannot -- and they have in the past bristled at the suggestion that they read conventional media sources posted as pdf's on the website of the owner of Suburban Express -- as if somehow posting a newspaper article on the website of the owner somehow makes it not a valid conventional-media source. ] (]) 21:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}} | |||
| {{Administrators' noticeboard archives}} | |||
| {{Clear}} | |||
| {{Admin tasks}} | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| </noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove--> | |||
| == Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request == | |||
| ===boomerang=== | |||
| Not an admin, but reading through the article talk, I think its time for the boomerang boomstick. ] and ] all over the place, attempting to throw the kitchen sink at CorporateM, and wear down the other editors via attrition. '''proposal : Permanently semiprotect the article, and topic ban/block the troll and obvious socks who are obvious. '''] (]) 18:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}: | |||
| ::: How do exactly you propose that Suburban Express address a situation where a user is posting false statements, false citations, and false edit "reasons" other than by calling out the infractions? ] (]) 20:15, 24 October 2013 (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. | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| Even if the (only specific) complaints by the IP's were 100% true and accurate, they would merely represent a couple of errors that need correcting. And CorporateM has indicated openness to such. I don't even know what this is doing at the noticeboard, except for considering a possible boomerang. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 19:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| However, as I have learned from it, I will never use multiple accounts anymore and adding controversial content without doing a proper fact-check. I will always listen to users, be constructive and be friendly. I will make sure you will not regret giving me my account back. I would like to work under the account ].}} | |||
| ::: As stated above, a large percentage of statements inserted by CorporateM are false or inaccurate and/or have citations that do not support the statements that cite them. Not one or two minor errors, a systematic pattern of either sloppy editing or errors. ] (]) 20:15, 24 October 2013 (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. ... 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">[]]</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 ]. — ] ] 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. ♠]♠ ] 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;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question''': Is SvG the same person as {{U|Slowking4}}? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by ]. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">]</span> (]) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **No. ] (]) 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' basically per ], particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get ] without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). ] (]) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since ] was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.<br />'''Support'''. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --] (]) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Conditional support unblock''' (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use ] for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. ]] (]) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I can't repeat what Beaniefan11 say enough: "Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}." This should assuage any doubt in the mind of the reviewing administrator. ] (]) 15:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft == | |||
| {{nao}} Given 99.147.28.113's extremely precocious editing history (just look at his/her ) I think the sock accusations are quite reasonable. 99.147.28.113, in the name of full disclosure, could you please tell us which other accounts you've been using? --] (]) 19:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I have not come across a situation like ] before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it. | |||
| :I agree with the above three editors. It appears that the banned sockmaster ] might be related to this as well as ], and ] I'd like to ask the IP if he is related to these editors and if there is anything else he'd like to say about any other possibly related editors, or if he wishes to make a full COI statement. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 19:23, 24 October 2013 (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. | |||
| ::: Whatever you perceive to have happened in the past has no bearing on the the matter being discussed here - false statements and false atributions. ] (]) 20:15, 24 October 2013 (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. | |||
| ::For context, the article has been semi-protected for quite some time, but that hasn't prevented paid editors with established accounts from slanting the article, which leads in turn to frustrated students with the opposite COI who are (mostly) self-prohibiting themselves from article-space. I a request for stronger article-protection, but they said blocking the disruptive editors would be more appropriate. What would be even better if anyone has the initiative is a full investigation into the network of paid socks and other related accounts. Many articles have been effected by the same network of non-disclosed COI accounts and it looks like ] may have just provided some additional leads. ] (]) 19:31, 24 October 2013 (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 agree. One of the Misplaced Pages administrators should investigate the accounts in more detail. ] (]) 01:01, 24 October 2013 (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? | |||
| ::: Suburban Express acknowledges the participation of user Gulugawa in this discussion and cautions readers that Gulugawa has an admitted conflict of interest arising from his tireless activities online as a Suburban Express detractor. ] (]) 01:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <small>'''Edit:'''</small> Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet ]? | |||
| I repeat, the ip I am posting from is a Suburban Express IP address and I do in fact represent Suburban Express. That has no bearing on the issue being discussed here: False statements and false citations in the article. They are false whether I point them out or someone else points them out. ] (]) 20:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : Suburban Express has the right to comment about their situation. We should not stifle the subject. On the other hand, the subject needs to participate in a non-disruptive way. You can state your case, but don't abuse your editing privileges. If you think the article is biased, please be calm, say why, and suggest other sources of info that could be used to help create a better, more balanced article. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :As far as I'm aware, articles on films are allowed so long as principal photography has occurred (principal animation in this case, I guess?). That has clearly happened for this film, even if they are having to scrap and re-write things. And notability is certainly not in question, so having an article is fully within the policy rules. If there are harmful edits happening, then semi-protection seems like a normal response. ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::People say that on the draft's talk page every so often and get rebuffed. Maybe you can be more persuasive, but the general argument is the existing animation was created for "Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse" before it was split into two films and no "final animation" has begun on this film. ] (]) 01:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Are they basing that claim on any reliable source as evidence? Since what exists in that draft currently with reliable sources clearly indicates work has started. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hi. I'm the editor who has requested the protection for this draft. Per ], final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace. Final animation is different from standard reels being produced, which as sourced, is currently what this film has produced while no voice recording has occurred. It seems to still be very early in development, and much of the earlier work when this was the second part was reportedly scrapped (as sourced in the draft). I do not believe the mainspace viability ought to be discussed here as that is more for the draft. As for the protection request, it appears to be the same person making these disruptive comments which have become unnecessarily excessive and are detracting from the content of the draft itself. I requested protection (initially as ECP though semi works for the talk) because these comments have not benefitted any actual constructive progress and have largely ranged from the IPs attempting to enforce their own opinions about the delays and trying to remove sources they don't like, which has been ongoing since the end of October. As a draft, not many other editors are editing this, so it becomes quite unrelenting and tiresome to deal with these repeated disruptions. Glad to see this has garnered more attention. ] (]) 01:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{tqq|Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace}} ...I'm ''pretty sure'' that BtSV meets ] already, regardless of the state of production, and ''that'' should be the main factor. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have no problem with the draft being moved, this is just not the normal route to do so and typically NFF is followed for film articles, but I digress. I do caution that this article {{em|could}} be susceptible to further unconstructive comments in the mainspace, but that is a price I'm willing to handle. I can make the move as needed, no worries, I am primarily concerned about these type of comments continuing and if any protection is necessary to prevent or temporarily postpone them from continuing. ] (]) 05:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :There doesn't appear to be enough disruption to the draft page to justify protection at this point. Draft talk definitely should get semi-protection. ] (]/]) 00:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Really? That seems excessive for a few FOURMy IP comments (likely from the same person). If they continue with it, block the IP, maybe. Protecting talk pages should really be a last resort. ] (] | ]) 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'_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 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) | |||
| ::Of course they have the right to comment. At the same time, 99.147.28.113 is an ] whose sole purpose is to oppose CorporateM. On top of that there are indicia of sockpuppetry. This user should not be allowed to bifurcate his/her anti-CorporateM accusations (no matter how valid they may be) from his/her other contributions to the project. This user should be putting their credibility on the line just like anyone else who comes to the noticeboards. --] (]) 20:50, 24 October 2013 (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 ]. – ] <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) | |||
| ::: False. The sole purpose of Suburban Express is not to "oppose CorporateM". Suburban Express would argue that the opposite is true, eg that CorporateM has made it his misson to oppose and defame Suburban Express, regardless of the facts. The goal of Suburban Express here is to ensure that the contents of the wikipedia article about Suburban Express is consistent with wikipedia rules, customs, and standards. To the extent that any user is posting false information and/or false citations, Suburban Express will pursue such matters vigorously and within the wikepedia ecosystem, which is exactly what is being done here. ] (]) 21:00, 24 October 2013 (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) == | |||
| ::::Spin it however you want; your edit history speaks for itself. --] (]) 21:47, 24 October 2013 (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) | |||
| :::::You seem to want to argue for the sake of arguing. That does not seem to advance the discussion about false statements and false attributions. ] (]) 21:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :] is not familiar with some of the WP policies and guidelines especially ] and ]. Also, his obfuscated username is somewhat fustration and is not conducive to efficient editing. ] (]) 21:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :]: Editing user pages has no 'hard policy' prohibition, as this is a wiki. 'End of discussion', seriously? Also see ]. Then, ] is a container category, which clearly says it should only contain subcategories. Even I don't understand why they're being reverted. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::] seems to be unaware of many of the WP polices and guidelines. ] (]) 08:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've been here nineteen years so obviously I do and I apologize if as mentioned I'm more aggressive about userspace being in control of the user themselves. That said I'm no longer engaging with you or any of your edits as you're now ] and trying to troll some kind of response out of me (and doing the same for Liz, who has the patience of a saint), which you won't get. Understand our guidelines or get blocked. If anyone uninvolved would like to close this, please do so. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Length of time on WP is not a measure of how familiar an editor is with policy and guidelines. Your previous comments show that you are unfamiliar with some of them, but to be fair, it is impossible to know all of them. There are a lot of editors that do not know a lot of the policies and guidelines. THere are content disputes and corrections and reverts happening all the time because of inexperienced editors. | |||
| ::::I am not trolling. I just want WP to be much better than it currently is. ] (]) 19:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Adressing that final point, I have ] about ] to either remove the ] banner tag or give special sanction to empty user pages from that main category. ] (]) 21:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Category:Wikipedians is at a level of the hierarchy that there should be nothing in it, which is why it is a container category. The contents of it have been added by editors who do not understand how WP works and do not realise that it is a container category. You proposal is not needed. ] (]) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment''': ] was cited in ] (a sandbox used for drafting a larger edit needing discussion, where categories were copied along with the rest of the article's content). (] is mentioned explicitly in that guideline.) ] (]) 02:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Whatever the case, user sandbox space is sacred and unless you have permission to edit there, you don't touch them, that's an unwritten rule. Mathglot certainly . That's the main issue here and if I was wrong on the cats so be it, but they should not be playing in sandboxes they shouldn't be in. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 02:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Just to clarify: I have no qualms about others making improvements to pages in my users space—which belong to the community and are not "mine"—as long as they are improvements. That said, IP's edits in my userspace look like vandalism to me. ] (]) 03:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::User namespace is not "sacred". And if there is an unwrittten rule then it is not a rule that needed to be adhered to. Also ]. To be a good editor it is important to be familiar with policis and guidelines. ] (]) 08:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It was not a "gravedance". I was pointing out to you that other editors dont agree with you edits. ] (]) 09:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I only just noticed this AN discussion, after placing ] at User talk:43.249.196.179 about vandalizing a Draft template in my user space. Their edits seem somehow to be related to categories, but near as I can guess from their edit summary ], they also had some inscrutable complaint about me using my userspace as "social media". Maybe interested parties here will understand what they are talking about, because I certainly don't. As of this point, I cannot tell if they are well-meaning, but highly misinformed and uncomprehending, or if they are simply trolling everyone. I suspect the latter, but am willing to be proved wrong, especially if enceforth they stick to ] and ], instead of ignoring advice given previously and ]. ] (]) 03:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Pardon, but how could Suburban Express possibly be more open and transparent than posting from an IP address that is registered with ARIN as being controlled by Suburban Express? ] (]) 21:29, 24 October 2013 (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 ] == | |||
| ::::That is encouraging. It sounds like you are prepared to accept WP's policies and practices, if that is what you mean by the term "ecosystem". Think of the boards as the ]. Committed users, especially admin staff, have the duty of monitoring the editing of all editors, old, new, registered, I.Ps, illustrious editing histories, or non at all. It is nothing personal. ] (]) 21:18, 24 October 2013 (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) | |||
| ::::99.147.28.113, you could plaster a big COI notice on the user and user talk pages of every account associated with Suburban Express, including your own, and you could add a <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> tag to the top of Talk:Suburban Express and associated talk pages. | |||
| :This looks to me like it's covered by ]. ] ] 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That seems to be a sarcastic statement which does not advance the discussion of false statements and false attributions. ] (]) 21:51, 24 October 2013 (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. ] ] 02:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq|"...then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days".}} You're probably right about that. ] (]) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :This seems entirely unnecessary. ] (]) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can you elaborate on which aspect of {{tq|this}} you are referring to that you believe is unnecessary? ] ] 03:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @] hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. ] (]) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It doesn't matter how much someone has been involved in a discussion. If there's misconduct that's not clearly going to get resolved on its own (which I'm not confident saying either way here), then it's a public service, even a responsibility, for an editor to report it. ] (]) 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] you can see my initial assessment of the situation above. However, I will say uninvolved editors are welcome to bring valid concerns to ANI. It is often far more helpful when someone outside of the situation brings it up here as it ends up being far more neutral. I also would suggest that you might also be too involved right now and need to back away for a few days. The biggest reason is that I believe you read right past Animal lover's and my response which ''basically didn't find you doing anything wrong''. I suggest that a cooling off period might be good for you as well. Not because you're currently doing anything wrong (because that conversation would look quite different), but rather that you're likely too invested in this topic right now to see rationally and objectively. ] ] 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) | |||
| ::::::It wasn't sarcastic at all. It was good advice, and I am now giving you the same advice. You ask how you could possibly be more open and transparent? You could start by not referring to Suburban Express in the third person, which is misleading, and you could demonstrate your alleged efforts to be open and transparent by putting a COI notice on the user page of every account associated with Suburban Express and adding a <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> tag to the top of the user talk page of every account associated with Suburban Express. Not that I believe that you actually want to be open and transparent, but if you do, that is a good way to accomplish that goal. --] (]) 00:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Agreed. An admin got involved and simply continued off-topic discussion. ] (]) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::That statement seems to contain many assumptions.] (]) 00:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Warn both to drop the stick''', otherwise, no action at this point. ] (]) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''''Hands ] two ]''''' You want to hand them out, or me? ] (]) 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Topic ban appeal == | |||
| ::::::::Are you denying those assumptions...that the sockpuppets mentioned elsewhere in this thread aren't you? The last time someone asked you, you simply stated such information was not relevant (which I believe it is). ] (]) 02:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = There is consensus against lifting the topic ban at this time. DesertInfo is advised to find areas where they are willing to edit to show a better history prior to revisiting the topic ban in the future. ] ] 15:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| Hello, I have a topic ban that is approaching one year old on "undiscussed moves, move discussions, deletion discussions, and racial issues broadly construed (including topics associated with the Confederate States of America)". I would like an opportunity to contribute to these topics again. I have been fairly inactive since then but I have edited a few articles without issue. Thank you. ] (]) 04:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Bounty === | |||
| FYI - Suburban Express has posted a generous offer on the bounty board (correct terminology?) for citation/accuracy cleanup. Perhaps one of the editors reading this would like to earn a donation for wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Bounty_board ] (]) 21:43, 24 October 2013 (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) | |||
| :Do you have the link? --] (]) 21:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. ] (]) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::How about if that editor then requested the fee be given to a charity or good cause of their choice, which you would then pay? Or you donate the amount to local charity helping the disadvantaged in your locale? As some may be aware, that is the only kind of paid editing on WP I "personally" consider acceptable. However I note the terms of the bounty board do not admit of that. Perhaps it needs changing or broadening somewhat. You are aware that there is an information technology arms race raging, and its getting more intense out there. If the company is generating negative vibes through use of a liberalised electronic media by some disgruntled clients, and it is reflected in a RS, it is our duty to note it. Obviously it must be balanced by strict NPOV criteria by ALL of us. Cheers ] (]) 22:01, 24 October 2013 (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 == | |||
| 99.147.... If there are errors which you would like to work towards getting corrected, your best route would be to calmly discuss the specifics of them, propose fixes and provide sources consistent with ] to support your statement. And continuously hurling insults, accusations, attacks, assuming bad faith etc. is about the worst possible way, certain to result in a train wreck. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 22:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = HiLux duck has been blocked, and no further action is needed here. ] ] 15:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| "Andra Febrian" is disrupting many edits, I have seen many deleted edits by this user, and I would like to report the user for causing many ]s. The edits unreasonably reverted by this user is very disruptive to me, as I only intend for useful contributions. The user has: | |||
| - caused many edit wars <br/> | |||
| - deleted citations along with deleting correct claims <br/> | |||
| - not been cooperative (wikipedia's ]) on many pages that good-] edits have occurred on <br/> | |||
| - not explained deletions of citations in a way that other users have been made upset. <br/> | |||
| I request that the user is warned. | |||
| ] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— 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 === | |||
| Irondome: The bounty offer has been modified as follows: Expiration date changed, bounty may be assigned to any legitimate charity. ] (]) 22:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: <small> This was (again) posted at the top instead of the bottom; it seems like it is not really a separate issue. ] (]) 01:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :The problem there is that WP rules do not recognise that as another reciepient option at this point. It would require a community-wide discussion to change the bounty board criteria. However, there is a debate currently ongoing in the community in terms of payment on WP. I think radically reworking the bounty system, expanding it is the way forward. Having a company showing interst in that method may give any mooted proposals for change additional credibility. ] (]) 22:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| 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 == | |||
| :: As stated in the bounty, Suburban Express is unfamiliar with all the rules surrounding bounties. Suburban Express has complied with your request for a change to the terms. The changes can be deleted. Guidance is needed here. ] (]) 22:57, 24 October 2013 (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)}} | |||
| ::: This is new territory to me too. I was not aware of the bounty board, and I have been here a while. It may be wise to provisionally delete, pending any discussions for change. Any other admin editor feedback very welcomed here. Cheers ] (]) 23:15, 24 October 2013 (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. | |||
| :::: How can the bounty be modified within wikipedia rules so that it is of interest to you? ] (]) 23:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: It is of no personal interest to me, however such an expansion of payment options may improve corporate/WP relationships in the round. It appears to be a neglected and almost unknown but rather imaginative concept, which has been left to neglect, apart from a few dedicated bounty hunters who still participate. ] (]) 23:32, 24 October 2013 (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 ]. | |||
| :::::It appears that the "reward board" may be a means of facilitating what you desire. If that is correct, Suburban Express would be amenable to doing something there, to facilitate the charitable donation(s) that you deisre. ] (]) 23:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| '''Diffs:''' ''(all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 ) '' | |||
| * (1)The Bounty Board is a survival form the early days of WP, and I think rather than tinkering with the criteria, it is time to remove it, as facilitating misunderstanding of our mission. Perhaps the way to deal with it is MfD, & I have taken it there at ]. Offering material rewards for writing WP articles is not forbidden, just as paid editing is not actually forbidden, but neither should be institutionalized as part of WP. | |||
| * : 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'' | |||
| :(2) I do not consider the complaints against Corporate M are made in good faith. The errors complained of are trivial and correctable, and the charges against him wildly excessive. I take note, as with an earlier discussions, that there is an accusation that because CM sometimes conducts paid editing ,he is therefore unreliable altogether. I am not sure whether there is any connection between the two complainants. | |||
| * Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template. | |||
| :(3) As for SE, I think it's time for a community ban, including talk pages and WP space. They seem disruptive everywhere. ''']''' (]) 23:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also ] for escalation in progress.". | |||
| ::Truthfully, I am amazed that they haven't made this easy on us by making a legal threat. Given their history, it is astounding. ]] 23:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * JMF reverts to ''sqa'' again, with edit summary " rv to consensus version, pending BRD discussion. That is now also a WP:3RR violation." {{midsize|My 3RR challenge was not valid as reversion was outside the 24-hour window.}} | |||
| :::I'll ask somebody to write this up to start the community ban. There is enough evidence just on this page to support one. Given the acknowledged history of filing lawsuits, and the passively acknowledged link to sockpuppets, there's no hope that we can convince them to stop the disruption. At the same time, I have to admit some bizarre admiration for SE - it's them against the world and they are not backing down no matter what. They sue their competitors, they even sue their customers and appear to have a somewhat successful business. On this page it's them against 10-15 editors, and they are not backing down or even willing to compromise. What else can we do except a community ban? ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 02:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing. | |||
| ::Complaints against CorporateM are absolutely made in good faith and are valid. Suggest that DGG examine the actual false statements and cited articles, sales edit description(s), etc. At this point, it appears that DGG is shooting from the hip without first gathering information. Suburban Express is puzzled by DGG's assertion that the present discussion is somehow violative of Misplaced Pages rules or conventions. Suburban Express is objects to false statements and false attributions. The motivation for the present discussion is CorporateM's false statements and false attributions in the Suburban Express article. ] (]) 23:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * At their talk page, Uwappa alleges ] violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit. | |||
| --- | |||
| :::Evidence, please. You keep making these accusations, but you never point to any specific edits. Do you really imagine anyone is going to take your word for it? Evidence, <s>sleaze</s> please. --] (]) 00:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI. | |||
| * Uwappa replies to refuse de-escalation. | |||
| : |
As of 11:48 (UTC) on 30/12, the live version of the template is the one that has consensus support. --] (]) 11:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :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) | |||
| === Comment === | |||
| ::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 ] | |||
| The company has a long history of sockpuppets/meatpuppets/CoI editors/possibly paid editors attempting to edit the article in order to make it more flattering of the company - they have tried to emphasize the company's supposed glorious history and to de-emphasize the negative information about lawsuits and astroturfing and trolling on the UIUC subreddit, which are actually the company's main reason for notability (as can be seen from the sources ]). Semi-protecting the article hasn't prevented this, and pending changes protection won't either, since there seem to be two autoconfirmed CoI/possibly paid editors, User:Verdict78 and User:HtownCat who advocate for the company and quietly change the article when this article isn't making its usual rounds on the AN/SPI drama boards and no one is paying attention to it. Blocking users/IPs is unlikely to work either, since the company has used a range of sockpuppets in the past (see the sockpuppet investigation ]), has access to a wide range of business and residential IP addresses, and many IPs which resolve to Sprint wireless. I see full-protection as the only option to contain this long-term pattern of tendentious editing. | |||
| JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page: | |||
| I am very skeptical of the bounty thing - the company is offering money to effectively push the article toward a version that presents the company in a more flattering light. They have used their financial power to bully, harass, intimidate, and silence students who criticized them on the internet (on Reddit, Yelp, etc.) by suing them or threatening to sue them, knowing very well that college students lack the financial means to fight back against a moneyed corporation. They have been unsuccessful largely because Ken White of ] has stepped in and arranged pro-bono assistance for the students sued or threatened with lawsuits (the relevant blog post is ). I hope Misplaced Pages doesn't allow money to become a factor in deciding who gets to influence the article, even if the money is under the guise of charity/donations/for a good cause. ] (]) 23:38, 24 October 2013 (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) | |||
| :: Suburban Express acknowledges AlmostGrad's hatred of Suburban Express, which is frequently expressed here and elsewhere. AlmostGrad has been a tireless detractor for many months. As previously stated, Suburban Express is concerned with false statements and false attributions made in the Suburban Express article and is working within the wikipedia "ecosystem" to facilitate correction of false statements and attributions. ] (]) 23:48, 24 October 2013 (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) | |||
| :::Translation: The problem isn't my drinking. The problem is you complaining about my drinking. --00:18, 25 October 2013 (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) | |||
| ::::SuburbanExpress sounds like an idiot for referring to itself repeatedly in the 3rd person, and by doing so makes it clear that the (ip) account is intended to represent a company (possibly used by multiple editors) which are both violations of wikipedia policy. ] (]) 00:24, 25 October 2013 (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) | |||
| :::::Your attack does not advance the discussion. ] (]) 00:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * I would say that for Uwappa to read this AN filing, reply to it (including something which could ''well'' be taken as a legal threat), and ''then'' immediately go back and the template for the fifth time (with an edit-summary of "Revert vandalism again", no less) shows a serious lack of self-awareness of the situation. ] 12:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I would also like to note that IP 99.147.29.158 is registered to Suburban Express | |||
| *: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) | |||
| ] (]) 01:03, 25 October 2013 (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) | |||
| ===Proposal=== | |||
| * 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) | |||
| A few editors have seen enough at the ] Talk page, here on the drama board and the company's approach to the bounty board to get a sense of things. This particular organization is unlikely to make any substantive positive contributions, but has a long track record of harassment, disruption and corrupt COI participation. | |||
| :* Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous. {{Blockquote|text=An editor must not perform {{strong|more}} than three reverts on a single page whether involving the same or different material—within a {{strong|24-hour period}}.|source=]}}. | |||
| I propose: | |||
| :* Suggestion: Add the following calculator to ]: | |||
| # Blocking the Suburban Express range of IP addresses that have been posting personal attacks: 99.147.28.112 - 99.147.28.119 | |||
| # Blocking non-disclosed paid editors ] and ] (perhaps this should be handled separately since they insist they do not have a COI) | |||
| # Increase the article's protection to either full protection or reviewer status | |||
| # Get the article on a few more watchlists, in particular for block evasion | |||
| ] (]) 02:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{calculator|id=edits|type=number|steps=1|size=3|default=3|min=0}} | |||
| ::Please point out examples of what you consider to be personal attacks by Suburban Express in this discussion, so that Suburban Express can avoid upsetting discussion participants in the future. Suburban Express understands that you may be uncomfortable being called out on false statements and false attributions, but criticism of your writing and citations is not intended to read as personal attacks.] (]) 02:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifless(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is less than three.}} | |||
| {{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifequal(edits,3)|is equal to three.}} | |||
| {{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifgreater(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is more than three.}} | |||
| :* ] (]) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::You have a page on your website about me that has personal information such as my name and where I live. ] (]) 18:37, 25 October 2013 (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) | |||
| :::You have repeatedly posted your personal information on Reddit. Suburban Express is asking users for specific examples where wikipedia users feel they were subject to personal attacks *on Misplaced Pages*. ] (]) 17:55, 25 October 2013 (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. | |||
| * '''strong support''' ] (]) 02:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :In recent edits on templates, Uwappa reverts changes to the basic template as "vandalism". No, what we're saying is "leave it alone, take a rest, and come back in a few years when more clinical research is completed." ] (]) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{ab}} | |||
| *This was closed, but...Uwappa's reply to their block was . Suggest revoking TPA. {{ping|Black Kite}} - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **. I've revoked TPA. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Kansascitt1225 ban appeal == | |||
| :::Looks like blocks may be in order anyway as block evasion. As Smallbones mentioned, there are previously blocked SPAs that are most likely the same person. ] (]) 14:01, 25 October 2013 (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> (] • 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) | |||
| === Counter Proposal === | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} ] (]/]) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The proposal above does not remedy the large number of false statements and false attributions in the Suburban Express article. | |||
| * '''(mildly involved) Support'''. I gave feedback on an earlier version of their ban appeal. This is five years since the initial block. Five years and many, many socks, and many, many arguments. But with no recent ban evasion and a commitment to communicate better, I think it's time to give a second chance. -- ] (]) 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per asilvering and ]. ] (]/]) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Five years is a long time. Willing to trust for a second chance.] (]) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Ideally I'd want to see some indication that they don't intend to ] as the issue seems to be rather ideological in nature and I don't see that addressed in the appeal. I also don't love the failure to understand a lot of issues around their block/conduct and their inability to effectively communicate ] and on their ]. ] (]) 00:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Would a topic ban from Kansas-related topics help? This was floated as a bare minimum two or so years ago. -- ] (]) 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I'm not that concerned by the RGW issue. Their communication on this appeal has been clear, they responded to my feedback regarding their unblock request, and they've indicated they'll not edit war and seek consensus for their edits. ] (]/]) 00:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five? In any event it's been a long time since they tried to evade. I'm leaning toward giving a second chance but I'd really like them to understand that walls of text are not a good way to communicate, that they need to post in paragraphs, and that Misplaced Pages is not a place for righting great wrongs. ] (]) 16:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{tq|Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five?}} ssssshhh. -- ] (]) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:] from KC:{{tq2|Yes I can write in paragraphs and list different ideas in separate paragraphs instead of a giant run on sentence.{{pb}}I wasn’t trying to right great wrongs but noticed the contrast of the definition of ] on Misplaced Pages and these communities being described as suburban (meanwhile some of these suburbs verifiably having lower residential to job ratio than the city and also a higher overall population density with some suburbs gaining population during the day due to commuters coming into them). This is essentially why on my case page It says I feel as tho something had to be “fixed”. I thought my edits were being removed simply because people didn’t like this place or some of its past so I felt as tho I was simply being purposefully misled which caused me to not follow proper civility.{{pb}}I just wanted to clarify that these places weren’t only residential and were major employment areas that they sometimes have a lower percentage of single family homes. This to me was always the opposite of what suburban meant, atleast what I learned during grade school and what it says on Misplaced Pages. That’s where the confusion came from. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}} ] (]/]) 02:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Six years is a long time, and they have shown growth. I do not think what is actually happening here is ], instead they ] and things went downhill from there. I think ] of {{tq|Jackson county being THE central county of the metropolitan area}} (which Misplaced Pages deems urban) {{tq|when you can see in the census reference here there are actually 6 central counties}} (which Misplaced Pages deems suburban) is reasonable. I researched it, but found the concerns are inconsistent with ] page which provides the definition that {{tq|An urban area is a human settlement with a high population density and an infrastructure of built environment. This is the core of a metropolitan statistical area in the United States, if it contains a population of more than 50,000.}} An urban area is the most urban area compared to its surroundings, even though its surroundings are quite dense. I hope this helps. ] (]) 22:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I add that their concerns that suburban designation misleads people seem to have merit. It is not the suburban designation that misleads people though, but the definition of suburban itself on the ] article seems to be misleading. I know this is not a place to discuss content, but discuss conduct. But some insight into content can help resolve problems. ] (]) 11:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == ftools is back! == | |||
| Suburban Express proposes that CorporateM, who has made a large percentage of the edits to the Suburban Express article in recent months, and is therefore responsible for most of the text and citations, undertake the following: | |||
| 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) | |||
| 1) Read each sentence of the article which is attributed to a source. | |||
| :{{like}} -] (]) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| 2) Read the cited source and verify that the attributed sentence/information is present in the source. | |||
| :Note: {{no ping|DreamRimmer}} is now also a maintainer. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :My congratulations/condolences. ] (]) 15:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :So, will ftools be renamed or not? Congratulations. ] (]) 02:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| 3) Correct all inconsistencies. | |||
| == Block appeal for ] == | |||
| Earlier, you seemed to profess to be concerned about these problems, so this proposal should not seem to onerous. Furthermore, undertaking the corrections would quickly dispose of the current matter and relieve others from making the corrections. ] (]) 02:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | status = unblock denied | |||
| | result = AKG has withdrawn the request. In any case, I see too many misgivings even on the "support" side to consider an unblock at this time. ] (]) 02:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Close as improper proposal''' and possibly trolling. A proposal at ANI has to propose something that an administrator has the right/power to do. For example, anyone can propose that I be required to no longer edit a particular article (also known as a topic ban) because administrators have the power/right to require that of me in order to prevent disruption. However, one cannot make a motion to require me to edit a particular article because I am always free to stop editing any page, and no administrator can force me to edit it or block me for refusing to edit it. --] (]) 04:34, 25 October 2013 (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: | |||
| :: This is obviously not a formal rule-based proposal. The goal was to bring this discussion back to earth and back to the issue at the top - inaccurate statements in the article and citations which do not support the statements. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :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. | |||
| ===Guidance Sought=== | |||
| :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. | |||
| Suburban Express has come here to make specific complaints about a specific user's contribution to the Suburban Express article. The complaints are objective and easily verified. Two examples were provided at the top, and pursuant to a very small number constructive suggestions, Suburban Express stated that it would provide a more comprehensive set of (objective) examples "this evening or tomorrow evening". | |||
| :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. | |||
| Misplaced Pages community has responded by attacking Suburban Express from every angle, making numerous repeated unsupported claims, hurling insults, and generally working to cause the discussion to drift far from the initial, objective, and valid complaint about the user and article. | |||
| :Once unblocked, I would like to improve drafts such as ] and ]. Looking forward to positive feedback. ''']''' <sup>('']'')</sup> 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Suburban Express will work to provide a well-supported list of false statements and false attributions/citations, and will post Friday evening.. | |||
| ] (]) 01:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| With regard to claims of personal attacks by Suburban Express in this particular arena - we are very puzzled by this. The way we see it: | |||
| *'''Support unblock without TBANs and with single account restriction.'''] (]) 01:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' as requested. The request is sincere. Having edited a fair amount of articles where I discovered this editor's edits, I found his edits thoroughly productive and that is absolutely uncommon in this area. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 01:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| SE: We have a problem. Here it is. | |||
| :* '''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">[]]</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">[]]</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.—] <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.—] <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) | |||
| Misplaced Pages: You are a-holes, F.U.. | |||
| :: I don't believe the PIA issue is a problem, only the IPA one. ] 18:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' an unblock based on this request. When I'm looking at an unblock request, I try to get a sense of whether someone is actually coming clean and saying 'I did this thing, I recognise that was out of order and I undertake that I won't do it again', or something along those lines. In this case, I don't see that. In their unblock request of 10 December 2024 (just a month ago), AKG seems still to be saying that they were not using multiple accounts - their argument seems to be that they accept there was a violation of ] and ], but the two accounts were used by two different people from the same device. They have since swung round to acknowledging that they were in fact using the Editorkamram account, but are saying that they thought that was OK since the account really belonged to somebody else and they only used it from time to time. I'm afraid I simply don't believe that story, and I don't know what to think about their shifting narratives - I get the sense of someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them, changing their story when it becomes apparent that it's not working, and failing to actually come clean about what they did and why they did it. If I don't trust someone in what they are saying in their unblock appeal, I don't trust them to abide by a one-account restriction - so, yeah, I don't think we can accept this request. Do some self-reflection, come back in six months with a frank and believable unblock request. ]] 18:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Seeing that AKG has agreed to the proposed IPA topic ban, the unblocking would be fine now. See no other issues. ] (]) 19:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' based on the comments from RoySmith and agree with their point that the AGF tank is gone for A.K.G. Any issues beyond a minor oops with their editing should be an immediate indef. No warnings, no "one last chance". That bridge was crossed, burned, torn down and barriers put up to block it from being rebuilt. ''']''' (]) 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I hope A.K.G recognizes that is a last chance for them, and returning quickly to a contentious topic could be challenging for them to stay cool, engage in discussions but not disruption and that there will be enhanced scrutiny on their edits and willingness to take concerns to an admin board. They can't edit as they did before. ''']''' (]) 19:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - I gave my reasons on the talk page; I don't trust this user. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Also I should point out that I was not involved whatsoever in the checks that led to this block; my comments on the talk page refer to emails I remember reading a year earlier on the private checkuser mailing list, which does not archive. I did check in relation to their unblock request recently and in my opinion that check was inconclusive; I elaborated on their user talk at the time. The result gives me pause because they had been using multiple accounts and evading checkuser for quite a long time before being blocked, while editing in one of our longest-designated contentious topics, one that's known to be very badly impacted by sockpuppetry and state-sanctioned disinformation campaigns. I suggested a topic ban from India-Pakistan for reasons that I think are already obvious from previous comments in this thread, and from Israel-Palestine because of something I thought I read on their talk page about a dispute in that topic, but I can't find that now and so I have to say I was probably out of line to have suggested it. But on the whole, I do not support unblocking, even with the proposed restriction. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Very, very '''weak support''' on unblocking here with a one-account and indefinite IPA topic ban restriction. I found my engagement with the editor at their talk page today to be somewhere between obstructionist and disingenuous — and from reading the comments above, others have got similar vibes from different comments earlier in this process regarding the sockpuppetry and willingness to accept a topic ban condition. As Ravensfire notes above, the assume good faith tank is just about empty here — which means any non-trivial lapse or return to suboptimal behaviours is going to end up with a pretty swift reblock. I am very sympathetic to the number of very experienced editors above saying that this editor is a time sink and a net negative, and while I don't necessarily disagree based on what I've seen at their talk page and the evidence presented here, I think it's worth trying here one more time — armed with account and topic ban restrictions, and a pretty clear sentiment from a number of admins commenting (both on the support and oppose sides) that any issues upon resuming editing will be handled swiftly. ] (]) 22:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support, but''' only with IPA topic ban, 1-account restriction, no VPN use, and no IPBE. That should allow us to be able to detect recidivism and limit potential damage. — ] ] 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 == | |||
| SE: We're trying to address this specific problem, let's stay on topic. | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = A list without citations or an indication that it meets ] is not going to be imported here. ] (]/]) 18:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| Can you import, ] from simple Misplaced Pages. I created the page there.<span id="Cactusisme:1736493543617:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)</span> | |||
| Misplaced Pages: F.U.register a username, the ip address you are using is registered to SE | |||
| :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'_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 09:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</span> | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators == | |||
| SE: We know the ip address is registered to SE. All statements from this ip address are from us. | |||
| The Arbitration Committee has resolved by ] that: | |||
| Misplaced Pages: You're disruptive. We're going to get the rope and torches and ban you for being disruptive. | |||
| {{ivmbox|1= | |||
| It is not clear to us how Misplaced Pages insulting Suburban Express in this discussion constitutes a ban-able infraction by Suburban Express. | |||
| 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. | |||
| Perhaps one of the least emotional participants can explain this to us. We are quite baffled. | |||
| The specific responsibilities of coordinating arbitrators shall include: | |||
| Also, we are quite puzzled by a contradiction we see here repeatedly. Misplaced Pages simultaneously refers to Suburban Express as small, puny, and not notable AND talks about Suburban Express as if it's a huge corporate monolith -- "the man" to be reviled by all. Suburban Express is probably neither. We are a small business that employs about 10 people regularly and up to 75 subcontracted employees a few days a year. We exist in a competitive market where we must be frugal at all times, deter fraud as best we can, jump through endless regulatory hoops, try to keep all our computers running and protected from online attackers, etc...all to eek out a modest profit--sometimes. So which is it? Puny and non-notable or huge and evil? Unfortunately, the world isn't actually binary like that. | |||
| * 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. | |||
| In any event, we will endeavor to post our analysis of the article tomorrow -- assuming that we have not been banned by then for letting ourselves be abused here. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| }} | |||
| ] |
For the Arbitration Committee, ] ] 23:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| : Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators}}'''<!-- ] (]) 23:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | |||
| :I'm unimpressed by a number of the responses above, and I can't explain them. Thank you for your transparency here. As I said above, a clear, comprehensive and concise case against CorporateM is needed if you want action on that - and you're best qualified (and motivated) to prepare that. To demonstrate tendentiousness, you may take into account behaviour going back some time. More than errors need to be shown, you need to make it clear how CorporateM's edits slant the tone against you in each instance. | |||
| == Backlog == | |||
| :But that doesn't address the issue of ] being given to negative reports, which may be the case, and possible over-reliance on poor sources. Of these last two, I'd be inclined to ''first'' take the sources, if you think some are not good quality per ], (a clear, concise list of any that concern you, explaining what each is being used to prove - a source may be suitable to support one kind of claim but not another) to ] for opinions and advice from uninvolved editors with experience assessing sources. ''Then'', once the sources have been sorted, open a thread at ] and ask for input on the amount and nature of text devoted to criticism. But you're free to do this in whatever sequence you're comfortable with, or not at all. | |||
| ] <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) | |||
| :I know how much time and effort this will involve, and you have my sympathy; but that is the best way forward that I can presently think of. Don't hesitate to ask here or at my talk page if you have any questions or want someone to look over anything before you present it to a noticeboard. --] (] · ] · ]) 07:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Requesting review of SPI == | |||
| :Actually, here's a much more concise guidance: '''Focus on the specific points in the article you would want to see re-evaluated, and drop the attacks against other editors'''. This thread here is laden with them, and pretty much everything else Suburban is writing is so too. It is very obvious at this stage that while the community at large will agree that the wording in the article can be improved and made more precise, there is also a consensus that you have no case against specific editors. | |||
| {{Atop|No need to have brought this here.--] (]) 23:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :In other words, focus on edits, not editors. This will leave open your capacity to bring up what you see as issues on the article's talk page, and seek further input at other places. | |||
| :I understand that the whole situation may be frustrating, but any further lashing out at or about anyone else here will lead to an indefinite block. This would limit your ability to comment about content to e-mail. ] ''<sup>'''(''']''')'''</sup>'' 08:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I strongly support the recommendations and advice given by ] and ]. Let's return to pragmatic problem solving. ] (]) 18:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd support forgiving Suburban Express of its extremely disruptive conduct on the condition that (1) it ''immediately'' start following MLauba and Anthonyhcole's advice and (2) it fully declare its COI for each associated account . I still think an ] is warranted regardless. The COI disclosures and SPI should happen ''before'' Suburban Express expands this mess to multiple additional noticeboards. --] (]) 19:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I recently filed an ]; any admin/checkuser eyes would be appreciated. Thank you! ] (] • ]) 22:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Clarification Sought: What is the proper way for multiple employees of one company who wish to participate in Misplaced Pages to set up accounts and declare their COI wrt a specific article? What we've seen here is that different users are either all presumed to be the same person, or they are branded sockpuppets of one another in what seems to be somewhat of a witch hunt. When different individuals are working to defend the company they work for, it is unclear how they are supposed to avoid accusations that they are the same individual or that they are sockpuppets of one another. If three individuals who are employed by Suburban Express wish to participate, what is the "proper" way to do this? ] (]) 19:27, 25 October 2013 (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) | |||
| :One way to do this is to add a <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> tag at the top of the talk page for each account that is associated with your company and has edited the article or its talk page. Be sure to read and understand ] and ] as well (in addition to ]). In light of these policies I'd say best practice is to have only one employee participate in any given dispute. --] (]) 19:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
| ::Thanks. We'll look at that carefully. ] (]) 19:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Username Suburban Express President has been registered. That should remove any ambiguity. Employees have been instructed to use connected contributor. We cannot, however, control the actions of subcontractors or employees of subcontractors, who have access to wifi we own in their buses.] (]) 20:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == IPBE for AWB account == | |||
| ::::We seem to be making this user jump through hoops just to get the name right, when all he wants to do is have input regarding an article about him. I hope we can leave the user-name issue now and focus on the content. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:17, 27 October 2013 (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 == | |||
| == Motion regarding ] == | |||
| {{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) | |||
| By of the committee, finding of fact 22, regarding Baseball Bugs, has been replaced by the following: | |||
| :This looks like the same complaint as ]. Let's centralise discussion there. I note that ] is also empty. ] (]) 11:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Tulsi (unblock request) == | |||
| :During the course of the dispute, {{user|Baseball Bugs}} frequently accused other participants in the dispute of misconduct , ; engaged in ] based on his personal view of the article subject's actions ; and needlessly personalised the dispute . | |||
| {{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: | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, ] ]] 22:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{talk quote block|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 {{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. | |||
| == Headaches with regards to ] == | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| I am making a request for some informal mediation to take place among the participants of the Linx (spacecraft) article and to review the behavior of ]. I think this needs to have a few additional eyeballs to witness the discussion and for perhaps policy to be explained to some of the participants as appropriate. Yes, I'm willing to be educated if I'm going over the top here too. | |||
| While I respect Rosguill’s decision to impose a block after the two-year gap, I understand that a block serves to prevent disruption rather than punish. I have learned valuable lessons from this experience, and my contributions over the past two years reflect this growth. In this time, I have created , all without any undisclosed paid editing or COI involvement. Additionally, I have contributed to patrolling, as seen in the ] and ]s, and I have reported several violations on WP:UAA. | |||
| I would appreciate any assistance from anybody involved in this matter. --] (]) 23:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :My observation, before I bailed out of that discussion for my own sanity's sake, is that Skyring/Pete (he signs using the latter name) is engaged in ] involving a complete misunderstanding of ] and ], with ] and/or ] using ] when contradicted. A quick glance at the shenanigans since then indicates no apparent change in behavior. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 02:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::My concern is that the article relies too much on primary sources and obvious press releases. We should drop those and use the numerous good secondary sources available, such as those from the and . That's in accord with ]. Cheers. --] (]) 02:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I acknowledge that I was not fully familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies in the past, but I have since taken the time to understand them better. I have been an active and committed user since October 2014, with significant contributions across various Wikimedia projects. I have also served as a sysop on Wikimedia Commons, Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki, and the Maithili and Nepali Wikipedias. | |||
| ::: Again, WP:PRIMARY does not exclude the use of primary sources from a Misplaced Pages article, and there is no need to perform a wholesale purge of those primary sources simply for the sake of using secondary sources alone. Besides, there are numerous secondary sources that are cited in this article, so I presume "too much reliance" is that any primary sources are used at all? --] (]) 06:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I am requesting an unblock because I am fully committed to abiding by all the established policies moving forward, and I am eager to contribute here in a constructive manner. Please kindly allow me a second chance. | |||
| :The problem with that article is not so much any one edit, but rather massive disruption to the process of building the encyclopedia by one particular editor, who repeatedly makes Bold edits (fine, as far as any one edit goes), and then refuses to enter into Discussions in good faith after his edit is reverted and a ] discussion started–because he continues to reinsert his edits (and/or citation deletions) into the encyclopedia while the discussion is ongoing (borderline edit warring, but usually stops short of the 4th edit in 24 hours (3RR); seems to be totally unable to hear the comments of multiple editors who challenge his non-consensus edits. That is the frequent reoccuring and general problem. When the disruptions initially started a few weeks ago, he also went ], plus opened up an AfD, on which a half dozen uninvolved editors did not side with his position. In fact, I don't believe any one of some ten or so editors who have dialogued with him have backed a single one of his positions. In short, disruptive behavior since his earliest edits on that article a couple of weeks ago. See the Talk page for more than enough background to assess what is going on there in that article; but he has also run off a couple of editors by arguing and not listening on other pages as well. Sadly, there is still a lot of work to do yet on that article just to clean up his previous deletions of citations. ] (]) 01:23, 27 October 2013 (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. | |||
| I suggested earlier, on an edit summary, that this could be moved to AN/I, given that it mainly relates to complaints about my editing behaviour. On closer examination, this could be something of concern to admins in general, namely the use of primary sources in certain articles to provide high-value links to commercial organisations. In the case of ], there are 32 links in the article, 13 of which lead to the manufacturer (XCOR) or their Caribbean ticketing agent (SXC). There were several more, before I began trimming them down, resulting in howls of outrage and dismay from the article's regular editors. Other similar articles display similar characteristics, such as: | |||
| * ] (57 links, 19 leading to SNC websites or YouTube channels), | |||
| * ] (60 links, 18 leading to manufacturer SpaceX). | |||
| * ] (50 links, 15 leading to SpaceX) | |||
| * ] (89 links, 21 leading to SpaceX) | |||
| There are undoubtedly more. This pattern of heavy reliance on primary sources seems to be rare in Misplaced Pages articles, at least for those with non-trivial link counts. --] (]) 06:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Sincerely, | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] ] 14:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Having had discussions with the blocking admin, we would like to seek community comments on the unblock request. | |||
| There are 11 pages whose edits by everybody require reviews. I really thought that level-two PC is no longer active. --] (]) 02:35, 25 October 2013 (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. | |||
| :7 pages and one redirect, actually. The testing pages are allowed. The result of ] was that there is no consensus for use of PC2 on the English Misplaced Pages other than on those test pages. Was there a more recent RfC? If not, these should all be converted to full or semi protection. --] (]) 13:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::There's no consensus to prohibit use of PC2, it's just not part of the standard protection policy. ] (]) 20:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *I cannot find the link for "A related meta-wiki discussion". <span>]]</span> 15:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I believe that you are mistaken. Besides the above-mentioned RfC. ] is an English Misplaced Pages policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow, and ] clearly states '''"Pending changes level 2 protection ... No consensus for use on the English Misplaced Pages per ]"'''. --] (]) 11:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **I've deleted those words. I had decided not to include them in my post, but accidentally left them in. For interest, the discussion was this one: ]. ] 15:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per ]. I will AGF that Tulsi will keep his promise not to engage in any COI editing going forward. ] (]/]) 16:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Question''': We are all volunteers here, so the applicant's comment {{tq|if I am ever in a situation where I am '''required''' to contribute to such an article}} (emphasis mine) is worrisome within the context of UPE/COI. Could they, or someone else for that matter, provide some clarification? ] (]) 19:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *: I assume "required" is just poor phrasing and refers to circumstances similar to ] provided in the same sentence you quote. In any event, the second part of the sentence states {{tq|<em>I will ensure full disclosure on the article talk page and submit it for review</em>}} (emphasis added). That promise is enough for me. ] (]/]) 21:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''', we should generally give a second chance to users who have greatly and fundamentally changed in several months. Given that the user acknowledged the block and promised not to engage in undisclosed paid editing, not to mention that the user is trusted elsewhere, I see no reason to oppose. ] (]) 20:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I believe in their ability to address any concern in the future, given that they served as a sysop on Wikimedia Commons, Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki, and the Maithili and Nepali Wikipedias. ] (]) 21:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' A second chance promises that Tulsi will not do highly undisclosed paid editing. I may partially support a topic ban on Nepalese politics against Tulsi. ] (]) 05:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There's no consensus to prohibit it's use either. There's ] but that proposal is "''only'' to end the trial". If you're contesting the use of PC2 on these pages, ] may be a reason to remove it if after discussion there's still no consensus on these specific protections, and local consensus can be used if there's no wider consensus. ] (]) 12:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Make the most of the second chance ] (]) 23:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I had already been kind of watcxhing the discussion on their talk page over the last few days, and agree with an SO unblock. ] ] 23:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :::::"No consensus for use" does, in fact, equal ''"do not use"''. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 00:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Snow in the forecast. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| I can't believe this article's AfD is still up and not closed as a ] keep. The nominator has acknowledged his mistake out of ignorance. He was in middle school when the subject first became notable, and never heard of him. If the media, or God forbid, Social Media, discovers this nomination, it will do great harm to the reputation of the Misplaced Pages community as being collectively ignorant or ''much, much worse''. I used to be an administrator, and would have closed this as keep. Please do something! ] (]) 16:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:Anybody can close an AfD as SNOW keep. That's the whole point of SNOW. ] (]/]) 16:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::Snowed by me. — ] ] 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 == | |||
| == Corbet's Couloir == | |||
| {{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. | |||
| ] and ] should redirect ]. Anyone know why they're blacklisted? ] (]) 03:18, 25 October 2013 (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. | |||
| :The first one has a Hex C2 92 before the s <nowiki>(CorbetÂ’s Couloir)</nowiki> and the second has a Hex C2 92 after the s <nowiki>(Corbet'sÂ’ Couloir)</nowiki>. Searching for either one brings you to a search result that links to ]. --] (]) 05:16, 25 October 2013 (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. | |||
| ::Strange... I wonder how I ended up with a Hex C2 92. Anyway, thanks. ] (]) 05:52, 25 October 2013 (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. | |||
| :::This is actually worth looking into for me, because I would like to get a better understanding of how the blacklist regex works, but it does not require administrator intervention, so I am going to pursue it elsewhere. | |||
| :::Before I do that, I have one final question that someone here might be able to answer (or should I ask at the help desk?); When I tried to open an edit window on the two links Brycehughes lists above using the usual "Misplaced Pages does not have an article with this exact name... Start the X article" link, I got a Permission error ("The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists") When an administrator tries to open an edit window does he/she get a more specific error message? If not, is there an easy way to find out which blacklist and which regex is being triggered? --] (]) 11:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I get no error message whatsoever. Creating either one of those would be as easy as creating ], which presumably isn't on a blacklist. ] (]) 12:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Confirm that Couloir1 is not on the blacklist and that I could create it if I wanted to. | |||
| :::::Also, the above tells me that if I want to create a page and the blacklist stops me, I can ask any administrator to create it for me. It would be nice if the admin got a message saying that he was creating something that the blacklist does not allow ordinary editors to create rather than silently allowing it but that's not something that should be dealt with here. I think we are done here, and this can be closed as resolved. --] (]) 12:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I solidly agree. I can't remember the specific page, but I know at least once I created something that was blacklisted, and if I remember rightly, I ended up realising that I shouldn't have created the blacklisted page in the first place. Besides telling us admins that we should be careful about creating pages with blacklisted titles, it would help us by giving us a clearer sense of what's impossible for non-admins to create — at least for me, the more I'm accustomed to admin userrights, the harder it is to remember how many things I can do that others can't. ] (]) 03:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::There's been a request since 2008 (]). Something that's possible already is to provide more information to editors who are unable to create blacklisted titles, either by adding the ] to ], which would display title and blacklist entry for any blocked title, or create custom messages for those likely to be mistakes (similar to ], but for control codes, soft hyphens and byte order marks). ] (]) 11:52, 26 October 2013 (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. | |||
| * I skied this run twice, but not very gracefully. First time spun around backwards and left my skis sticking in the snow, and had to climb 100m back up to get them. Second time crossed skis on the landing, but recovered and skied away. Wyoming, and Jackson are just amazing. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| To provide context, here are some of the sources I included: | |||
| == Kumioko socking == | |||
| • https://www.nationaldiversityawards.co.uk/awards-2024/nominations/ario-nahavandi/ | |||
| At ], Kumioko (]) is editing as a variable IP (, and as himself, but repeatedly pretends to be two different editors and uses that as an argument that he is right (" That editor is accused of being disgruntled and angry and then the user responds to several comments essentially confirming what I started the discussion about."). While he is not fooling any experienced editors, it is still a violation of ]. He was blocked early in 2013 for socking () and unblocked on the condition that "has agreed to edit solely from User:KumiokoCleanStart and not any other accounts or IPs. User:Kumioko remains globallylocked." I have no idea if that condition remains or has been lifted afterwards, but it doesn't really matter, since the socking he did in that discussion is ''never'' allowed. I'm not neutral or uninvolved wrt Kumioko, so I can't take any action here, but I don't believe this kind of disruption should be tolerated. ] (]) 08:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Ah I see Fram is up to his old tricks again. Just to clarify a few things: | |||
| :#Point one, I am disgruntled and angry. That parts true. I'm also a a ], I eat ] and I know how to use a ], that still doesn't mean I am socking. | |||
| :#I have told ] several times over the last few days. I have used that IP a couple times in the past. That doesn't mean I am socking, I'm not trying to mislead anyone. | |||
| :#That discussion and the vast majority of edits by that IP (as well as 138.162.8.58, 138.162.8.59 and the rest of the Navy) aren't me regardless of what Fram or that piece of shit checkuser program say. Those "experienced" editors he is referring too are mostly abusive admins that have wanted me gone for some time know because I have been vocal and critical of admin abuses and various other things that need to be changed for the better in this project. Since the project would rather keep abusive admins than to fix the system or get rid of them, frankly you deserve what you get at this point. But you can't say I didn't try to make things better. | |||
| :#What Fram and the checkusers don't tell you and generally don't want known is that the crappy checkuser application is wrong as much or more than its right and its extremely hard to use and interpret, particularly with high volume editors. It will show you I edited from this account, a couple Ip's (several of which are proxy servers used by a large number of people), that I use Windows, XP, 7 and 8 and Internet explorer 7 and Mozilla Firefox. Probably some other useless associations too. | |||
| :#The end state of this AN discussion is irrelevant because other than responding to notifications and talk page comments I have only made 3 edits in a month and a half. So it really doesn't matter to me if you block me or not. Because your going to be hurting the project, not me. But that hasn't mattered here in a long time and that's a large part of the reason why I left. | |||
| :#As a point of fact though, the block will do nothing to "protect Misplaced Pages from harm" because nothing has been harmed. So this block would be '''purely punitive''' and petty initiated by an Admin who has tried to get me (and most of the other highly active editors I might add) banned from the project for years. | |||
| :#Fram has done more harm to the project than I ever could in his quest to ban all the high volume editors. Because the more edits you do, the more likely you are too piss someone off and give them a reason and excuse to block you. | |||
| :#I would also add that unless you intend to range block the entire navy (138.156 and 138.162) and the entire verizon fios network, there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop me from editing '''if''' I want too. | |||
| ::#Additionally, just to clarify some things. The Kumioko account is globally locked because '''I''' made that happen, not because I was guilty of some widespread abuse. That comment is typical of Fram's ability and tendency to exhaggarate the truth to justify his own Point of view. | |||
| :So in the end, do whatever you all want. Because I have tried and failed to make this place better. Their are widespread problems and the community either doesn't see it, doesn't care or doesn't agree. So I have gone from being highly devoted and productive editor in the project project who believes in the intention of the goals of it, to being inferred and insinuated as being just another Vandal, sockmaster, POV warrior etc. This is mostly done to discredit me so the admins can continue abusing editors with impunity and protecting their POV edits, but who cares right. At least I'll be gone and you won't have to hear about all the problems; 10, 000+ edits won't get done a month; WikiProject United States and about 100 other US related projects will finally be allowed to die with no one supporting them; etc. So go ahead and feel free to block this account indef, make the site so that IP's can't edit and an account is required; go ahead and do all the other stupid things that will be the demise of this site. RANT OVER because no one is going to read this OR CARE!] (]) 11:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| • Taurus Magazine (2024-11-19). "Ario Nahavandi". Taurus Magazine. 88: 7 – via www.magcloud.com | |||
| :: Kumioko, look - in general, I (and I expect others) support your ''attempts'' to improve this project. However, in order to get those benefits, we have to far-too-regularly put up with ], ] and other ridiculous bovine excrement. That part of things is tiring. So, don't be surprised that when you PERSONALLY have a history of pointiness and other bullshit, that some people AUTOMAGICALLY ASSUME that you're simply continuing the same damned pattern. Whether it's you or not, because of your history, it sticks to you. The best idea would have been to not create the pattern of ridonculous behaviour in the first place, n'est-ce pas? <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 11:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::With respect, I seriously doubt that anyone, including you support my anything. That is not the feeling I have gotten....repeatedly and in no uncertain terms. Also, to which "pattern of ridonculous behaviour" are you referring. Me trying repeatedly to get the WMF to pull their head out of their nether regions and fix Visual editor; my constant attempts to instigate reform to the RFA process; my frequent comments about how the editing environment is toxic in WP because abusive admins aren't held to court; etc.? Or are you referring more specifically to my tendency to once a year get driven to the point where is say F' it I quite because I get tired of the insults, blaming, told how I can't be trusted; how WikiProject United States is so massive and unmanageable (which by the way is far far smaller than WikiProject Biography with about 2 million articles in it)? If the latter is the case, excuse me that I can only take so much before I get fed up. You all are right though. Generally in the past I have come back, but this time, I am really done. After I post this I am going to remove my email address so the notifications will stop being sent to me. That way I'll quite being blamed for Divaish activity because I replied. ] (]) 21:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| • 6x Magazine (2024-11-22). "Ario Nahavandi; The Persian Icon". 6X Magazine. 432: 6–7 – via www.magcloud.com | |||
| ::"I have used that IP a couple times in the past." and "the vast majority of edits by that IP aren't me". Looking at , the edits from 16 October are clearly Kumioko, the edits from 17 October are clearly Kumioko, but the edits from 18 to 24 October aren't you? The edits from are even clearer: the edits from 18 October, made between 18:20 and 18:25 are clearly by you, but the next ones, starting 16 minutes later, are ''not'' by you? (Note that one IP adds to the comment of the other, so we can at least be sure that the two IPs are the same editor here, before that gets denied as well). The IP claims "I do not think I sound anything like Kumioko. They are very angry, I am indifferent.", but I guess that it is better to let uninvolved editors make that call. ] (]) 12:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *To be honest, I find Kimioko's attempt at faking split personalities to be rather sad and childish, but I don't view it as disruptive, ''per se''. He's not double !voting on anything and he certainly is not misleading anyone. I would suggest he simply stick with one or the other however, because all he does with these little games is undermine his own credibility. ]] 13:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Kumioko has retired. - ] ] 20:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **Several times, IIRC. This retiring statement is a bit over the top. ]'']]]'' 20:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ***Just a thought, but if people would quite pinging me with notifications I would quite responding. I guess I could remove my email address from the site so I won't get notified, but if you all don't want me coming back, quite calling. ] (]) 21:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ****People get notifications for diffs? That needs to be fixed... ]'']]]'' 20:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for your time and consideration xx | |||
| Setting aside whatever's going on with Kumioko, I'm bothered to see that Fram is in any way involving himself with Jimbo's talk page, from which he is banned. Seeing as this is the only way Jimbo still exercises his right to unilaterally sanction editors, and seeing as Fram is, as far as I know, the only sitting admin to which he has done this, it seems to me that Fram should spend more time thinking about his own conduct than that of others.''' — <u>]]</u>'''] 18:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 23:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''Boomerangs for evrybody involved''' for being overly diva-ish and violating your respective bans. <span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #003399;">]</span><span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #FF8C00;">]</span> 18:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Administrators cannot override draft declines, and in fact the administrator toolset ]. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 23:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Topic ban appeal by Martinvl == | |||
| ::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. | |||
| {{archive top|1=There is zero chance of this being lifted, so I'm closing this. Martinvl is ''strongly advised'' to read ] to the comments of others here, as if this same tactic is adopted in any further appealing an indef ] is likely to hit. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 17:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::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. | |||
| ẦI wish to appeal this ban on a number of items. In order to speed things up, I plan to first contest a number of "show-stopper" procedural items - items which if upheld will save everybody having to wade through reams of text. | |||
| ::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. | |||
| *When Wee Curry Monster wrote that I had resumed edit-warring, he was not in full possession of the facts. | |||
| ::I kindly ask for your guidance—if administrators cannot intervene, who can I turn to for proper support in getting this article reviewed fairly? | |||
| *My version of the vote-stacking issue might well have got lost in a ]. | |||
| ::Thank you for your time. ] (]) 00:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *As an adjunct to my version of the vote-stacking episode, I made it clear that I did not intend to rebut the allegations against me until the vote-stacking issue had been cleared up. The closing editor has made no reference to this request and I have not yet rebutted the accusations made against me. | |||
| :::]. 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 == | |||
| ===Wee Curry Monster misunderstood my activity on the page Template:Systems of measurement === | |||
| {{atop green|Unanimous consent after 36 hours to lift the restriction. ] (]) 14:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Firstly, the claim by ] ('''WCM''') that I was continue to edit-war was ill-founded. Although he gave a number of references, he was unaware that I was in the process of preparing an for an investigation into ]. | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| EzEdit appears to be running an account for the sole purpose of discrediting then article ] of which I was the principal editor. If it transpires that EzEdit is running an account for this sole purpose, then the actions on which WCM commented were totally justified making WCM's claim ill-founded. This should be sufficient for the block to be raised forthwith. | |||
| 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 notice that this SPA request has been closed by an uninvolved administrator. I request that this SPA be reopened and investigated as part and parcel of my appeal. It is highly possible and that ] is a sock-puppet of the banned editor ] - he is ] like DeFacto but has possibly fooled ] by changing his editing habits and in particular using different sock-puppet accounts for each type of attack (cw a ]. For the record, ] used this technique - more details on request). If this is the case, then the trigger for this ban become null and void. | |||
| I appreciate your consideration. My best regards, ] (]) 01:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Wee Curry Monster factually misrepresented facts In his last posting=== | |||
| :'''Support.''' ] (]/]) 01:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| WCM's account of what happened in the last few hours is factually wrong. | |||
| :'''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) | |||
| *He stated that I was blocked for week. The actual period was 48 hours. | |||
| :'''Support'''. Welcome back comrade. ] (]) 06:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *He stated that I was edit-warring. The reality is that a new user EzEdit started edit-warring. In exasperation with EzEdit, I set the page back to its last stable version - the version that existed when EzEdit first opened his Misplaced Pages account. Since WCM had never been involved with that page, he was unable to asses the true situation. | |||
| :'''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. ] ] 08:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *His statement about ] showed his ignorance about legal matters. This is discussed in more detail in the section ]. | |||
| :'''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 == | |||
| ===Vote stacking issue=== | |||
| I twice outlined my reasons for vote-stacking: and . In both of these I laid out exactly why I was making accusations of vote-stacking. | |||
| My case might well have been hidden by a ], in which case the administrator might well have missed it - the first of these two posting is hidden under green banner with the text "Moot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)". The first of these requests were lying around for a week without action. | |||
| 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. | |||
| In both postings, I requested that if the closing administrator did not see fit to close the ANI on grounds of vote stacking, that I be in formed so that I could prepare a rebuttal of my case. | |||
| I request that the closing admin revisit the vote-stacking issue taking note that WCM selectively notified certain editors and as a result the whole case was prejudiced from the very beginning. Will the closing admin please also note that it was WCM who made which should also be viewed in the light of WCM's vote stacking. | |||
| ===Right of Reply=== | |||
| As explained earlier, I have not yet exercised my right to reply. I knew that to reply to an accusation where the vote-stacking issue had yet to be resolved would merely cause the ANI to expand out of all proportion, so I decided to wait until the evidence was in place and then, when requested to do so by the closing admin, reply. | |||
| ] (]) 22:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| May I draw to attention that Misplaced Pages has very strict rule about ]. Editors are also living people and like non-Wikipedians, are entitled to demand that facts about them are accurately reported. Normally if a Misplaced Pages discussion is getting out of control, an editor can walk away unscathed. However, if the discussion is about the editor concerned, then I submit the editor has an unfettered right, just as any other living person, to ensure that his rights are not infringed. | |||
| :To be clear, I don't think that @] is really at any fault here. | |||
| When I tried to exercise that right , ] suppressed that right. When I protested, User:Beyond My Ken was assisted by two other administrators to supress those rights further and to impose a 48 hour ban on me, (not a week as alleged by WCM). Beyond my Ken subsequently posted which showed his complete ignorance of the situation - Misplaced Pages is subject to the law of the State of Florida and as such, I have many rights. I do not know all of them, but everybody, including Beyond My Ken, must surely be aware of the right redress in cases of libel. These rights are very closely tied in with the concept of ]. | |||
| :] (]) 22:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] please see {{tl|copyvio-revdel}} on how to tag copyvios for attention. ] (]) 08:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Lardlegwarmers block appeal == | |||
| I ask therefore that the ban is lifted and that I have the right to reply without interruption from any other party. This is exactly what happens in a court of law - the accuser lays his case and then the defendant answer the case, thereby avoiding the problems of ]. | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = Essentially unanimous consensus to not unblock. ] ] 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| * {{userlinks|Lardlegwarmers}} | |||
| ===Misrepresentation of fact by other editors=== | |||
| 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">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{Under construction}} | |||
| === Statement from Lardlegwarmers === | |||
| In this section I will rebut the evidence placed by other editors. This will involve considerable preparation work by me and considerable work by whoever reads is, so rather than waste a lot time, it is probably best to initially examine the first parts of the appeal. If those are grounds for the appeal to be upheld, then a lot of work will be saved all round. | |||
| 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">[]]</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 | ] | ] 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. — <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.}} ] ] 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. ] ] 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">[]]</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">[]]</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">[]]</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. ] ] 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 === | |||
| ] (]) 21:43, 25 October 2013 (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 == | |||
| ===Discussion=== | |||
| {{atop | |||
| *This appeal is a very good example of why, in my !vote supporting a topic ban, I commented that an indef block would probably be more appropriate. Martinvl's behavior – tendentious editing, lack of collegiality and collaborative spirit, battleground attitude, IDHT, lack of understanding of the nature of the project and extreme Wikilawyering – is a strong indication that he is not a good match for this project. At this time I will not call for an indef block, but I do '''strongly oppose''' his appeal; however, if Martinvl does not turn his behavior around and start editing productively in areas outside of his topic ban, then I do think an indef block will be called for. ] (]) 21:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| | result = This is not an administrative issue. ] (]/]) 20:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*Since it is pertinent here, I will repeat my statement that Martinvl refers to above as "completely ignorant." It is, of course, precisely correct, just as his protestation about the laws of Florida is totally irrelevant: <blockquote>Your misunderstanding is that '''''you have <u>no</u> rights here''''', nor does anyone else who edits Misplaced Pages. This is a private website, operating under rules promulgated by the WMF and further developed by the community of editors. '''''You have no "right" to edit here",''''' no "right" to have "justice" done, no "right" to due process. What you have is an obligation to follow community-determined mores of behavior. Period. If you don't understand that, you will never be happy here, and if you don't '''''observe''''' that obligation, the community can, and will, turn you out without batting an eyelash, and you will have no "right" of protest - although the community will almost certainly allow you to appeal any ban, even though it is not obliged to do so. Does that make the situation any clearer to you?</blockquote> ] (]) 21:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| ::*Just a quick note to point out that Martinvl has, in the very short time it has been in effect, already broken his topic ban. He if the ban could be relaxed so that he could report another editor's behavior in the topic ban area, but '''''did not wait for a response''''' and went ahead and a few minutes later. (The answer, which came a few minutes after that, was .) This behavior seems typical of Martinvl's sense of entitlement and unwillingness to "play by the rules". ] (]) 22:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *The claim to refuse to address the substance because there was some other process issue, makes this appeal seem unworthy of much consideration. Sorry, you did not address the substance when you had a chance to, but that was your decision (and may, in part, have led to the TB because it was seen as stonewalling by not addressing the substance). ] (]) 22:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Action is needed to prevent any further ] combined with misguided wikilawyering. Here is the of Martinvl adding the following text in the OP above: "{{xt|Misplaced Pages is subject to the law of the State of Florida and as such, I have many rights. I do not know all of them, but everybody, including Beyond My Ken, must surely be aware of the right redress in cases of libel.}}" That is a friendly reminder to BMK that they are subject to legal redress for comments made at Misplaced Pages, and that is as misguided as it gets. The entire tone of the OP shows that an extended break from Misplaced Pages is necessary to prevent further time wasting. ] (]) 00:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*Thanks but I have no concerns. Truth is an absolute defense for a claim of libel. ] (]) 01:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I'm glad you are not concerned, but I am (and you would be too if you seriously thought about the consequences of being involved in a lengthy and highly disruptive legal process, regardless of personal confidence in the outcome). ] is not switched off if the threatened editor is not concerned, and the reason for that is the chilling effect upon other editors who may have been contemplating commenting in relation to the issue. ] (]) 01:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Sorry not to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that my lack of concern had '''''any''''' bearing on whether Martinvl's comment was a legal threat or not, as we define it. In fact, now that the statement has been pointed out to me, I do think it fulfills the requirements of ], and is yet another reason why an indef block may be required. (And, yes indeed, I've given his comment every bit of thought it deserved.) ] (]) 02:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *While that's clearly unhelpful wikilawyering and Martinvl should strike the comment, I don't think that it was intended as a legal threat. My reading of the discussion at ANI which led to the ban is that Martinvl has the mistaken belief that Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution process runs through a formal legal process. He also tried to have the ANI thread closed due to what he claimed were procedural problems, and it's concerning that he's doubled down on this failed argument by opening this thread dispute the lack of support he received for this position and the attempts by myself and several others to point out that the crux of the issue is his conduct and that the procedural matters he raised are irrelevant at best. As this appears to be classic ] and ] conduct, I agree that an indefinite duration block appears to be in order until Martinvl provides commitments to abide by the topic ban and avoid disruptive conduct such as this. ] (]) 00:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Regardless of the earlier history, I agree with Johnuniq that the edit referred to above is an invocation of external legal systems to intimidate, and thus a violation of the spirit of ]. It is true that everyone does have some rights here: however, among the most important of them is the right to be free from attempts at intimidation. I agree that a substantial block of Martinvl is justified to maintain an open editing environment. ''']''' (]) 00:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::No rights here, privately owned website. I guess if someone steals your stuff from off-wiki (copyvio) you have the right to send WMF a take-down notice, but that's about it. <small>]</small> 01:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, {{ping|NE Ent}}, the CC-BY-SA licence on contributions here is irrevocable. You might be able to get something taken down, but it would be done as a courtesy or out of pragmatism, rather than through the exercise of a right. A third party’s violation of the conditions is not WP’s problem.—]]] 23:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you issued WMF with a DMCA takedown for an image you uploaded, they would be ''obliged'' to takedown the image with an OFFICE action to comply with the DMCA, it would not be handled as a mere courtesy deletion. IIRC that has happened on Commons, even though that's not really the task of the DMCA. If the takedown is contested, then legal action may well follow (and a block necessary to ensure legal processes occur elsewhere).--]] (]) 23:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If WMF gets a legit takedown, they remove the content; see example <small>]</small> 02:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question''' I am trying to understand the voluminous earlier history. Am I correct that there is no substantive issue of content involved: that the dispute is over how the group of articles on the subject should be arranged and linked in the template? If so, this discussing is an example of what has become a frequent misuse of WP AN and WP:ANI, wasting everyone's time over the unimportant--some uninvolved editor should decide one way or another and the issue settled. If our procedure does not provide for this, it should be evoked by IAR. ''']''' (]) 00:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Response '''The ANI thread didn't begin with any mention of that template and hardly anyone touched on it. It is arguable that Martinvl was not wise to risk appearing to edit-war over the template rather than engage with the ANI discussion, as that did prompt a request for the discussion to be closed. ] (]) 11:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **I've had past run-ins with this editor, but I would have to agree with Nick-D - if he shows no intention to abide by his topic ban, an indefinite block is in order. --''']]]''' 01:51, 26 October 2013 (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. | |||
| Note: The Florida stuff is a historical artifact from when servers where located there -- WMF now recommends simply "US law" per ]. <small>]</small> 01:05, 26 October 2013 (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) | |||
| If this ban is to be sustainable, then '''all three''' of the issues that I have outlined need to be addressed. So far, nobody has dealt with the vote-stacking issue. ]'s actions "ticked all the boxes" in respect of vote-stacking. In so doing, he introduced a ] into this discussion. The introduction of systematic bias is sufficient to get the whole discussion declared null and void, and possibly for the proposer himself to be banned. ] (]) 06:17, 26 October 2013 (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) | |||
| :That isn't how Misplaced Pages processes work at all. We don't have formal legal-syle processes or apply formal legal-sytle tests as you are arguing here. There was a discussion of your conduct and how to respond to it (to which you had ample opportunity to respond), and the consensus was to apply a topic ban. The judgement of the admin who closed the discussion was sound and in line with policy. ] (]) 06:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ::Martinvl appears to be unwilling to acknowledge that multiple admins and long-term editors have dismissed his "vote-stacking" allegations as unfounded. Those interested can peruse the topic ban discussion above, and the discussions on Martinvl's talkg page (now deleted) to find them, but the most obvious one came in the closing by TParis. In short, Martinvl, '''''the vote stacking case is done, caput, finished.''''' You did not prevail. You were on the losing side. No one thought it was a problem. Get over it. ] (]) 08:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' any modification of the topic ban of this editor who is doggedly determined to push a POV regarding measurement systems. Nobody stacked my vote; I am 100% independent. The editor has utterly failed to reflect on their own problematic behavior, and instead, as I see it, persists in wallowing in the swamp called "Wikilawyering". ] ] 06:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Matinvl, if you wish to demonstrate to the community that your topic ban should be removed, then you will need to justify that in terms of ''your own conduct''. To do that, demonstrate either that your conduct in the initial dispute was not problematic in the first (by focusing on your own actions), or that you realise your conduct was (and is) problematic and you will not do so again. | |||
| :Realistically you need to reflect on your own actions, including the wikilawyering, and understand why your conduct is wrong. If can change your approach, and demonstrate that you have improved and are able to act in a collaborative manner (which will need time), then the ban will not be needed and will likely be removed. | |||
| :Your quasi-legal approach, along with the failure to listen to the views of others (how many have told you to stop it?), has ZERO chance of getting the ban removed. As others have noted, you are heading towards an indefinite block.--]] (]) 08:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment:''' There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --] (]) 18:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == |
== Reporting Administrator Abuse == | ||
| {{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) | |||
| Dear administrators. Would you please help me to update and overwrite MTN Irancell Logo? | |||
| Current logo in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Irancell.gif | |||
| New MTN Irancell logo: http://irancell.ir/Portal/Picture/ShowPicture.aspx?ID=0f0b542f-e0e1-4877-b6f7-6a6fcb15fe28 | |||
| Thanks in advice | |||
| --] (]) 11:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Any help? --] (]) 12:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : Posting this request in the middle of the board, as opposed to the bottom where it belongs won't help - however, I have left you some image-related help on your talkpage. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 13:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :So there's two things here. | |||
| == Pashtun diaspora / people == | |||
| :* 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 | ] | ] 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 | ] | ] 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 | ] | ] 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 | ] | ] 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 | ] | ] 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 | ] | ] 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? ] ] 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) | |||
| Could someone take a look at ] and ]? There seems to be a heated battle going on. --] (]) 16:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
| == Ban appeal from Rathfelder == | |||
| * {{userlinks|Rathfelder}} | |||
| == User: Suburban_Express replaced with user: Suburban Express President == | |||
| * ] for sockpuppetry, vote-stacking and undisclosed COI writing of a BLP attack page | |||
| * ] declined by the community | |||
| * ] not submitted for review by the community for not complying with ] | |||
| Rathfelder has submitted the following ban appeal on their talk page and asked me to copy it here: | |||
| User smartse blocked user Suburban_Express, apparently because the name has potential to be interpreted as being used by multiple users. User Julia_Abril suggested that the username was problematic, but we apparently did not resolve the problem quickly enough. Please be advised that user Suburban Express President has been registered to remedy the problems with user Suburban_Express. Please don't launch the sockpuppet nukes. We're trying to understand your secret society and adhere to its (numerous and often confusing!) rules. | |||
| {{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) | |||
| We continue to work on the promised materials for the earlier complaint, above. It is turning out to be a very time-consuming project. | |||
| *'''Question''' during the January 2024 unblock request Rathfelder said they would be willing to accept a restriction on editing articles related to BLPs or healthcare orgs. Are they still willing to accept those edit restrictions if they are un-banned? Furthermore, in January 2024 there was, at the time, no evidence of any further socking. Can we confirm that good behaviour has continued? ] (]) 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Appealing April 4 2024, indefinite WP:CUP ban and indefinite 1-nomination GAN limit == | |||
| Thanks ] (]) 20:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :You really don't know what the problem is with your name, do you? ] 21:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::], if the editor knew there was a problem with the name he wouldn't have chosen it. Only a total ignoramus expects everyone to know everything he knows; especially regarding something as impenetrable as Misplaced Pages norms. --] (] · ] · ]) 16:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Your message reads as sarcasm, user:GamerPro64. Perhaps you are willing to explain what you mean. In the meantime, I have chosen to follow the guidance provided byuser: Julia_Abril. If anyone else wants to help me understand GamerPro64 's unspoken message, I would appreciate any non-sarcastic guidance you wish to offer. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::Your name still refers explicitly to your company and therefore fails ] for the same reason your original name did. You need to have a username that doesn't mention your company, at all. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 00:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Re: using sarcastic phrases such as "We're trying to understand your secret society" while accusing others who show no signs of sarcasm of being sarcastic, do you see this pot? What color is it? How about this kettle? Really? The ''same'' color? What are the odds? --] (]) 00:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The editor makes a perfectly valid point about the "secret society". Our norms are dense and confusing to newcomers. This is a person who, at least on its face, has a Misplaced Pages article heavily weighted to vilifying him and his company, and he needs help learning how to work with us, not this kind of puerility. --] (] · ] · ]) 16:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Everyone please step back for a moment. Suburban express was blocked simply for {{tl|uw-ublock}}, with no additional or more specific reason given by the blocking admin. As far as I can see, Julia Abril was the only person to suggest that the username was problematic, and concentrated on a ] violation, rather than the spam-username issue. Between these two facts, it looks to me as if SEP really didn't know what the problem was with the "SEP" username. Meanwhile, ] blocked SEP with a {{tl|uw-spamublock}} message, and SEP has requested a username change to "Arri416". I'm going to grant the unblock with the usual "request a name change immediately" advice and a reminder to follow WP:SPAM/WP:COI/etc. very very carefully. ] (]) 01:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|The Bushranger}} actually, that's not quite true. Users are allowed to mention a company or organisation in their user name, as long as it is clear that the username belongs to a specific individual. ] probably thought that the new name was ok because it pointed to a specific individual at the company, but actually it is possible that the position of president might change in the future, so I think that "Suburban Express President" still doesn't tie the account down to an individual person. Something like ] would be ok, however. (The policy details are at ] and ] if anyone is interested.) — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 06:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yep. Orangemike's use of the {{tl|uw-spamublock}} template was wrong and confusing. The editor was clearly trying to be transparent, not using the username to advertise his company. Presidents change, so the problem was with ]. Rather than a change to the meaningless "Arri416", I'd prefer to see something like "Suburban Express Arri"; and others from the company calling themselves "Suburban Express Sally", "Suburban Express Joe" or whatever. --] (] · ] · ]) 16:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Arri. From the above it should be clear that you're in an an odd environment here. The '''''only''''' way forward is to (a) read and abide by the policies and guidelines you're pointed to and (b) remain polite and constructive at all times, most especially on article talk pages (which should be hallowed ground on this project). (A) is mind-numbingly tedious and (b) requires super-human ] - but I'm sure you're up to it. Ultimately, it's about seeming reasonable and persuading the genuinely open-minded through sound policy-based argument. --] (] · ] · ]) 17:21, 27 October 2013 (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) | |||
| == Review requested == | |||
| :'''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) | |||
| I have semi protected ] for a week and indef blocked {{user|Benji7674}}, whose sole activity so far has been to remove material from the Goeth article. Seems pretty staightforward but I am posting here for review as I have done extensive editing on the article. Thanks, -- ] (]) 03:16, 27 October 2013 (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) | |||
| :Yes to the block. The semi-protection now appears to be unwarranted. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 03:32, 27 October 2013 (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) | |||
| ::Thanks for the feedback. I have taken off the protection as suggested. -- ] (]) 06:12, 27 October 2013 (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". ] ] 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. ♠]♠ ] 21:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==Requesting info== | |||
| == Permissions request == | |||
| 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) | |||
| This being my public account, could you kindly apply all the rights and privileges of my regular ]? Thank you. ] (]) 17:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:03, 17 January 2025
Notices of interest to administrators
| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
- 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 discussionOpen tasks
Centralized discussion| 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 | |||||||||
| 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
- 5 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 0 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 38 sockpuppet investigations
- 48 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 2 Fully protected edit requests
- 0 Candidates for history merging
- 0 requests for RD1 redaction
- 94 elapsed requested moves
- 1 Pages at move review
- 20 requested closures
- 14 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 13 Copyright problems
Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request
The following is copied from User talk:Sander.v.Ginkel#Unblock_request on behalf of Sander.v.Ginkel:
I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: User:SportsOlympic and User:MFriedman (note that the two other accounts –- User:Dilliedillie and User:Vaintrain -- at Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Sander.v.Ginkel was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me.
Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (User:Tamzin, User:Xoak, User:Ingenuity) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see User:SportsOlympic). I have created over 900 pages (see here), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance simple:Annie van de Blankevoort, simple:1928 Belgium–Netherlands women's athletics competition, simple:Julia Beelaerts van Blokland, simple:Esther Bekkers-Lopes Cardozo or the event simple:Water polo at the 1922 Women's Olympiad that is barely mentioned at the English 1922 Women's Olympiad. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see here and here when I forgot to log in.
However, as I have learned from it, I will never use multiple accounts anymore and adding controversial content without doing a proper fact-check. I will always listen to users, be constructive and be friendly. I will make sure you will not regret giving me my account back. I would like to work under the account user:SportsOlympic.
Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support unbanning and unblocking per WP:SO. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Quoting my SPI comment in 2022:
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)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.
- 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)
- @Ahri Boy: Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 23 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)
- 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 tomake constructive content
would indicate thatthe 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)
- I think saying that
- 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 onmass-creating non-notable stubs
. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And he admits that he was
- 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)
- Support With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to start over. Frank Anchor 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. KatoKungLee (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Fram and PMC. —Compassionate727 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Question: Is SvG the same person as Slowking4? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by Dirk Beetstra. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose basically per JoelleJay, particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get WP:AUTOPATROLLED without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). FOARP (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since WP:NSPORT was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.
Support. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC) - Conditional support unblock (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use WP:AFC for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support I can't repeat what Beaniefan11 say enough: "Come on – it's been nearly seven years since the ban – why can't we give another chance? And he admits that he was
too focused on quantity, rather than quality
, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused onmass-creating non-notable stubs
." This should assuage any doubt in the mind of the reviewing administrator. Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft
I have not come across a situation like Draft:Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it.
It is a draft article about a film that can not have an article, per WP:NFF. I think the idea is that there is some valuable content there and it would be a shame to delete it when it seems likely that the film will enter final animation and voice recording in the next year or so.
The problem is that it is attracting the sort of speculative edits from IPs that we want to avoid. Both on the draft and the talk page.
I became aware of this because there is a request at WP:RPPI to EC-protect the talk page. But it makes me think we should have some kind of protection for the draft too. But I can see arguments for weaker than ECP (speculation is just by IPs) and for stronger... like... why are people editing it anyway? Maybe there are reasons I am not aware of.
Is anyone more familiar with how we got here? Anyone got any arguments for or against applying semi, EC or full protection to the draft and its talk page?
Edit: Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF?
Yaris678 (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware, articles on films are allowed so long as principal photography has occurred (principal animation in this case, I guess?). That has clearly happened for this film, even if they are having to scrap and re-write things. And notability is certainly not in question, so having an article is fully within the policy rules. If there are harmful edits happening, then semi-protection seems like a normal response. Silverseren 00:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- People say that on the draft's talk page every so often and get rebuffed. Maybe you can be more persuasive, but the general argument is the existing animation was created for "Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse" before it was split into two films and no "final animation" has begun on this film. Yaris678 (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Are they basing that claim on any reliable source as evidence? Since what exists in that draft currently with reliable sources clearly indicates work has started. Silverseren 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm the editor who has requested the protection for this draft. Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace. Final animation is different from standard reels being produced, which as sourced, is currently what this film has produced while no voice recording has occurred. It seems to still be very early in development, and much of the earlier work when this was the second part was reportedly scrapped (as sourced in the draft). I do not believe the mainspace viability ought to be discussed here as that is more for the draft. As for the protection request, it appears to be the same person making these disruptive comments which have become unnecessarily excessive and are detracting from the content of the draft itself. I requested protection (initially as ECP though semi works for the talk) because these comments have not benefitted any actual constructive progress and have largely ranged from the IPs attempting to enforce their own opinions about the delays and trying to remove sources they don't like, which has been ongoing since the end of October. As a draft, not many other editors are editing this, so it becomes quite unrelenting and tiresome to deal with these repeated disruptions. Glad to see this has garnered more attention. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace
...I'm pretty sure that BtSV meets WP:GNG already, regardless of the state of production, and that should be the main factor. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)- I have no problem with the draft being moved, this is just not the normal route to do so and typically NFF is followed for film articles, but I digress. I do caution that this article could be susceptible to further unconstructive comments in the mainspace, but that is a price I'm willing to handle. I can make the move as needed, no worries, I am primarily concerned about these type of comments continuing and if any protection is necessary to prevent or temporarily postpone them from continuing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Can you elaborate on which aspect of
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- WP:MOS says:
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' asAccident. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Incident includes accidents AND intentional acts. Buffs (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 statedAirliner 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)
- 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.
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)
- Found it. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#Desertambition's hostile edit history. Tarlby 04:35, 4 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- Wow, I am glad you asked.
- 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)
- No it is not a legal threat. It is about "WP rules and regulations", not about law.
- I did not make a legal threat. Uwappa (talk) 08:33, 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)
- Black_Kite, how do you know where I am? Are you spying on me, disclosing personal information?
- 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)
- I expect it’s just empty talk to get an upper hand in the dispute. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:37, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
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:
- Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous.
3 is less than three. is equal to three. is more than three.
-
- From WP:EW;
Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring
. Which this quite obviously does, especially as you've reverted twice whilst this report was ongoing. Frankly, you're quite fortunate it was only a partial block. Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- From WP:EW;
- 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)
- 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)
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
- 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)
- (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:
voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)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)
- 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 thatAn 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)
ftools is back!
I am proud to announce that I have become the new maintainer of Fastily's ftools, which is live here. And yes, this includes the IP range calculator! JJPMaster (she/they) 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: DreamRimmer is now also a maintainer. JJPMaster (she/they) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- My congratulations/condolences. Buffs (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- So, will ftools be renamed or not? Congratulations. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Block appeal for User:Aman.kumar.goel
UNBLOCK DENIED AKG has withdrawn the request. In any case, I see too many misgivings even on the "support" side to consider an unblock at this time. asilvering (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am bringing a somewhat unusual unblock request here for broader community input. Aman.kumar.goel has been blocked for more than a year for sockpuppetry (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Aman.kumar.goel/Archive). As you can see in the unblock request at User talk:Aman.kumar.goel#Unblock request, they have agreed to a one-account restriction as an unblock condition, and there is no CU-confirmed evidence of recent sockpuppetry. However, Ivanvector, who made that check, is skeptical and has declined to support an unblock. A topic ban from WP:ARBPIA and WP:ARBIPA were floated as additional possible conditions, but no agreement was reached, and Aman.kumar.goel has requested that their unblock request be considered by the wider community. Their statement is as follows:
- I was blocked for sockpuppetry. There was no doubt throughout the discussion over that. I have agreed to a one-account restriction. However, during the unblock request, a topic ban on me was proposed from Israel-Palestine (WP:ARBPIA) and also from Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (WP:ARBIPA). Though no proper evidence was provided to substantiate such proposals.
- While the proposal to topic ban me from WP:ARBPIA does not make any sense because I haven't even edited that area, I would nevertheless reject the proposed topic ban from WP:ARBIPA with explanation because in this area I have been significantly active.
- My edits on WP:ARBIPA were clearly net-positive, and they fixed the long-term problems that were otherwise overlooked for a long time. You can find the deletion of a number of non-notable pro-Hindutva articles, creation of SPIs of future LTAs, and multiple DYKs. That said, the idea to topic ban me achieves nothing good. Black Kite himself said "
The edits aren't the issue here, it's socking in the IPA area that is.
". However, for the offense of sockpuppetry, I have already agreed to one-account restriction and spent over 1 year blocked.
- Once unblocked, I would like to improve drafts such as Draft:Aeroin Spacetech and Draft:Omspace Rocket and Exploration. Looking forward to positive feedback. Aman Kumar Goel 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
asilvering (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support 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)
- 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)
- 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 indicatessomeone 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:
voorts (talk/contributions) 02:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @Extraordinary Writ, response from AKG copied over:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Import request
A list without citations or an indication that it meets WP:NLIST is not going to be imported here. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can you import, List of characters in brawl stars from simple Misplaced Pages. I created the page there. — Cactus🌵 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I suppose you mean this page, which you didn't create at all though, and which is completely unsuitable for enwiki as it stands, being unsourced and lacking all indication of notability. Fram (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, they did create the page. JJPMaster (she/they) 15:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fram, oh, okay — Cactus🌵 09:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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,
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)
- 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
- 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)
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)
- Snowed by me. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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
Statement from Tamzin
Excerpting my comment on their talkpage:-- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)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.
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
banblock 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 thebanblock 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)
- Should clarify that despite what I said above, I'd weakly oppose extending the topic
- 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)
- PS: What Tamzin said in her statement above. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- An account that exists only to push a particular POV across several articles is topic banned, violates that topic ban immediately, and posts a battlegroundy unblock request that thoroughly misses the point. Whoever closes this should be considering indef, not an unblock. — Rhododendrites \\ 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock this specific response
Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement
is indicative of their viewpoints and why they're not ready to contribute. They continue,my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed
. These demonstrate that they still do not get it, and rather project their self-perspective is that they are actually a victim of people who are abusing the rules against them. . I proffer that this is going to be a consistent problem until they acknowledge that they were violating policy. Zero indication that they know how to positively contribute, just perhaps a vague inference that they'll avoid getting in trouble -- because -- we'll I'm not entirely sure they've communicated what they will do differently, but rather simply say thata 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oppose unblock, oppose indef - The topic ban violation was clear cut. Let's hope Lardlegwarmers will read a bit about how to avoid topic ban violations, or else indef block is not too far for them. Lorstaking (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock, extend block indefinitely - Lardle should try to demonstrate good behavior on another wiki for six months before asking for a SO. Let's hope that this user should handle contentious topics carefully in the future. Ahri Boy (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock but no reason to indef, a block has already been imposed. If the user continues to violate the TBAN, than a longer block might be warranted. JayCubby 02:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Comments from involved editors
- Going to open a new subsection here since I've made comments to Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory two weeks ago. I wish I could say I was surprised that this ended in tears but that would be untrue (though I did have some hopes the comment a month ago indicating they were aware pro-fringe POV-pushing was sactionable was a signal they were intending to modify their behaviour). As bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez points out, making thinly veiled attacks is not exactly the type of thing looked favourably upon in an unblock request. Nor is making polemical statements on one's user page, whether within the scope of the ban or not, likely to convince the community of one's inclination and ability to be a productive editor. Lardlegwarmers, if you do really want to return to editing, especially if you want to appeal your topic ban in 6 months or a year, I would strongly advise reading Misplaced Pages:Guide to appealing blocks and following the advice there, especially WP:NOTTHEM. Complaining about Hob's conduct won't help you here, because the block (and it's a rather short one) and ban are about you, not Hob. Given your comment that
apparently two wrongs make a right
, I had hoped that you were already also considering your own behaviour, but I would like to make it very clear: taking the role of one of the "wrongs" to address someone else's "borderline uncivil" behaviour is not itself considered acceptable behaviour. Whether Hob crosses the line is on them, but what you do is entirely on you. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC) - As I was involved in the discussion to topic ban LLW I think I count as an involved editor. With that said I would discourage an early lifting of this block, which seems appropriate considering that LLW's response to the topic ban was to immediately violate the topic ban. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, perhaps LLW wasn't aware of this, but people who aren't uninvolved administrators aren't generally supposed to put comments into the "results" section of an AE filing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was there.. Three thousand ye-- No. More like one, two days ago. I seriously believe Lard Leg Warmers is one of two situations: 1: WP:CIR and unable to understand the concepts of medical science as if they were a Facebook mother invested in "essential oils" and "holistic medicine" rather than trusting medical and scientific experts; 2: WP:NOTHERE and simply f
**king with us for no good reason and leading us around, and around, and around, and around, and around the bend because they get a rise out of it. Either way, my advice: don't get led around the bend, advise indef block for either WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE. BarntToust 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- BarntToust, those kinds of personal assumptions about their character are unnecessary to this discussion. Instead of speculation on who they are elsewhere, let's just focus on their behavior on Misplaced Pages. Liz 06:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lardlegwarmers' statement clearly shows that they have learned little from the sanction. They should demonstrate such before there is any lifting. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Usage of 'Notable people' vis-a-vis 'Notable person' in section headers
This is not an administrative issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the course of editing numerous articles, I have come across the header featuring 'notable people' when there is only one person and have therefore modified the grammar.
I recently had another editor come behind me and revert one such edit on the grounds that things have always been done this way, regardless of the number of notables for a given locale, which makes little sense to me. Is this really policy? Hushpuckena (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems like a question for WP:MOS, not WP:AN as it doesn't involve administrator actions. AN isn't a general Help forum for questions about editing. You could even try asking at the Teahouse or the Help Desk. Liz 19:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
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)
- 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, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- (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)
Ban appeal from Rathfelder
- Rathfelder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Community banned in November 2022 for sockpuppetry, vote-stacking and undisclosed COI writing of a BLP attack page
- Appeal in January 2023 declined by the community
- Second appeal in October 2023 not submitted for review by the community for not complying with WP:GAB
Rathfelder has submitted the following ban appeal on their talk page and asked me to copy it here:
I realise that what I did was wrong - more wrong than I thought it was at the time. The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur. I accept that I was wrong to create sockpuppets and I apologise. I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that. I did that really because I was trying to defend the work I had done for the Socialist Health Association for the previous 20 years. I did a lot of edits on that page, but they were, until the last few, about the history of the organisation, mostly adding to its list of distinguished members - largely before I was involved with it, and mostly before I was born. They were not at all controversial. I was unfairly sacked and my opponents started using Misplaced Pages against me. The row got into the media. I accept that I should not have done that. I should have resisted the temptation to use Misplaced Pages in the dispute.
I have spent 2 years working on Simple English and Wikimedia. I have not set up any sockpuppets or edited anything where I had conflicts. I plan to continue with Wikimedia, as there is plenty there to keep me busy, but I would like to be able, in particular, to add pictures to articles - now I have found my way round the enormous Wikimedia resource. I also sometimes come across articles in English wikipedia which need amendment.
Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Conditional support - If there's been no socking during the ban. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Question during the January 2024 unblock request Rathfelder said they would be willing to accept a restriction on editing articles related to BLPs or healthcare orgs. Are they still willing to accept those edit restrictions if they are un-banned? Furthermore, in January 2024 there was, at the time, no evidence of any further socking. Can we confirm that good behaviour has continued? Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Appealing April 4 2024, indefinite WP:CUP ban and indefinite 1-nomination GAN limit
At User_talk:TonyTheTiger#Topic_bans, I was instructed by closer User:Ingenuity that I could appeal these in a year and it has been 9.5 months. I am appealing because the CUP entry deadline is traditionally January 31. See Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/2020 signups through Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/2024 signups. This year the Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/2025 signups verbiage says "The competition will begin on 1 January 2025 and signups will continue throughout the year". I am just noticing the new language as I am putting this appeal in. Nonetheless, I am requesting time off for good behavior on the ban.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The utter cluelessness of this appeal is more than enough reason not to do this. I was going to write more but decided that coaching you on how to be less clueless is not in the project's best interest. You've been here long enough that you should be able to see for yourself how terrible this appeal is. Beeblebrox 19:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose and recommend we disallow any further appeals for another year. I'm concerned otherwise we'll just be back here in April. --Yamla (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose for now It's pretty clear that most people in that discussion were supporting an indef ban from the Cup, not an 8-month ban. This appeal doesn't address people's concerns with Tony's editing relating to the Cup, so should be denied. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The original discussion wasn't linked, it can be found here. At that place it is very clear that
here is almost unanimous support for an indefinite ban on participation in the WikiCup
, so, no, this appeal should not be passed. It is, honestly, astonishing that TonyTheTiger has been here very nearly two decades but hasn't taken on board the way the community works ~ Lindsay 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC) - Oppose for no rational that they understand why they were banned or what even led to their ban, and rather simply a sentiment of "I really want to participate". Please understand that your ban was indefinite, so the one year appeal opportunity is your potential opportunity "time off for good behavior". TiggerJay (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Appealing early on the basis that you won't be able to sign up to do the thing you were banned from doing is certainly a unique take. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Requesting info
Hello. I have come across several image files and the U.S. Gov. PD licensing seems to be incorrect. Four of these images and possibly another one could be copyright violations - if I can figure out how to find this type of information on their websites. However, since I am unable to find that information at this moment, I am wondering which group of Misplaced Pages editors work on this sort of thing so that maybe I can get some help with this. I will post the files here for information purposes. Also, there may be more copyright violations by this particular editor who seems to have a propensity for downloading image files. Below are the files:
- File:AL-Cattlemen-2022-approved-passenger-768x376.jpg
- File:AL-Ducks-Unlimited-2022-768x370.jpg
- File:AmateurRadAZ.jpg
- File:AppalachianTN.jpg
- File:Acplate.jpg
Further comment: The above TN file - File:AppalachianTN.jpg - is covered by the TN.GOV "linking policy" and can be found here. So this Misplaced Pages image file is still not licensed appropriately, although I have no idea what the correct Misplaced Pages licensing would be.
I will notify the editor who downloaded these files that I have opened a discussion here. Well, now that I have taken it this far, the editor in question is: Brian.S.W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). However, the above image files might be too stale to be considered for any action. I leave that up to the Admins. If you look on their talk page, they have previously been blocked for copyright violations. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Category: