Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 21:25, 2 November 2013 editJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits →Summary and recommendation: r← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:56, 19 January 2025 edit undoØkonom (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users592 edits →Proposed community ban of Marginataen: support
Line 1:		Line 1:
			<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)
	|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d -->{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis		}}{{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 16:		Line 17:
	|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>
			==Open tasks==
	--></noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure}}
			<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 ==
	== Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin ==
			{{archive top|status=no consensus|result=This has been open for more than a month, much longer than most ban appeals, and it is basically deadlocked, both in numbers and valid arguments. This is therefore closed as not having consensus, which defaults to the block remaining in place. ] ] 21:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}:
			{{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 ].
	* {{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.
			However, as I have learned from it, I will never use multiple accounts anymore and adding controversial content without doing a proper fact-check. I will always listen to users, be constructive and be friendly. I will make sure you will not regret giving me my account back. I would like to work under the account ].}}
	The text of the appeal:
			] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Support unbanning and unblocking''' per ]. ] (]/]) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Quoting my SPI comment ]: {{tq2|I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of ''block'' evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as ] of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-] unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is ''banned'', and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like ].) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here.&nbsp;... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an ] unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.}}That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at ], which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ] violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per above.] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Endorse one account proviso. ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: ]. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would '''Support''' with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of ]. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they ''seem'' to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. ] (]) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. ] (]) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' User seems to have recognized what he <!-- before someone complains about my use of the gender-neutral he, this user is male per what they've configured settings to be --> did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. ''']]''' 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*<s>'''Weak Support''', the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. ] (]) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</s>
			:*'''Oppose''', I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. ] (]) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Support'''. Completely support an unblock; see my comment ] when his IP was blocked in April. ] (]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see ''clear'' evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like may well be on notable competitions, but with content like {{tq|On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.}}, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. ] (]) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Currently '''oppose'''; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. ] (]) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:{{yo|Ahri Boy }} Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. ] (]) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. ] (]) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "]"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. ] (]) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. ] (]) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::See . ] (]) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. &spades;]&spades; ] 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). ] (]) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. ] (]) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:: I think saying that {{tq|I will never use multiple accounts anymore}} and that he wants to {{tq|make constructive content}} would indicate that {{tq|the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.}} ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. ] (]) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... ] (]) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:: And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}. ] (]) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to ]. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''] ]'''</span> 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. ] (]) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' per Fram and PMC. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Question''': Is SvG the same person as {{U|Slowking4}}? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by ]. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">]</span> (]) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			**No. ] (]) 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support'''. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' basically per ], particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get ] without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). ] (]) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since ] was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.<br />'''Support'''. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --] (]) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:{{yo|Moscow Connection}} Your ''comments'' are as valid as anyone else's, if you explain your reasoning, but please note that this is a discussion, not a straight vote, so just saying "support" doesn't tell us much. ] ] 21:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Conditional support unblock''' (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use ] for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. ]] (]) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' I can't repeat what Beaniefan11 say enough: "Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}." This should assuage any doubt in the mind of the reviewing administrator. ] (]) 15:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' Claims of "It's been seven years!" fall on deaf ears when you find out he's been socking all along and as recently as a year ago. Fram and PMC have good points as well. Show some restraint and understanding of your block and ] is yours. ] (]) 23:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' with a little ] and conditions suggested by Joseph2302. Yeah, given the timeframe, I'd say having to submit their creations to AFC for the time being is a sufficient middle way for the yes and no camps. ]@] 00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' - Large-scale sockpuppetry is very harmful, and was continuing for years after the ban. ] (]) 20:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abottom}}
			== Topic ban 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
			{{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)
	: 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.
			: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)
	: 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.
			::I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. ] (]) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Found it. ]. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Thank you. That is helpful to have. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:* I '''support lifting the ban.''' DI's talk page makes for interesting reading, it shows quite a remarkable change in attitude over a period of a few years, and I believe that's genuine. ]] 08:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose lifting the topic ban''' I think being warned for making edits that violating a topic ban, then being almost completely inactive for six months, and then coming back and asking for it to be lifted and that passing sets a horrible example. ] ] 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:It seemed like a good idea to step away from the site for a time. I was receptive to the warning, even though it was not from an admin, and stopped editing in that area entirely. These are the edits in question: I just forgot that I had to appeal the topic ban here first and haven't gotten around to it until now. It should be noted that the first edit merely restored a previous RFC that had been ignored and the last two were minor changes to articles that have since been restored.
			*:I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you ] and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. ] (]) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. ] (]) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. ] (]) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --] (]) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I have made plenty of edits to articles like ], ], ], and ] in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose lifting the topic ban'''. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see ] for example). --] (]) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose at this time''' I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. ] ] 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects.
			*:I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did:
			*:This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. ] (]) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? ] (]) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I would like to participate in move and deletion discussions. I contributed a lot to ] and I would like to update some place names through move requests. I haven't had issues in that area since 2022. ] (]) 05:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' - I'd say {{tq|"racial issues broadly construed"}} is actually pretty broad given how much of history/geography is touched by it. I'd also say they do appear to have made an effort to improve, though I'd still like to see more. ] (]) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' I want to see some real world effort working collaboratively somewhere else on wp, not just a six month gap waiting it, off wikipedia. There is no evidence here that there has been a change. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 08:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Andra Febrian report ==
	: 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.
			{{atop
			| result = HiLux duck has been blocked, and no further action is needed here. ] ] 15:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
			"Andra Febrian" is disrupting many edits, I have seen many deleted edits by this user, and I would like to report the user for causing many ]s. The edits unreasonably reverted by this user is very disruptive to me, as I only intend for useful contributions. The user has:
			- caused many edit wars <br/>
			- deleted citations along with deleting correct claims <br/>
			- not been cooperative (wikipedia's ]) on many pages that good-] edits have occurred on <br/>
			- not explained deletions of citations in a way that other users have been made upset. <br/>
			I request that the user is warned.
			] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added 22:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
			:First: the notice at the top of the page clearly says to place new sections at the bottom of the page, which I have now done for you. Second: you need to provide ] for the edits you are complaining about. Third, you were supposed to notify Andra Febrian per the instructions at the top of the page. Another user has done so for you. - ] 00:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:@]: please sign your comments using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, which will add a timestamp. Additionally, I reverted your edits to ] and to ] because you are changing information in articles without citing ]. You must cite sources when you add or change information in articles. ] (]/]) 00:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::] just filed a new complaint at ANEW and made the exact same mistakes as they did here. I advised them to stop posting complaints on noticeboards until they can follow the instructions. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::FWIW, I have a feeling that HiLux Duck is a sockpuppet of ], but I am holding back until they give themselves enough rope to hang. Same obsession with defining overall lengths for various car classifications and edit warring at length over them. <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 00:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I'm always impressed when editors can recall editing habits of editors that were blocked years ago. I guess I lack the longterm memory to keep track of sockpuppet habits. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::{{ping|Liz}} MrDavr actually got under my skin at one point; otherwise I probably wouldn't have noticed. Thanks, <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 02:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Looking into this {{duck}} (a HiLux ]?) because yeah, this is ''exactly'' the same editing pattern. Same username pattern as a number of MrDavr socks too (car names/variations thereof - ]). - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::@] - ] (]) 15:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Most likely yes, I knew that the his editing patterns matched an old blocked user but didn't remember the name. ] (]) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::It's also interesting to note that HiLux duck's user page claims they've been on Misplaced Pages since 2019, and having compared edits more extensively I've seen enough and gone ahead and blocked per ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Mr.Choppers warning request ===
	: 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)''
			:: <small> This was (again) posted at the top instead of the bottom; it seems like it is not really a separate issue. ] (]) 01:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
			User:Mr.Choppers has not followed the ] rules because: <br/>
			'''-''' calling me a "nuisance" because of own ] supporting others in ] that have nothing to do with the user. ] ] <br/>
			'''-''' responded fairly aggressively to another user (me) without me being aggressive back or starting this edit war <br/>
			'''-''' note that he also called me a "sockpuppet of a banned user" without reliable clarification, also biased on that <br/>
			'''-''' also note the user had not informed me and used aggression to support own claims. <br/>
			<br/>
			I would like to inform that this user has unnecessarily used aggression and claimed things not there. Kind regards, ] (]) 2:29, 6 January 2025 (GMT+12)
			:Missed this because it was at the top. Very unlikely to have merit and is moot now, given the block. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation of ] violation, unfounded vandalism allegation ==
	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)
			{{archive top|result=I have indefinitely blocked Uwappa per ]. Whilst the legal threat pointed out by multiple editors may be very vague, it certainly is designed to have a chilling effect, and Uwappa has confirmed this with addition to the section. Quite apart from that, we have persistent edit-warring, meritless claims of vandalism against others, and there is a limit to which an editor who thinks all of this is a big joke can be allowed to waste everybody else's time. They can explain themselves in an unblock request if they so desire. ] 22:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			repost from archive:
			The content disagreement behind this report is trivial in the overall scope of Misplaced Pages (although the articles affected are subject to ]), but the editor behaviour is not. My reason to bring this case to ANI is that ] rejects some basic principles of the project: ] means that a bold edit may be reverted to the '']'' and goes on to say {{tq|don't restore your bold edit, don't ] to this part of the page, don't engage in ], and don't start any of the larger ] processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.}} Despite having been reminded about BRD after their first immediate counter-revert, they responded to the reversion to the ''sqa'' with another counter-revert and, after another editor reinstated the ''sqa'', counter-reverted again. At no stage did they attempt to engage in BRD discussion. Both I and the other editor attempted to engage with them at their talk page: Uwappa characterises my explanation as a personal attack. On another page, Uwappa reverted an edit where I suppressed the questioned <s>material</s> template, declaring it "vandalism" in the edit summary. I recognise the rubric at BRD that says {{tq|BRD is optional, but complying with ''']''' and ''']''' is mandatory}} but Uwappa has done neither.
	Further info from the user:
			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 ].
	: 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.
			'''Diffs:''' ''(all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 ) ''
	Thank you for considering his appeal. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
			* : Uwappa replaces {{tl|Body roundness index}} with a substantially changed new version
			* : JMF (me) reverts to the previous version, with edit summary "sorry but this version is not ready for release. I will explain at talk page."
			* : JMF opens ] at template talk page (and leaves notifications at the talk pages of the articles that invoke the template).
			* : Uwappa responds minimally at template talk page. {{midsize|] ]}}
			* : Uwappa counter-reverts to their new version of the template, no edit summary.
			* JMF reverts the counter reversion with edit summary "see WP:BRD: when BRD is invoked, the status quo ante must persist until consensus is reached"
			* : Uwappa counter-reverts the template again, no edit summary.
			* : at ], JMF advises Uwappa of the BRD convention.
			* : {{u|Zefr}} contributes to BRD debate.
			* : At Uwappa's talk page, JMF notifies Uwappa of edit-warring using {{tl|uw-editwar}} with edit summary "I advise strongly that you self-revert immediately, otherwise I shall have no choice but to escalate."
			* At ], JMF comments out invocation of the template, with edit summary "use of template suspended pending dispute resolution . See talk page."
			** (a series of reverts and counter reverts follow, in which Uwappa alleges vandalism by JMF. Neither party breaks 3RR.)
			* At their talk page, Uwappa rejects the request to self-revert and invites escalation. Edit summary: "go for it".
			* ] reverts the counter-reversion of the template to re-establish ''sqa''
	: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, &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 15:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
			* Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template.
	* '''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.
			* Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also ] for escalation in progress.".
			* JMF reverts to ''sqa'' again, with edit summary " rv to consensus version, pending BRD discussion. That is now also a WP:3RR violation." {{midsize|My 3RR challenge was not valid as reversion was outside the 24-hour window.}}
			* At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing.
			* At their talk page, Uwappa alleges ] violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit.
			---
	: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.
			* 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)
	: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)
			: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''', 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)
			::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)
	*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. ''']'''&nbsp;<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)
			Reposted above from archive, see ]
	*'''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. &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 18:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
			JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page:
	*'''<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">]&nbsp;</font><font face="georgia" size="1">(],&nbsp;])</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)
			::::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)
	*'''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:
			:::::Mate, sorry I was late for the escalation party. End of the year was a madhouse here, both in business and with social activities.
	::"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 was very happy you did escalate and will be happy to reply now that I have spare time available for WP. My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.
	:I 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)
			:::::Would you like me to repost your escalation? ] (]) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (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> ] &#124; ] 20:26, 20 October 2013 (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)
	*'''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)
			: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)
	*'''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 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)
	:::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)
			:::{{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)
	: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)
			::::No it is not a legal threat. It is about <b>"WP rules and regulations"</b>, not about law.
	::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)
			::::* To who would this be a threat?
	:::] 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)
			::::* Which law?
	*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)
			::::* In which country?
	::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)
			::::] (]) 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)
	* '''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;">]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]</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. ] (])
			: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)
	*'''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)
			* 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)
	*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)
			*: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)
	::{{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)
			*::It’s hard to see a paid or COI element to the behaviour at {{tl|Body roundness index}}. — ] (]) 14:13, 6 January 2025 (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)
			*:::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)
	::::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 expect it’s just empty talk to get an upper hand in the dispute. — ] (]) 14:37, 6 January 2025 (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)
			*::::: 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)
	: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)
			* 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)
	::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)
			:* 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=]}}.
	*'''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)
			:* Suggestion: Add the following calculator to ]:
	::{{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. &mdash;] 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. - ] &#124; ] 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)
			{{calculator|id=edits|type=number|steps=1|size=3|default=3|min=0}}
	*'''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)
			{{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)
	*'''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)
			::* 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)
	*'''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">]&nbsp;</font><font face="georgia" size="1">(],&nbsp;])</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">]&nbsp;</font><font face="georgia" size="1">(],&nbsp;])</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">]&nbsp;</font><font face="georgia" size="1">(],&nbsp;])</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)
			:To admins, please ] Uwappa from further work on the calculator template for the body roundness index and waist-to-height ratio, and from further editing and talk page input on those articles. Uwappa has done admirable extensive work, but the simple calculator is finished and sufficient as it is. Uwappa has created voluminous ]/] talk page discussions for articles with under 50 watchers and few talk page discussants; few editors would read through those long posts, and few are engaged.
			:In recent edits on templates, Uwappa reverts changes to the basic template as "vandalism". No, what we're saying is "leave it alone, take a rest, and come back in a few years when more clinical research is completed." ] (]) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{ab}}
			*This was closed, but...Uwappa's reply to their block was . Suggest revoking TPA. {{ping|Black Kite}} - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			**. I've revoked TPA. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Kansascitt1225 ban appeal ==
			{{atop green|result=Appeal successful. There were some murmurings requesting a topic ban from Kansas, but nothing approaching consensus. Of course, ] would be well-advised to be careful not to go back to the behaviors that led to a block in the first place. But in the meantime, welcome back. <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 19:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			I am posting the following appeal on behalf of {{user21|Kansascitt1225}}, who is considered banned by the community per ]:
			(keeping it short for WP:TLDR) Hi Misplaced Pages community, it has been over 1 year since I edited on Misplaced Pages without evading my block or breaking community rules. I would like to be given another chance to edit. I realized that my blocking was due to my behavior of creating multiple accounts and using them on the same page and creating issues during a disagreement. I was younger then and am now able to communicate more effectively with others. I intend to respect community rules and not be disruptive to the community. I was upset years ago when I mentioned Kansas City’s urban decay and it was reverted as false and I improperly reacted in a disruptive way that violated the community rules. The mistake I made which caused the disruptive behavior was that I genuinely thought people were reverting my edits due to the racist past of this county and keeping out blacks and having a dislike for the county. I also thought suburbs always had more single family housing and less jobs than cities. In this part of the United States a suburb means something different than what it means in other parts of the world and is more of a political term for other municipalities which caught me off guard and wasn’t what I grew up thinking a suburb was.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://slate.com/business/2015/05/urban-density-nearly-half-of-america-s-biggest-cities-look-like-giant-suburbs.html}}</ref> Some of these suburbs have lower single family housing rates and higher population density and this specific county has more jobs than the “major city” (referenced in previous unblock request if interested). This doesn’t excuse my behavior but shows why I was confused and I should have properly addressed it in the talk pages instead of edit warring or creating accounts. After my initial blocking, I made edits trying to improve the project thinking that would help my case when it actually does the opposite because I was bypassing my block which got me community banned to due the automatic 3 strikes rule. I have not since bypassed my block. I’m interested in car related things as well as cities and populations of the United States and want to improve these articles using good strong references. Thanks for reading. ] (]) 04:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	===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)
			{{reflist-talk}} ] (]/]) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (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)
			* '''(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)
	:::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)
			*'''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! ==
	::::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)
			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)
	*'''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)
			:{{like}} -] (]) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (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)
			: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)
	::* 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">]&nbsp;</font><font face="georgia" size="1">(],&nbsp;])</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">]&nbsp;</font><font face="georgia" size="1">(],&nbsp;])</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">]&nbsp;</font><font face="georgia" size="1">(],&nbsp;])</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">]&nbsp;</font><font face="georgia" size="1">(],&nbsp;])</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)
			== Import request ==
	* '''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)
			{{atop
	:*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)
			| result = A list without citations or an indication that it meets ] is not going to be imported here. ] (]/]) 18:00, 12 January 2025 (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)
			Can you import, ] from simple Misplaced Pages. I created the page there.<span id="Cactusisme:1736493543617:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
	* '''Strongest possible oppose (of unban)'''
			: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)
	**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.
			::Well, they create the page. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	**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).
			::], oh, okay<span id="Cactusisme:1736586978195:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 09:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
	**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.
			{{abot}}
	**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?)
			== IPBE for AWB account ==
	:]<subj>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 20:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
			{{atop|status=Done|1=Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:02, 12 January 2025 (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)
			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)
	::::'''"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)
			:Done. ] (]) 02:40, 12 January 2025 (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)
			::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 ==
	*'''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;">{&#123;]&#124;]&#124;]&#124;]}&#125;</span> 16:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
			{{atop
	::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)
			| result = Please use ] rather than creating new ones. ] ] 15:14, 12 January 2025 (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!
			@] removing content and POV pushing here and is currently edit warring ] (]) 10:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	: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)
			: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) ==
	*'''Oppose unban''' per two points:
			{{atop green|User unblocked. ] 12:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:# ''']''', 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 ].
			* {{userlinks|Tulsi}}
	:# '''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.
			* Blocked (indef) on 3 April 2024 (9 months ago) by ] during an AN thread (]) for undisclosed paid editing
	:<code>]]</code> 15:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
			* Subsequent unblock request was also considered at AN before being declined (])
	*'''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?
			Tulsi has now submitted an unblock request which I am copying:
	: 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.
			{{talk quote block|Dear Sysops,
	::::: 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.
			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.
	::::::::: 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:
			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 ].
	.
			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.
	] (]) 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)
	::*Perhaps this whole discussion is purely academic. Even Jehochman does not believe these guys are going to respect Misplaced Pages rules. He tells in his opening statement: "''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"'''...] (]) 19:25, 29 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.
	===Proposal for Disclosure===
			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.
	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)
			Thank you for your consideration. I humbly request your reconsideration and the restoration of the editing privileges on my account on English Misplaced Pages.
	*'''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;">]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]</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. &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 03:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
			Sincerely,
	::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.
			]&nbsp;] 14:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			Having had discussions with the blocking admin, we would like to seek community comments on the unblock request.
	{{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.}}
	"''
			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.
	::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.
			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)
	The writing of "puff pieces" and advertisements is prohibited.}}
			*I cannot find the link for "A related meta-wiki discussion". <span>]]</span>  15:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	::And of course '''Declaring an interest''':
			**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)
	{{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.}} ::.
			*'''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)
	{{cob}}
			* '''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)
	::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''' 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)
			*'''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}}
			== ] ==
	*'''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)
			{{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)
	* 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)
			::Snowed by me. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 16:35, 13 January 2025 (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)
			:::Thank you!!! ] (]) 16:38, 13 January 2025 (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)
			{{abot}}
	:::*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)
			== Request for Administrator Review of Repeatedly Declined Draft: Ario Nahavandi ==
	*'''Oppose''' Per declaration here . ] (]) 00:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	===Proposal number 99999: Declare that you do paid editing===
			Dear Administrators,
	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)
	#:::::Uh, I'm not sure if you've read the rubbish you've just written or not, but OUTING doesn't directly expose an editor to harm, and forcing people to disclose confidential information definitely COULD expose an editor to harm anyway. And again, you're buying into the myth that every single paid editor is bad, which is quite blatantly bullshit. ] ] 13:44, 28 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)
	#::That's completely ignoring most of the proposal, which deliberately avoids the thorny issue of disclosing confidential information. ] ] 13:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
	#'''Oppose''' per unenforceable due to privacy policies of WMF. <small>]</small> 11:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
	#::What privacy policies? --] (]) 22:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
			I am writing to request your assistance regarding my draft, ], which has been repeatedly declined over the past year despite my adherence to Misplaced Pages’s guidelines.
	===Another Proposal: Certification Course===
			Over the course of several months, I have worked diligently to gather reliable, published, and independent sources, including magazine articles and other credible publications, that meet Misplaced Pages’s notability criteria. My most recent submission was declined in less than an hour—a timeframe that strongly suggests it was not even reviewed carefully or thoroughly.
	I'm 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)
			This is particularly frustrating as I see numerous approved articles on Misplaced Pages that cite sources far less reliable or even completely broken. In contrast, my article contains verifiable references that adhere strictly to Misplaced Pages’s policies. This inconsistency feels unfair and raises concerns about bias in the review process.
	===A separate business WP===
			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.
	* 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 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 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)
			To provide context, here are some of the sources I included:
	::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)
			• https://www.nationaldiversityawards.co.uk/awards-2024/nominations/ario-nahavandi/
	*'''''' - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 18:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
			• Taurus Magazine (2024-11-19). "Ario Nahavandi". Taurus Magazine. 88: 7 – via www.magcloud.com
	::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.
			• 6x Magazine (2024-11-22). "Ario Nahavandi; The Persian Icon". 6X Magazine. 432: 6–7 – via www.magcloud.com
	::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)
			Thank you for your time and consideration xx
	:::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)
			] (]) 23:47, 14 January 2025 (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)
			:Administrators cannot override draft declines, and in fact the administrator toolset ]. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 23:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I asked on his talk page and the following is the reply to the question above (] (]) 22:52, 22 October 2013 (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.
	:::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))
			::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.
	:::: 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)
			::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.
	:::::Requiring that sounds unworkable, but we could come up with some scheme to review and rank paid editors according to how much volunteer work they do, and urge uninvolved editors to take that into account when they decide who to work with. --] (]) 10:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
			::I kindly ask for your guidance—if administrators cannot intervene, who can I turn to for proper support in getting this article reviewed fairly?
	*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)
			::Thank you for your time. ] (]) 00:08, 15 January 2025 (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)
			:::]. This is where you appeal problems with submissions of drafts. You should read the ] and ] carefully. ] (]) 00:20, 15 January 2025 (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)
			:::{{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 ==
	===Motion for closure===
			{{atop green|Unanimous consent after 36 hours to lift the restriction. ] (]) 14:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	I think the length of the thread has gotten to the point where the average editor will not invest the time to read it all and make a thoughtful comment. Could we get an uninvolved admin, please, to read this and record what the result is? Thank you. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
			A bit over a year ago, with near unanimous support, I appealed a TBAN from GENSEX - receiving in its place the following sanctions {{tq|1RR restriction in both the GENSEX and AMPOL topics; is limited to 0RR on articles for organizations/activists who are affiliated with anti-transgender activism or gender-critical feminism, broadly construed; and has a PBAN from Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull.}} Previous discussions are linked there. I am now requesting that my restrictions be dropped entirely because I have grown considerably as an editor, both since my initial TBAN when I'd just turned 19 and since the appeal.
	:This proposal is indeed hard to read. There is a problem with there being 2 distinct questions 1) whether the 1st banning was improper (with many editors not commenting on this) and 2) whether Wiki-experts et al should be unbanned. There is also the problem that many editors expressed conditional support for unbanning, but the conditions vary and it's not clear whether any of the conditions have been met. These !votes will have to be read very carefully.
	:Due to the complexity of the proposal, I'll suggest that 3 univolved admins work on this, make separate counts and then compare notes. FWIW, on the 1st question, whether the 1st banning was improper, I count 16 saying it was proper and 10 saying it was improper. On the 2nd question, unbanning, I count 22 opposing unbanning, 13 conditionally supporting unbanning, and 21 supporting unbanning. Obviously the 13 conditional !votes are very important, but to the extent that the conditions aren't obviously met, I believe they should be counted as opposes. I don't claim that this is a perfect count, only that counting will be difficult and require more than 1 admin to do right. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 04:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::For any observers, please bear in mind that the closing admins will not only count votes, but also weight them by quality of reason. If it comes down to a conditional unbanning, I request that the unbanning conditions be proposed to the subject, and that they have a chance to agree to them. There might be a disparity between what the subject agreed to already and what will be required. That may be due to the subject (understandably) not knowing the requirements. If the closing admins can make the unbanning conditions clear, that would be helpful. Thank you for your efforts. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::There is no consensus to unban this editor. Unless his outfit can prove that they are completely different from something like WikiPR, the outcome is going to be similar. ] ] 07:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::WikiPR was creating low quality spam articles. I don't know what this editor did wrong because even after many requests, nobody has posted diffs showing evidence of wrongdoing. There's been guilt by association (a false impression that this group is the same as WikiPR), guilt by assumption (they are paid, they must be bad), and guilt by ] (OMG paid editing is so bad, let's ban somebody!!1!) but no ''actual evidence''. It has been a shocking display of poor judgment by some of the participating editors and especially by the admin who closed the original discussion. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::: @Doc, I very much disagree with your point of view on this (the strength of the arguments to keep the ban are rather flimsy in my eyes and held by a minority of votes), but that is besides the point--it is not up to those involved in this discussion to decide on the state of consensus. I also highly disagree with @Smallbones, who is trying to use his misinterpretation of the banning language to whitewash the original intentions of those that voted in a support of unbanning. ] (]) 15:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose early closure''' The fact that many editors have expressed an opinion is no reason to short-circuit the normal process and close early. Right now there are 20 comments labeled "Oppose" (meaning oppose the unban, keep the ban) and 38 comments labeled "Support" (meaning support the unban, remove the ban). Of course such a rough count isn't at all definitive, but that just supports the need to wait the full 30 days and then have an experienced and uninvolved closer give us the final answer concerning consensus. There is only one valid reason to close early -- ] -- and it does not apply here. --] (]) 10:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*: I think the user has the right to have his appeal decided faster than 30 days. Nowhere has it been established that we must wait a certain amount of time. Moreover, as I said already, this thread has become very long and convoluted, and the flow of fresh opinions has dried to a trickle. There isn't much benefit to letting the same partisans argue their positions; this only makes the thread longer without providing further insights. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::The two editors immediately above clearly don't know the rules on the time required for a community ban. ] says "Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members." ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 12:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::I should be aware because I had a hand in drafting that rule. We've waited way, way longer than 24 hours. The 30 days is typical of an RfC, which this is not. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*Informational note: I have asked ] directly if WikiExperts intends to edit pages. I did that, because although he promised several times to abide by the COI guideline, he also wrote things that made it seem as though they do intend to directly edit articles, even though the guideline clearly and strongly discourages conflicted editors from doing so. Since the initial ban arose from their bluntly aggressive interpretation of our guidelines and policies in their favor, it seemed like an important question to get clarification on. The answer was a great example (to me) of avoiding a direct answer to a direct question. I re-asked and have not been answered yet. The brief dialogue is ]. Would you like to wait for closure until there is a response? ] (]) 19:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:: I'm concerned that this might be an instance of violating our rules against ]. Isn't stating that one will abide by all COI guidelines the same thing as stating you'll abide by each of them as they are being pointing out one by one :) In addition, giving your own personal context to rebuttals given by banned editors instead of allowing their words to stand on their own (and commenting after the fact) seems rather unsavoury to me. ] (]) 19:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::: ] sorry you see this as unsavory. I am just trying to ascertain how ] will interpret that - please recall that they said before, that they were abiding by WIkipedia's rules.... it was worth it to me at least, to find out what that means, now and in this case. AKonanykhin has replied to my question. The question and answer are copied below.
	Hi AKonanykhin
			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 ].
	You have said that WIkiExperts will abide by the COI guideline. That guideline reads, very clearly: "Paid advocates are '''very strongly discouraged''' from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question."
			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.
	Above, you wrote: "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." Based on this, it appears that WIkiExperts ''does'' intend to edit articles directly. So to avoid any confusion, would you please give a yes/no to this question: If unbanned, will WikiExperts directly edit articles? Also, if the answer is "yes" would you please explain how you square that with the very clear advice in the guideline? Thanks. ] (]) 21:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
			I appreciate your consideration. My best regards, ] (]) 01:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Support.''' ] (]/]) 01:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	User:Jytdog - We intend to follow COI Guidlines in its strictest sense, as a policy. There are any number of aspects of the Guidelines, and we will follow all of them. Would you mind posting my response to your question to the AN thread? ] (]) 16:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
			:'''Support'''. Based on YFNS's activity since the original tban, I don't see any reason to believe that restrictions are necessary going forward. ] (]) 06:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Support'''. Welcome back comrade. ] (]) 06:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Support''' based on their editing activity between TBAN and last year, as well as between the sanctions and now. Good work, and a great example of how this restorative process is ''supposed'' to work. May you inspire other misguided people to a path of restoration. ]&thinsp;] 08:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Snow Support''' ] (]) 14:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Strong support'''. To me YNFS comes across as a very responsible editor and I believe these restrictions are no longer warranted. ] (]) 16:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Support''' I remember the original ban happening due in large part to canvassing on twitter, the fact that any restrictions remained in place thereafter strikes me as a deep miscarriage of justice. ] (]) 23:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			'''Query''' Does your reference to BRD mean that you undertake to follow it in the future? ] (]) 14:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Enthusiastic support''' YFNS is a perfect model of an editor who is an asset to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Support''' A well worded appeal, worth giving another chance. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' This is a convincing and sincere appeal. ] (]) 00:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''', Welcome. ~] ] <sup>「] / ]」</sup> 02:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' as they have convincingly demonstrated change. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' I supported and still support the original restrictions, and the later now appealed restrictions. I think YFNS's case has shown that an editor can come back from the brink successfully and am happy that happened. ] (]) 04:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Copyvio Problem ==
	::Thanks for replying! However before I relay this to the board, would you please answer the question I asked above? Thank you. ] (]) 19:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::If you don't want to provide a direct answer, I will be happy to copy your answer above but will include a note that I asked twice for a direct answer and didn't receive one. If your goal is to gain trust this is not a great approach... ] (]) 19:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::: User:Jytdog - My response is that I will follow COI guidelines to the letter, abiding by all parts as if it is policy, as requested. That includes all parts of the guidelines, including the non-posting of material directly to the page if it can be in any way construed as controversial, and the alert of a COI to all such edits so that they can be reviewed by others if they so choose. ] (]) 19:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::This is becoming a bit more clear. So the COI guideline says that paid advocates (like WikiExperts) are "very strongly discouraged from editing Misplaced Pages in areas where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral". It sounds like you interpret "areas" narrowly. Let's say you had a client, Company X. It sounds like you would consider a neutral fact about Company X, like the date Company X was founded, as '''not''' being included in "areas", and you would indeed directly edit that kind of content in an article about Company X. On the other hand, it sounds like you would interpret some controversial activity of Company X to be within "areas" and therefore WikiExperts would not directly edit content about that controversial activity. Am I understanding you correctly? If not, please clarify! Thanks! ] (]) 20:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::: There will be no efforts to circumvent COI guidelines whatsoever, and our reading has often been more strict that those of others. A non-controversial fact would be pretty straightforward, such as having the founding date of a company and a New York Times article that states that date and no other article contradicting the date, which could be added in tandem with the Times article as a source. Apart from such exceptionally clear-cut facts, pretty much nothing is non-controversial, so we will be posting all other kinds of material to talk pages instead of direct editing, so that the material can be first reviewed by the community. ] (]) 20:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::Thanks for the further explanation. Copying this to the discussion now. ] (]) 01:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::Hey Jytdog - AKonanykhin has already given you the answer - he will abide by the COI policy. Quit trying to bait him into saying something that the policy does not say. The policy does not forbid editing. It's a suggestion. End of story. And you know that's true because you're trying to get him to specifically say what you want him to say instead of saying he will abide by the COI policy.--v/r - ]] 16:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::Yes, according to WP:COI, "paid advocates" are only "discouraged" but not forbidden from direct editing any articles they want. This should not be a problem if they honestly disclose their COI, and more important, their work on behalf of an external propaganda organization. However, according to statements by AKonanykhin, they did not (and will not) disclose anything with respect to their ''recent'' and current editing and editors - for whatever reason no one here should care about. That's why I can not support lifting this ban.] (]) 17:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	@Jytdog - Glad to see the dialogue here now, no offence meant, just making sure we're following policy :) Good useful information here at the end of the day! ] (]) 01:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:No disclosure of earlier edits. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 01:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
			Hey all, I believe that these three diff should be redacted as copy vio's, thanks. There are several sentences which are directly lifted from the sources. Some one more experienced should likely have a look through the revision I restored as well. I didn't spot anything, but I may have missed something.
	===Summary and recommendation===
	As I have not contributed above, I might have the right to close, but if I were to now evaluate the consensus of the community -- and by consensus I do not mean agreement, which we do not have, but rather a settlement which most of us can live with--I would say that the consensus has a remarkable similarity to my own opinion. I therefore think it better just to summarize and recommendation.
	#We are not agreed whether it would be desirable to absolutely prohibit paid editing, but I think everyone is agreed that we have no way of preventing it.
	#We are all agreed that since it exists and we cannot prevent it, it needs to be controlled and carefully watched
	#We are generally agreed that self-identification of paid editors should be required, I think it therefore follows from our general policy on user accounts that this is required of each individual account.
	#We are not agreed on whether or not it is ever permissible for an editor to introduce a new article for which they are paid directly into mainspace, but we are generally agreed that this is permissible via AfC, and probably also in user space. We are generally agreed that the move to mainspace must be done by or with the approval of an uninvolved editor
	#We are essentially all agreed that this firm of editors have violated multiple rules in the past, having engaged in meatpuppetry and undeclared COI editing. We are essentially all agreed that they have used many tactics to try to deny this, and avoid complying with out plainly stated rules. I think there is general agreement that in such a situation Kudpung's ban was justified, whether or not it strictly complied with the usual way we place such bans.
	#We are not agreed on the likelihood that the firm will follow the rules in the future, or about their good faith in offering to do so. But I think we are generally agreed that they have at least made a clear offer to follow our rules in all respects without their customary quibbling.
	#I think we are agreed that in such situations we normally afford the user the opportunity of a final chance. I think most of us feel that it would be warranted here, though some are of the opinion that the likelihood of their actual success in following the rules is not very great. There are varying opinions of whether it would even be possible for them to follow the rules--whether the scrutiny that the articles would receive would accept the notability and freedom from promotionalism of their articles.
	# While I do not see how we can require the disclosure of previous edits, if they have made a contractual commitment to their customers. I think we are essentially all agreed that they must not use such a reason to avoid self-identification in the future, I suppose this implies they make sure their present and future customers realise this, and that they say so explicitly in their advertisements.
	#As comments, I note that (a) some self-identified paid editors have elsewhere expressed the opinion that there is not sufficient such business to maintain a company;s existence by article-writing alone--that there are insufficient customers that are actually notable and would be willing to pay a fair rate for a truly POV article, and (b) some established rule-following paid editors seem to want us to continue the ban, in order to avoid having the taint of this firm's unsuccessful attempts affect them. I hope we will continue to judge all cases individually.
	#I therefore suggest that we provisionally overturn the ban, requiring a commitment to follow all " bright-line" guidelines. In the case of a failure to self-identify, the ban will be replaced immediately and I see no reason for further appeals to be listened to for some time, After 6 months, the situation should be re-evaluated to see the effects of the self-identified editing. If there is the actual production of decent articles, the trial will be a success. If not, we can consider wether to simply continue under intense scrutiny, or to ban for the empirical reason that the COI of this particular group of paid editors prevents honest editing. In the later case, I do not know how we will prevent their re-emergence. ''']''' (]) 00:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support:''' with a question. Are brightline rules the same as COI guidelines? If so, then definitely support. ] (]) 17:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:: So-called "Brightline" is a slogan that Jimmy Wales created that has been rejected by the community when attempts were made to make it part of Policy and Guidelines. So the two things are most certainly not synonymous. ] (]) 21:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	::: Thank you! I guess I'll have to look into brightlines more if it's different from what we were talking about. Regardless, I think DGG has done a great service here in trying to bring us all together instead of just firing off an immediate close that some might be upset with. ] (]) 22:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::I think DGG made many valid points, and I obviously agree with them. He is very well familiar with the case as someone who fixed problems in article about Konanykhin. However, I simply do not see consensus to overturn this ban.] (]) 19:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' – I agree that Kudpung's reading of consensus for the ban was justified. However, the premise of the original ban proposal – which everyone's !vote was based upon – was that "(t)he 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". ] agreed to the above stipulation '''eleven days ago''' – why are we still discussing this? DGG's point 10 handles the situation well and codifies future expectations. The ban should be lifted immediately ''per the wording of the original ban'' and if those opposing the unbanning feel they have a compelling argument, then they should propose a new, more draconian ban. Someone should close this ASAP. ] (]) 18:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	* '''oppose''' I don't think there is consensus to unban them at this time. And in any case, I disagree with unbanning them without them identifying their previous articles/editors. I don't believe that agreements they put in place should matter when it comes to the general requirement of coming clean with bad past behavior before being unbanned. It creates a very poor precedent. If we are going to unban them, the ''exact'' conditions (editing articles allowed? AfC allowed? etc.) should be blindingly clear. I don't believe the unban proposal above is as clear as it would need to be. ] (]) 19:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	::Right or wrong, the ban was worded as it was – including the terms for lifting the ban – and that wording was what everyone !voted upon. AKonanykhin has agreed to those terms. Why are we ]? If the additional terms you're stipulating now had been specified in the original ban, it may well not have passed... ] (]) 20:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Get it over with already please''' - Although I maintain my view that there '''was''' no disruption, and that the ban was utterly invalid, Kudpung's closure of the other/previous/banning thread was valid. However, it explicitly stated "(t)he 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" - as the company has agreed to do this, then the ban cannot be maintained. Doing so is punitive, not preventative, and again, I make the comment that '''no disruption was occurring''' - the last disruption of ''any'' kind came several years ago. The fact that people are still grasping at straws and looking for any way to maintain the ban is disgraceful, and goes against all Misplaced Pages policies - none of which prohibit COI or paid editing. ] ] 21:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' - however I would add to the last point, a requirement that all WikiExperts user accounts be listed somewhere in one place, like ]'s user page, so that the community can easily audit WikiExpert's compliance with the conditions. Otherwise it seems to me that it will be very difficult to ensure compliance.] (]) 21:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
			] (]) 22:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	== IP from ] complains about User:CorporateM's edits to their company's article ==
			:To be clear, I don't think that @] is really at any fault here.
	*{{article|Suburban Express}}
			:] (]) 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 ==
	"Suburban Express has initiated about 200 lawsuits against its own customers since 1994 and ten civil suits against competitors."
			{{atop
			| result = Essentially unanimous consensus to not unblock. ] ] 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
			* {{userlinks|Lardlegwarmers}}
	Here is the citation:
			I blocked Lardlegwarmers yesterday for one week for a violation of ] from COVID-19. This was about ], although I subsequently noticed ] as well. LLW has asked me to copy their appeal here. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Statement from Lardlegwarmers ===
			I have only been very active editing Misplaced Pages for about one month, even though my account is older. I was blocked for pushing a minority POV in the talk page for Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory, which I understand. For context, this issue wouldn't have even come up at ANI except that there was this very old account making borderline uncivil comments constantly, and I took them to ANI myself and it boomeranged. One thing that I learned from that experience is that Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement, and that I am probably not going to be the one to fix it.<ref>]</ref> Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed; my edits were in good faith and I was really just attempting to talk it out with the other editors who did not agree with me. But I understand that the norm in this space is to walk away if there isn't any uptake of my ideas or take it to dispute resolution instead of continuing to try to convince people. The current ban is for making a comment on an AE thread, not a Covid-19 article. I was on the page for a totally unrelated reason and noticed that a user I recognized from the Covid thread was being discussed. My comment was mostly about user behavior and reflecting on the underlying dispute itself, not Covid-19. Also, on my user page I quoted ] discussing his view on Misplaced Pages's approach to Covid-19 , which I'd assumed was permitted because it's my own user page and it's really a comment about the state of Misplaced Pages as a whole. The admin who blocked me, @], blanked it from my user page. If the community won't let me keep that quote on my user page, then fine, we'll leave it removed, but I wish they would have just asked me to remove it and described why instead of editing my user page. A block for this stuff seems harsh. Thanks.
			{{talk reflist}}
			=== Statement from Tamzin ===
			Excerpting my comment on their talkpage:{{tq2|Usually we only warn someone on their first topic ban violation. However, in your case, the fact that both violations occurred within hours of the ban being imposed, and that they were belligerent rants treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground, made me judge that a short block would more clearly communicate just how far you are from what is considered acceptable conduct. Even if you didn't understand that the ban applied outside articles, you should have understood that the community found your editing about COVID disruptive, which should have been reason enough to not make those edits.}} <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Discussion among uninvolved editors ===
			*This is clearly a topic ban violation - and it came less than a day after it was imposed. Even if assuming in good faith that they didn't know it was a topic ban violation, their unblock request shows not only that they don't understand what they did wrong, but they attempt to justify it with statements such as {{tq|Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed}} which is borderline a personal attack (veiled insult that others weren't being grownups); {{tq|which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement}} which is confirming they still don't understand why they were topic banned nor why they were blocked for violating it; and quoting Larry Sanger's ] promoting comments on their userpage after their topic ban. To summarize, I have no confidence that the user understands what they did wrong, and I would go so far as to say the user attempting to skirt the edges of their topic ban and supporting another user trying to promote fringe theories on Misplaced Pages merits an indefinite community ban. TLDR: '''Oppose unblock''' and ultimately would support indefinite ban due to the flagrant violation, lack of understanding, and no belief that after the 7 days is up they will not go straight back to trying to ]. I won't be the one to propose that, however. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 03:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I don't see how an unblock is possible when Lardlegwarmers clearly still doesn't understand what a broadly construed topic ban means. To be clear, there's no need to ask the "community" whether you can keep your topic ban violation. The only hope for you to be able to obey it is if you are able to decide yourself, especially after you've been told by an admin. While we do try to educate instead of just blocking, the "community" isn't here to help you understand the limits of your topic ban. ] (]) 04:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Should clarify that despite what I said above, I'd weakly oppose extending the topic <del>ban</del> <ins>block</ins> to indefinite at this time. While I'm not hopeful Lardlegwarmers is going to be able to obey it given what they've said, I think it's fine to give them rope after the <del>ban</del> <ins>block</ins> expires and apply normal escalating blocks. Since we're already here, perhaps this will somehow help them understand that yes the community requires you to apply it broadly on anything to do with COVID-19 throughout Misplaced Pages. They should consider this very short rope though and notably the next time they feel they need to ask the community whether they're violating their topic ban when they are, it might be the last time. ] (]) 20:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Sorry mixed up ban and block above twice, now fixed. ] (]) 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose unblock''' as the user looks to have no intention of following Misplaced Pages guidelines with their request. It is only a week and will give a change to think about how to change. ] (]) 04:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose unblock'''. It truly takes some ] to cite a Signpost piece authored by the admin who blocked you to support the proposition that you're being railroaded. '''Weak support for an indef''' because that's what Lardlegwarmers seems to be speedrunning. ] (]/]) 04:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose unblock'''. The topic ban was on ''the topic of COVID-19, broadly construed'', not ''the topic of COVID-19 directly in articlespace''. And the topic ban was violated, not just within less than a day, but ''within three hours'' of it being imposed. On top of that the unblock request could be a case study for ]. I won't call for an indef ], but when the block expires Lardlegwarmers should bear in mind that any further violations of the topic ban will be their last. - ] <sub>]</sub> 10:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''No unblock''' - Basically per Lardlegwarmers: they don't appear to understand why they've been blocked. An indefinite block seems very likely in this editor's future and we certainly should consider cutting out the middle-man and just skipping to it, but I'd like to give them at least some chance here to understand why they were blocked. ] (]) 10:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose unblock''' - While I usually support giving editors ] to demonstrate improvement, this case warrants a longer wait. The user acknowledges pushing a minority POV and failing to disengage per ] norms, but their justification suggests a lack of understanding or acceptance of policies like ], ], and ]. Their off-topic comment in an AE thread, despite knowing the sensitivity of such spaces, and the policy-violating content on their user page, further reflect ongoing disruption. I recommend they take time to reflect and gain a better grasp of Misplaced Pages's collaborative culture before requesting an unblock again. ] • ] ⚽ 11:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose unblock'''. I agree that absent change from this user an indefinite block is likely. For their benefit, if you're the subject of a topic ban, broadly construed, about COVID-19, you need to be editing in an entirely different topic area. Think of something that you're interested in--television shows, football, English gardens, science fiction books? Take a week and think on it. ] ] 11:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose unblock.''' What is there left to say? This conduct feels like appellant's purpose is use Misplaced Pages as a battleground and to soapbox their views rather than to build the encyclopedia-- to remake Misplaced Pages as they think it should be. My feeling is that a week won't be nearly enough. The railroad comment is appallingly full of not understanding that their conduct is not acceptable in a collaborative project. ] (]) 12:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:PS: What Tamzin said in her statement above. ] (]) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Whilst I don't believe user will be able to change their approach, I feel an indef would be premature for now. We should give them a chance to mend their ways. ] (]) 12:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*An account that ] is topic banned, violates that topic ban immediately, and posts a ] unblock request that thoroughly ]. Whoever closes this should be considering indef, not an unblock. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Indeed. ] (]) 14:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose unblock''' this specific response {{tq| Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement}} is indicative of their viewpoints and why they're not ready to contribute. They continue, {{tq|my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed}}. These demonstrate that they still do not get it, and rather project their self-perspective is that they are actually a victim of people who are abusing the rules against them. . I proffer that this is going to be a consistent problem until they acknowledge that they were violating policy. Zero indication that they know how to positively contribute, just perhaps a vague inference that they'll avoid getting in trouble -- because -- we'll I'm not entirely sure they've communicated what they will do differently, but rather simply say that {{tq|a block for this stuff seems harsh.}} ]&thinsp;] 15:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Notwithstanding the harsh situation I presented above, to be clear I '''oppose indef''' for now. A new user should have the opportunity to overcome early (while significant) setbacks, which is what TBANs are designed to encourage. I am encouraged by things like YFNS corrective behavior in a prior AN discussion, and can only be hopeful and AGF that might apply to LLW here. We need more passionate, subject matter experts, as contributors to this project, but they ''absolutely must contribute positively'' and following established PGs. ]&thinsp;] 16:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose unblock''' and support an indef. I am pretty confident in saying that this is where we will be heading after this block ends. ] (]) 15:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose unblock''', clear violations of the topic ban. Don't oppose indef, but I'd like to at least give him the chance to figure out exactly what we expect going forward. --] 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support block, oppose unblock, oppose indef''' - this is a topic-banned newbie's first violation, in the heat of the moment after the restriction was imposed. Tamzin's block was the appropriate response. The unblock request is wholly inadequate, but jumping straight to indef for this sort of violation is a pretty extreme overreach. If they go back to violating their sanction after this block expires, ''then'' let's talk community ban, but they should be given the opportunity to edit constructively while respecting the restriction. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 16:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose unblock, oppose indef...however...''' I am sympathetic to their point of view and their general "right" (we don't really have rights here on WP) to post their opinion on a subject, even one as contentious as COVID-19. I think the blanking of the user page is a step too far. We shouldn't be in the business of deleting negative opinions about Misplaced Pages; while the statement was in reference to COVID-19, it doesn't mention it within the claim and is more a critique of Misplaced Pages at large and mass media than its relation to COVID. I would let the statement on their user page stand/restore it. Larry Sanger's statement is not a ], it is a reasonable ''opinion''. There were loads of statements/claims about COVID/its origin/mandates/treatment/vaccines that, despite their widespread implementations and presentation as "the science", later turned out to be misleading or untested conjecture (examples: no studies on masking effectiveness with a large population vs the coronavirus, 6 foot spacing, lying to the American public about wearing masks because health care professionals needed them more, lab leak theory, military connections to the Wuhan Institute, US funding of WI, etc). '''HOWEVER''', civil discourse ''is'' essential. That means that discussions about COVID were fraught with battlegrounds and bludgeoning. As such, we have additional restrictions for COVID discussions and other contentious topics and LLW needs to follow them. LLW did not do so and has shown a consistent flaunting of these restrictions and a weeklong block is a reasonable start. In summary, the quote isn't unreasonable to leave on their user page (give them that latitude), but a weeklong block for the other behavior should stand. ] (]) 16:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:They added two comments to their userpage. Both were critical of Misplaced Pages. One was also critical of ] and other aspects of the US government's COVID response. I removed the latter. It doesn't matter whether Sanger's opinion is fringe or not; what matters is that he was talking about COVID. I would be quite the hypocrite to remove something from someone's userpage just for criticizing Misplaced Pages, as I have a fair bit of that on my own userpage. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::There's some pretty big overlap there in criticism of Fauci and how it is handled on Misplaced Pages. Again, I don't feel THAT is a significant violation of COVID editing restrictions (beyond the fact that they did it despite such an editing restriction). Anyone can completely skip over it if they wish. {{ping|Tamzin}} playing devil's advocate for a moment, what if I published the same thing on my user page? Would it be ok? Would it be ok if I posted it on LLW's user page (as long as LLW was ok with it, of course)? I realize we're getting in the weeds of a "what-if..." but if so, what's the substantive difference between me putting it on a user page and LLW doing the same? ] (]) 17:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::If you posted it to your userpage, it would be fine (although not that constructive), because you are not topic-banned from COVID. If you posted it to their userpage, that would be ] for a banned editor, since I'd struggle to believe you have an independent reason to think that particular quote belongs on that particular page. {{PB}} If you really want to fight the removal from the userpage, feel free to create a subsection here, but I stand by the removal. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::I'm not fighting the removal per se. Just wondering where the boundaries are and if it's wise to have such a boundary. ] (]) 17:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::The boundary is ]. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 19:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Buffs: In the ''realm of hypothetical'' I would presume that if that quote had been on LLW user page for a long time, in a sea of content, pre-existing AN, then it ''might even still be up today.'' However, on the other hand, to post that after the TBAN was imposed is nothing other than what can be seen as ''abject defiance'' to the ban. But beyond that, it simply violates plain language of the ban, as it applies to {{tq|all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic}}, so I proffer that Tamzin is clearly in the right here. To your charged statement about ''if you were to post the same thing'' to your user page, prior to your statement here and presuming you were not under a TBAN, it would ''not be questioned'' one iota. However, as a response to this discussion, it could be construed (but not technically violating) the principles of ] and I would caution against it. Moreover, you reinstating it on LLW talk page would be a far closer in the proximity of violating PROXYING. ]&thinsp;] 18:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::The fact that the comment only came after the topic ban is key here. I'm fairly sure I've seen several cases where there's something on an editor's user page which is covered by a topic ban but which no one has said or done anything about because it was there from before the topic ban. In fact I'm fairly sure I even remember a case where someone asked specifically if they could modify or remove something on their user page which related to their talk page which was technically under the topic ban (probably gensex). I think this was allowed especially since it related to their personal life rather than some comment on something, although they were told just this once is best. There might have even been a case where an editor wanted to do some more editing or formatting of something under their topic ban and was either denied or told only this once. IIRC, there was also an editor who was happy to be able to finally change someone on their userpage covered by their topic ban once it was lifted. A topic ban is a topic ban. I'd note that if someone makes an extremely constructive edit to an article that is not covered by ] we still treat this as a topic ban violation, although it's something much more beneficial for the project than an editor being able to repost random ramblings about Misplaced Pages they want to share. ] (]) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose unblock, oppose indef''' - The topic ban violation was clear cut. Let's hope Lardlegwarmers will read a bit about how to avoid topic ban violations, or else indef block is not too far for them. ] (]) 16:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose unblock, extend block indefinitely''' - Lardle should try to demonstrate good behavior on another wiki for six months before asking for a SO. Let's hope that this user should handle contentious topics carefully in the future. ] (]) 18:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose unblock''' but no reason to indef, a block has already been imposed. If the user continues to violate the TBAN, than a longer block might be warranted. ''']]''' 02:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Comments from involved editors ===
	http://www.dailyillini.com/news/local/article_43a45b74-ae1a-11e2-9a0d-0019bb30f31a.html
			* 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 ==
	The article does not say Suburban Express filed 10 lawsuits against competitors.
			{{atop
			| result = This is not an administrative issue. ] (]/]) 20:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
			In the course of editing numerous articles, I have come across the header featuring 'notable people' when there is only one person and have therefore modified the grammar.
	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.
			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)
	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 seems like a question for ], not ] as it doesn't involve administrator actions. AN isn't a general Help forum for questions about editing. You could even try asking at ] or the Help Desk. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Reporting Administrator Abuse ==
	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.
			{{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)
	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-->
			:So there's two things here.
			:* First, TopVat19sEver, you removed other users comments from a talk page (not allowed). A user voicing their opinion is '''not''' vandalism, not in the slightest. If you have a problem with what another user has said on the talkpage, rather than ] (which is only allowed in very specific situations), you should bring it for discussion at an appropriate noticeboard, or preferably ask them to change their own comment.
			:* Second, Acalamari, could you please refrain from calling people "Drumpf supporters" and ] on the reasons for nominating an article for deletion? While you're entitled to your opinions, that's borderline (at best) ], especially when you call them "delusional".
			:If both users agree to accept what they did wrong here and move forward, I don't think any further action is necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 22:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Ok, I'm newer to Misplaced Pages, I understand what you are saying, my train of thought was, "this comment looks like vandalism, vandalism on Misplaced Pages is removed, therefore remove". I didn't know that they don't do that for talk pages. Thank you my friend. ] (]) 22:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Vandalism has a '''very''' specific definition on Misplaced Pages - see ] for more information on what is not vandalism. Merely calling people names and/or being uncivil, while against the rules, is '''not''' vandalism. There are proper processes for handling other rule violations (such as asking someone to edit their own comments, or asking a noticeboard for help) such as those, but they are decidedly '''not''' vandalism. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Ok thank you for telling me ] (]) 23:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Where are the ]? ] (]) 22:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*This is a baseless complaint. Ater not editing for months, the OP refactored an AfD that was closed last November. Acalamari rightly warned them for doing that.--] (]) 22:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I agree, but at the same time, I think TV19E has a right to be unhappy that Acalamari, an administrator and bureaucrat, was able to cast aspersions and call people names without it being called out at the time as far as I can see. They went about it the wrong way (removing the comment), but that doesn't mean there isn't room for discussion of that comment. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 22:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Nope. First, it doesn't rise to the level required of this noticeboard, and, second, it's not at all timely.--] (]) 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::To be blunt, Acalamari didn't even tell the editor when they ''initially'' reverted back in November (while the discussion was open) where they could discuss further/report if they felt the comment was not appropriate. I'm not suggesting sanctions against Acalamari at all. But to tell a new editor "someone broke the rules and since you didn't report it in the proper way at the time because nobody told you how, they're allowed to break the rules" is clear ]. I think all that's necessary is an apology from Acalamari - TV19E has already explained that they were mistaken as to it being vanadalism. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 23:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I didn't edit for a few months because I have to do other things. I was just scrolling around I don't even remember what I was doing and I saw he put it back, I didn't know he was a mod, and it also said you can't edit archived talk pages, which he did, so I reverted his edit. ] (]) 23:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::That's not true. You modified a closed AfD. Acalamari rightly reverted your edit of an archived discussion.--] (]) 23:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I just said, he is the one who modified a closed AfD, which is not allowed, then I reverted it not knowing he is a moderator ] (]) 23:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::He didn't modify a closed AfD. His comment was readded while the discussion was still open, because you removed it in violation of ]. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 23:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Oh okay this is my mistake then I thought it was after the AfD was closed my bad ] (]) 23:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Wait hold on, I just looked at it again. He added back his comment after the result was SNOW. On the page when he re added it, it said do not edit the page. ] (]) 23:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::You removed Acalamari's comment as vandalism with the edit summary "subhanAllah". You had ''no right'' to do that. Acalamari restored it, which even though the AfD was closed, they had the right to do in the circumstances.--] (]) 23:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/2028_United_States_presidential_election_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1257014612 Take a look, this is his edit. When he re added his comment, on the page in red it said '''Do not edit the page''' ] (]) 23:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::The comment never should've been removed in the first place. It's within the spirit of the rules to readd a comment that you improperly removed, even if the discussion had been closed in the meantime. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{ec}} There's no admin abuse here as no admin tools have been used. In case you missed ''"The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below"'' with the bright red ''"Please do not modify it"'' at that AfD, I'll repeat the instructions here - don't modify archived discussions.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I was saying Admin abuse because of the fact that he is able to keep his comment on the page when even if he is violating the rules. I'm not a moderator so I can't do anything about. Now I just learned from that guy that they don't remove comments even if its vandalism, now I know. But thats why I reported it here you know. ] (]) 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:He is the one who edited the closed AfD. This was one of the reason why I reverted his edit. ] (]) 23:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*It's very hard to work out what's happening without the presence of diffs. ] (]) 23:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:*{{tq|without the presence of diffs}}. But Ponyo and I have contributed, so you're in the presence of greatness; isn't that better than diffs? :p --] (]) 23:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:*:* ''Tiggerjay is bowing down in great humility before such greatness never before seen in this universe. '' Now.... where is the trout? ]&thinsp;] 23:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:*:Who am I to disagree with the Jedi? ] (]) 23:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Okay, I've looked into this. And...surprise surprise, TopVat19sEver was the one who ''origially removed Aclamari's !vote while the AfD was still open'' . Yes, about a day after the AfD was closed, Aclamari reverted this removal , which ''is'' technically "editing a closed AfD" but I would say they were ] to revert a ]. And now, suddenly, today, two months later, as their first edit ''after'' having done that improper removal, TopVat19sEver goes back to the AfD and removes Aclamari's !vote ''again'' , which Aclamari - entirely rightfully - reverted , and then TopVat19sEver comes here to cry "admin abuse", when no administrative abilities were used ''at all'' in this whole mess. Could Aclamari have used more moderate language in their initial !vote? Yeah maybe, but it was no ''violation'' at all, and the only thing needed here is a ] or at least a {{tl|trout}} for TopVat19sEver. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{Abot}}
			== Ban appeal from Rathfelder ==
	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.
			* {{userlinks|Rathfelder}}
	An adult in charge needs to get this user under control. ] (]) 15:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
			* ] for sockpuppetry, vote-stacking and undisclosed COI writing of a BLP attack page
			* ] declined by the community
			* ] not submitted for review by the community for not complying with ]
			Rathfelder has submitted the following ban appeal on their talk page and asked me to copy it here:
	* Relevant links: {{article|Suburban Express}}; {{user|CorporateM}} ~]&nbsp;<small>]&nbsp;]</small> 15:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
			{{tqb|I realise that what I did was wrong - more wrong than I thought it was at the time. The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur. I accept that I was wrong to create sockpuppets and I apologise. I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that. I did that really because I was trying to defend the work I had done for the Socialist Health Association for the previous 20 years. I did a lot of edits on that page, but they were, until the last few, about the history of the organisation, mostly adding to its list of distinguished members - largely before I was involved with it, and mostly before I was born. They were not at all controversial. I was unfairly sacked and my opponents started using Misplaced Pages against me. The row got into the media. I accept that I should not have done that. I should have resisted the temptation to use Misplaced Pages in the dispute.<br>
			I have spent 2 years working on Simple English and Wikimedia. I have not set up any sockpuppets or edited anything where I had conflicts. I plan to continue with Wikimedia, as there is plenty there to keep me busy, but I would like to be able, in particular, to add pictures to articles - now I have found my way round the enormous Wikimedia resource. I also sometimes come across articles in English wikipedia which need amendment.}} ] (] · ]) 17:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Conditional support''' - If there's been no socking ''during'' the ban. ] (]) 17:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	*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)
			*:In response to this, I ran some basic checks. There's no evidence of socking that I can see in the currently available data. ] ] 15:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Are you permitted to say what time range the available data covers? The default is only 90 days isn't it? ] (]) 16:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Yes, the data available to me was for the past 90 days. ] ] 16:41, 18 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? ] (]) 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' They have been a very productive contributor at the Simple English Misplaced Pages, and it has definitely been long enough for the ]. ] (]) 21:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:To opposers: Would a TBAN from BLPs solve the issues you mention? I understand why some may be hesitant to unban, but they have been a very productive contributor on other wikis. I think that they would be a productive contributor if we simply give them a second chance. ] (]) 16:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' as disingenuous. {{blue|The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur}}: obviously it's reassuring to hear this, but there is no acceptance of personal responsibility. "The circumstances made me do it" is not a defence, or explanation. Likewise, {{blue|I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that}} does not do the facts justice. Rathfelder literally socked ''in order'' to be able to call a real life opponent a "]", <s>in wikivoice</s> with a misattributed ] quote. Difficult to imagine an editor of >half a million edits not knowing attribution requirements for BLPs. In fact, on investigation, they obviously do, as the ] {{tl|BLP sources}} template indicates. If there's a Holy Trinity of wrong doing of things that damage the project the most, it's socking,vote stacking and deliberate BlP violations. These things are most dangerous to the project: they erode the trust between editors and the integrity of the consensus-driven decision making process and put WP at risk of at least public embarrassment if not a lawsuit. All of which Rathfelder did. All of which this appeal seems to attempt to explain away by "circumstances". I'm the first to offer rope when deserved, but such a glossing ban appeal, combined with it all happening only a couple of years ago, sets off more alarm bells than the Great Fire of London. There's no need for groveling, just an indication of self-knowledge and actual change. ] ] 12:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I haven't yet looked into this enough to express an opinion, but I would point out that the "swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist" quote was attributed in text to ''The Times'', so was not in wikivoice. ] (]) 13:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Thanks for drawing my attention; I've clarified my comment. ] ] 16:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' insufficient contrition and reflection on their frankly very serious misconduct. As Serial has said, they created an a attack page with very serious BLP vios using sockpuppets, you can't just handwave that away. ] (]) 12:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' - My opinion is that editing pages to attack one's real life opponents isn't something you can just come back from, especially when you abusively socked and votestacked in addition. Please stick to editing other Wikis. - ] ] 15:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' I don't often choose to comment on unblock requests but every day I come across past productive work done by Rathfelder when I'm working with categories which is how I'm familiar with their immense contributions to this project. They are responsible for a sizeable percentage of our category creation and have over a half million edits credited to this account. If it has been over a year since their last appeal (check), they haven't been socking (check), they have been productive on other Wikimedia projects (check) and they acknowledge their mistakes (check), then I believe they should be given another chance. It sounds like this was a specific incident in their life that happened several years ago that is unlikely to be repeated. Remember, indefinite is not infinite. And if you reject this appeal, I'm just wondering what exactly are you expecting to see in a future request that would lead you to accept it? Or is this indefinite block actually a forever block? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 18:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support'''. Serial Number 54129 points to the quote from the piece by Sarah Baxter as the most damning part of his evidence, but Baxter was deputy editor of ''The Times'' when she wrote the article, so it was reasonable to say that that newspaper said that. It may, of course, not be the best way to word things but we don't ban people for that. ] (]) 18:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:No, I point to far more tahn just that: I point to a refusal to adhere to neutrality in preference for an entire section reading like a hit piece; there were no redeeming features presented, or alternative interpretations suggested. Instead, a Jewish guy was literally called an antisemite, on Misplaced Pages, for Rathfelder's own ends. The quote from Baxter was merely an example, but the whole section was of that ilk. Correct, we don't ban people for poor expression. We ''do'' ban people for deliberately flaunting fundamental policy and attacking living people. It is also insufficient that they have done good work in the past, per {{u|Liz}}; it's not mitigating. Ironically their is a current arbcom case in which some of the most knowledgeable editors in the field are getting topic banned due to behavioral issues. The same principal applies here. ] ] 20:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' - The attack page, undisclosed COI, and sockpuppetry were serious offenses. Sometimes it takes a long time to regain trust. ] (]) 20:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Appealing April 4 2024, indefinite WP:CUP ban and indefinite 1-nomination GAN limit ==
	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.
			{{atopr
			| result = Consensus to lift this ban will not develop. ] (]/]) 22:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
			At ], I was instructed by closer ] that I could appeal these in a year and it has been 9.5 months. I am appealing because the CUP entry deadline is traditionally January 31. See ] through ]. This year the ] verbiage says "The competition will begin on 1 January 2025 and signups will continue throughout the year". I am just noticing the new language as I am putting this appeal in. Nonetheless, I am requesting time off for good behavior on the ban.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 18:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	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)
			:'''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)
	::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)
			:'''Oppose''' and recommend we disallow any further appeals for another year. I'm concerned otherwise we'll just be back here in April. --] (]) 19:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose for now''' It's pretty clear that most people in that discussion were supporting an indef ban from the Cup, not an 8-month ban. This appeal doesn't address people's concerns with Tony's editing relating to the Cup, so should be denied. --] 19:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			: '''Oppose''' The original discussion wasn't linked, it can be found ]. At that place it is very clear that {{tq|here is almost unanimous support for an indefinite ban on participation in the WikiCup}}, so, no, this appeal should not be passed. It is, honestly, astonishing that TonyTheTiger has been here very nearly two decades but hasn't taken on board the way the community works ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose''' for no rational that they understand why they were banned or what even led to their ban, and rather simply a sentiment of "I really want to participate". Please understand that '''your ban was indefinite''', so the one year appeal opportunity is your potential opportunity "time off for good behavior". ]&thinsp;] 19:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose'''. Appealing early on the basis that you won't be able to sign up to do the thing you were banned from doing is certainly a unique take. &spades;]&spades; ] 21:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			==Requesting info==
	:: 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)
			{{atop
			| result = {{u|Steve Quinn}} is {{itrout|trouted}} for bringing this to AN. ] (]/]) 21:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
			Hello. I have come across several image files and the U.S. Gov. PD licensing seems to be incorrect. Four of these images and possibly another one could be copyright violations - if I can figure out how to find this type of information on their websites. However, since I am unable to find that information at this moment, I am wondering which group of Misplaced Pages editors work on this sort of thing so that maybe I can get some help with this. I will post the files here for information purposes. Also, there may be more copyright violations by this particular editor who seems to have a propensity for downloading image files. Below are the files:
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			Further comment: The above TN file - File:AppalachianTN.jpg - is covered by the TN.GOV "linking policy" and can be found . So this Misplaced Pages image file is still not licensed appropriately, although I have no idea what the correct Misplaced Pages licensing would be.
			I will notify the editor who downloaded these files that I have opened a discussion here. Well, now that I have taken it this far, the editor in question is: {{userlinks|Brian.S.W}}. However, the above image files might be too stale to be considered for any action. I leave that up to the Admins. If you look on their talk page, they have previously been blocked for copyright violations. ---] (]) 20:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	* And what is your connection, if any, to these articles, 99.147.28.113? ] <sup>]</sup> 15:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
			:As you can see they've already been tagged for a deletion discussion yesterday, so there is no need to have a difference notice board also working on it. ]&thinsp;] 21:21, 17 January 2025 (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)
			{{abot}}
			== Please Help Me! ==
	<pre>
	erinacity:/tmp
	alisonc $ whois 99.147.28.113
			Hi there, I'm Arav200 and I'm not a new at english Misplaced Pages, Previously I'm editing from ] but due to my old account (Bhairava7) and it's attached gmail are protected from ], so, I'm unable to access my account,Please help me and If administrator transfer userright from my old account to Arav200 then It 'll be helpful for me otherwise after my old account permission will be removed due to after Inactive and I create this account through ] due to Skipcptcha restrictions.Happy editing ] (]) 12:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{confirmed}} to {{np|Bhairava7}}. --] (]) 12:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	NetRange: 99.147.28.112 - 99.147.28.119
			:Hmmm. I was a bit surprised about the English, but it is similar to previous edits from the old account ( ). I have noted the connection on the two accounts' user pages, but I'd like to try requesting 2FA removal before giving up and transferring the permissions. ] (]) 16:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	CIDR: 99.147.28.112/29
			::{{u|Bhairava7}} / {{u|Aarav200}}, please contact ca{{@}}wikimedia.org from the e-mail address you have used for the Bhairava7 account. Please describe the problem and request the removal of two-factor authentication from your account. See ] for details. ] (]) 16:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	OriginAS:
			:I didn't able to access my also gmail (who attached from old account) due to 2:FA protection,then I was created new account with new gmail for re-contribution on Misplaced Pages. :(Happy editing ] (]) 17:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	NetName: SBC-99-147-28-112-29-1104201844
			::Please try the following steps to regain access to your Gmail account: https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7299973 ] (]) 18:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	NetHandle: NET-99-147-28-112-1
			::I don't know if it is much useful but I can verify that he is indeed Bhairava7 as I contacted him over at discord personally. ] (]) 18:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	Parent: NET-99-128-0-0-1
			:I was emailed about this. Given Yamla's CheckUser result, I don't think that there is any reasonable doubt that it is the same person operating both accounts. While they may be able to recover the account from T&S, I feel like it is a bit unnecessary to force them to go through that route as it is ultimately their choice whether they want to recover the account or create another one (even if I personally have a bias for recovering). I was going to transfer the permissions over, but saw this thread, so didn't follow through with it. ] (]) 19:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	NetType: Reassigned
			{{re|ToBeFree|Sdrqaz}},I also tried as per the link given by ToBeFree but I am not able to recover or access my Gmail... It would be better if I give up the desire to contribute to Misplaced Pages... I am also trying my best... If both are recovered then it will be good... Please forgive me but I will take full care that such mistake does not happen again in future... If possible, please transfer the rights of my old mentioned account to my new account because I've feel more stress at this time.Happy editing ] (]) 20:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	RegDate: 2011-04-20
	Updated: 2011-04-20
	Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-99-147-28-112-1
			:I will transfer them over, given that it has been unsuccessful. I also think that this route is kinder. If T&S disables 2FA on your old account and you would like to go back to using it, please let me know. ] (]) 02:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	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
			== BAG nomination ==
	</pre>
	According to ] record , Illini Shuttle (aka Suburban Express) own this ip address range. ~]&nbsp;<small>]&nbsp;]</small> 15:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
			Hi! I have nominated myself for ] membership. Your comments would be appreciated on the ]. Thanks! – ] <small>(])</small> 14:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	:!!???? --] (] · ] · ]) 15:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
			== I need help from an admin - Urgent ==
	::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.
			{{atop|1=I'm not sure about oranges from Jaffa, but there's a pack of blocks from Misplaced Pages here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 17:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			Dear Misplaced Pages Team,
			I need an urgent help concerning a page and information about my project, I'd appreciate if a wikipedia admin can contact me to help.
	::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.
			Many thanks,
	::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.
			Mohammed ] (]) 17:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:There's not enough information here for anyone to do anything. Please tell us what the problem is and what help you need. You probably want to read ] prior to doing anything further, though, just in case you've been violating our guidelines around conflicts of interest. --] (]) 17:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:What's the issue? ] (]/]) 17:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::] probably needs blocking. ] (]) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{Done}} ] (]/]) 17:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Relevant article:
			:*{{al|An Orange from Jaffa}}
			:OP possibly using multiple accounts:
			:*{{checkUser|Mohamugha1}}
			:*{{checkUser|MohammedAlmughanni}}
			:] (]) 17:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{noping|MohammedAlmughanni}} blocked as a sock. ] (]/]) 17:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Khabib Nurmagomedov French page modified by 92.184.106.82 to edit origin as Algerian ==
	::
			{{atop|1= is thataway. → - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			Modifications history shows the following IP 92.184.106.82 made numerous edits to Khabib Nurmagomedov's French wikipedia page to include false information around his nationality, background and place of birth among other edits.This IP needs to be blocked and banned from editing. ] (]) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:You need to contact the French Misplaced Pages. This is en.wikipedia.org and we only have say over what happens here on the English WIkipedia. --] (]) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== EncycloDeterminate unblocked ==
			The Arbitration Committee has resolved that:
	::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)
			{{ivmbox|1=Following an appeal, the Arbitration Committee repeals the Oversight block of {{Userlinks|EncycloDeterminate}}, as it is no longer necessary.}}
			For the Arbitration Committee, ] (] • she/her) 22:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|EncycloDeterminate unblocked}}'''<!-- ] (]) 22:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->
			== Permission request ==
	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)
			{{hat|1=]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			{{atop|1=No. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			I am User:CFA's legitimate alt account for ] editing at high volume. Please add extended confirmed to my account. Thank you ] (]) 04:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Looks like we’ve got another @] impersonator here. ''If by some unlikely chance you are actually CFA, then you can make a request while logged in as CFA. Otherwise you will be blocked as before… nice try…'' ]&thinsp;] 04:47, 19 January 2025 (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:
			::@] here is another CFA imposter for you. Cheers! ]&thinsp;] 05:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I indeffed {{User|CFA (AWB)}}. ] (]) 05:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	"Another False Edit by CorporateM:
			::::I can't believe they are so dumb they tried doing the same scam two nights in a row. The previous attempt was removed from this noticeboard but it had a link listing about 20 CFA-related imposter accounts. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	The student did not receive a letter demanding $570 for liquidated damages. The contract specified $500 liquidated damages for, among other things, disruptive behavior.
			{{abot}}
	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)
	::::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)
	:::: 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)
	===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)
	::: 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)
	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)
	::: 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)
	{{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 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)
	::: 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)
	::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 agree. One of the Misplaced Pages administrators should investigate the accounts in more detail. ] (]) 01:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
	::: 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)
	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)
	: 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)
	::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)
	::: 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)
	::::Spin it however you want; your edit history speaks for itself. --] (]) 21:47, 24 October 2013 (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)
	::: 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)
	::::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)
	::::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.
	:::::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)
	::::::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)
	:::::::That statement seems to contain many assumptions.] (]) 00:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::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)
	=== 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)
	:Do you have the link? --] (]) 21:48, 24 October 2013 (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)
	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)
	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)
	: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)
	:: 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)
	::: 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)
	:::: 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)
	:::::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)
	* (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.
	:(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.
	:(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)
	::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)
	:::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)
	::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)
	:::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)
	::::It seems as if you did not carefully read the text above your statement. ] (]) 00:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
	=== Comment ===
	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.
	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)
	:: 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)
	:::Translation: The problem isn't my drinking. The problem is you complaining about my drinking. --00:18, 25 October 2013 (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)
	:::::Your attack does not advance the discussion. ] (]) 00:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::: I would also like to note that IP 99.147.29.158 is registered to Suburban Express
	] (]) 01:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
	===Proposal===
	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.
	I propose:
	# 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)
	::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)
	::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)
	:::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)
	* '''strong support''' ] (]) 02:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
	* {{nao}} I support items 1, 3, and 4. Re item 2, Verdict78 and HtownCat have clear bias in favor of Suburban Express, but I'd want to see the evidence of paid editing or other policy violations before supporting sanctions. CU is warranted as well. --] (]) 04:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::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)
	*'''Support all 4''' - Utter mess that has gone on long enough. Corporations trying to white-wash history always piss me off. This is one of the lamest and most half-arsed versions of that I've ever seen. ] ] 08:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	=== Counter Proposal ===
	The proposal above does not remedy the large number of false statements and false attributions in the Suburban Express article.
	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:
	1) Read each sentence of the article which is attributed to a source.
	2) Read the cited source and verify that the attributed sentence/information is present in the source.
	3) Correct all inconsistencies.
	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)
	*'''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)
	:: 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-->
	===Guidance Sought===
	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".
	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.
	Suburban Express will work to provide a well-supported list of false statements and false attributions/citations, and will post Friday evening..
	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:
	SE: We have a problem. Here it is.
	Misplaced Pages: You are a-holes, F.U..
	SE: We're trying to address this specific problem, let's stay on topic.
	Misplaced Pages: F.U.register a username, the ip address you are using is registered to SE
	SE: We know the ip address is registered to SE. All statements from this ip address are from us.
	Misplaced Pages: You're disruptive. We're going to get the rope and torches and ban you for being disruptive.
	It is not clear to us how Misplaced Pages insulting Suburban Express in this discussion constitutes a ban-able infraction by Suburban Express.
	Perhaps one of the least emotional participants can explain this to us. We are quite baffled.
	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.
	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.
	] (]) 05:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
	: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.
	: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.
	: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)
	: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.
	: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)
	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)
	: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)
	::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)
	=== User: Suburban_Express replaced with user: Suburban Express President ===
	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.
	We continue to work on the promised materials for the earlier complaint, above. It is turning out to be a very time-consuming project.
	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">—&nbsp;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)
	: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)
	:Could {{U|Orangemike}} say what the problem is , and why Suburban Express President can't edit with his current name? Leaving a source on talk seems like a reasonable thing to do. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
	:Anyone who has followed the article and the discussion can answer. As for anyone else with COI, this individual has no business editing WP mainspace at all about himself or his company in mainspace. As his editing in WP space (here) and talk space is unconstructive, he has no business editing at all. OTRS remains open to justified complaints. I am amazed at the patience some of my colleagues here are showing with the most unsubtle example I have ever seen of a company trying to conceal apparently justified sourced negative material. ''']''' (]) 01:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	::DGG, as you know I oppose any kind of paid advocacy, but I can't see what the user has done wrong here. These are effectively BLP violations that he's trying to fix, given that the criticism is aimed at one, borderline-notable, individual, and that most of it seems to be from social media. I hope we can help him to fix this, rather than make him jump through hoops about name changes. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	Hello - Just stopping by to update the situation. I have put in a name change request so that my username does not violate WP:Role and am refraining from editing the Suburban Express talk page (or anything else except for engaging in conversations largely at my talk page) until the change is completed. I have no intent of editing the Suburban Express article due to COI. As for the article, the issues raised with editor CorporateM are still valid and I will be posting information consistent with user anthonyhcole's recommendations once the name change is complete. I notice that CorporateM has been very active with editing again, and that the edits are not accurate. For instance, a recent edit states that we have sued 200 students. That statement does not referencea any article and it is not true. About 40-50% of tickets are purchased by parents, and parents are not students. Clearly, remedial work is necessary. Also, I am in the process of posting pdf's of (copyright-released) articles on my talk page which are currently not available online so that wikipedia editors have access to all articles, not just articles which are currently available online. My goal here is to ensure that the Suburban Express article does not contain false statements or inaccurate citations. At this point, it does.
	Hopefully, the name change will go through soon. ] (]) 15:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:Hi, you don't actually need a name change in my view, though if you want to go ahead with one that's fine. But in the meantime (with this name or with your new one) you're allowed to post on the article talk page if you have sources or suggestions for change. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	== Topic Appeal Ban (2) by Martinvl ==
	I wish my topic ban to be removed or relaxed.
	While I understand that the topic ban is aimed at preventing further disruption and that ultimately I am responsible for my own actions, I would like to plead in mitigation that I had never seen the page ] until it was pointed out to me via private correspondence by another editor. Although it is my responsibility to have been aware of that page, had User:BeyondMyKen quoted the page concerned when he cited from it, I would certainly not have adopted the stance I took. As it is, there is no mention whatsoever of that page in the ANI concerned. My entire stance, especially that outlined in my earlier appeal, was made in ignorance of the existence of that page.
	In light of this and of the stress that I have suffered, I request that my topic ban be removed or relaxed. I undertake to be more careful with any edits or reversion that I make and I am willing to work under such restrictions that you might see fit to place on me.
	Up to this point I have tried to improve articles more or less on my own, and that in large part has placed me in the position I now find myself. Under the proposed regime, I will have to rely more on persuading other editors rather than making edits myself. Learning to do this will ultimately make me a better editor. ] (]) 16:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support indefinite block''' of this editor due to continual violation of their topic ban <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 16:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support indef block''' - Martinvl simply doesn't get it. ]] 16:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support extended block''' - As a participant in the ANI discussion which lead to the topic ban I do not understand how MartinVL could ignore what was said to him simply because it was not cited to an ''essay'' (not policy). ] (]) 17:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support indef''' Martinvl is not hearing it. <span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #003399;">]</span><span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #FF8C00;">]</span> 17:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
	*Wait--why would we block him? I see that there's something Martinvl doesn't get, but I see no violations of the topic ban in their recent edits. I'm tempted to close the request per SNOW and IDNHT and all, but is there a violation that justifies a block? This request in itself shows they might not get it, but that in itself is not, in my view, sufficient reason for a block. Please tell me what I'm missing. ] (]) 17:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
	:*See ], closed less than 24 hours ago. ]] 17:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
	:Drmies, Martinvl's ANI resulted in extensive wikilawyering on his end (citing vote-stacking by the filing party after insisting himself the filing party notify all involved in the current dispute), then bordered on actual lawyering based on statements made on his talkpage. Once the topic ban was handed down, after several people tried desperately to get him to listen, he immediately asked for a relaxation in part to file an ANI complaint (what should have been an SPI filing) against another party in the subject from which he was topic banned. Prior to receiving that answer (which was "no"), he filed the report, which dealt extensively with the subject from which he is banned. The ANI complaint was closed with a reminder that he is topic banned. He then lodged a complaint GaintSnowman linked to above, where he refuses to accept that despite being told in the ANI that he does not have legal rights on Misplaced Pages that we failed to let him speak, when in truth he just didn't listen to what was being said at him. Now, he is topic banned from his preferred area, and rather than pursue other areas he is intent on having the ban revoked. ] (]) 17:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
	:Well, I won't !vote "indef" right now, because it's all very sad - but honestly, I've seen this so often. Editor has a "niche" area (in this case measurements) which they edit to satisfy a POV. Editor gets on everyone else's nerves with tendentious editing to said area, and pernickety wikilawyering. Editor is topic-banned, when community becomes exasperated with this. Editor continues tendentious wikilawyering with multiple topic ban appeals. Community gives up and indefs due to massive timesink, and well, unwillingness to put up with it. Rinse and repeat. I don't think it's necessarily the way things should always happen, but it's sure predictable, and even understandable. In this case, oddly, Martinvl seems to be claiming that until now he did not know that wikilawyering about his "rights", and being a major pain in the arse was a "bad thing". I doubt it'll wash right now, but fascinating, even if only to the extent that it may well be wikilawyering about the right to wikilawyer if you didn't know you didn't have that right... or something...(I'm lost) ... Or it could be genuine, but see that's what happens when people have had enough - AGF fails. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 17:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
	*Gotcha (Snowman). Thank you. Odd: blocked not for breaking their topic ban but for excessive disruption only partly related to said topic ban. Martinvl may place an unblock request--indefinite is not infinite--which will be turned down immediately unless it shows some understanding of the irritation and disruption caused by their behavior. I'm not going to list policies and guidelines here that they should study; they're linked in the various threads on ANI and on AN and on their talk page. ] (]) 17:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
	'''Comment''' I think this is a little too much. Martin's made another plea, but how does that equate to an indef block due to disruptive editing? I would encourage people to encourage Martin to take a pause for a moment and to leave both AN and measurements etc alone. Did anyone warn Martin that another entry at AN would result in an indef block? Can someone provide those diffs please? ] (]) 18:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
	:Take a look at The Bushranger's close of the previous topic ban appeal, where he wrote "...if this same tactic is adopted in any further appealing an indef WP:BOOMERANG is likely to hit." ] (]) 21:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
	'''Relax topic ban to 1RR''' First, Martinvl does get it. He has a world view (very effective for the areas he edits) where what is documented is valuable and random opinions aren't. Pointing out that ] exists settles the matter of wikilawyering in a way that multiple people giving their opinions could not; we're not going to see any more of that behavior.
	Martinvl has a long track record of being an effective, expert contributor. I've never had a technical disagreement with him that lasted beyond one or the other of us producing a reliable source. Despite constant harassment from a sophisticated sockmaster, I've never seen him be anything less than civil. But if there's a disagreement that can't be adjudicated objectively, his stubborn streak can come out.
	I'd like to keep the expert contributions while Martinvl learns how to walk away from unwinnable arguments. A 1RR restriction lets him contribute but won't let him argue; we get the benefit without the disruption. <small><span style="color:gray"><tt>]<span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1em">]<br/>]</span></tt></span></small> 18:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
	:A good compromise. I hope that others here can assume good faith (perhaps ''just one more time'') and allow Martin a shade of latitude. 1RR is a harsh mistress and I'm certain several here would be happy (even keen) to enforce it when required. ] (]) 20:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
	*<s>'''Remove Topic Ban, Impose 1RR Restriction''' Based upon Martinvl's comments above, I am confident that he ''does'' get it. In particular, looks at this comment:
	::''"Up to this point I have tried to improve articles more or less on my own, and that in large part has placed me in the position I now find myself. Under the proposed regime, I will have to rely more on persuading other editors rather than making edits myself. Learning to do this will ultimately make me a better editor."''
	:Based upon my previous interactions with Martinvl, in my opinion he is unlikely to make a commitment like that and then take it lightly. And of course if I am wrong on this, there is always ] to consider. --] (]) 21:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)</s>
	:*'''Withdraw'''. This replaces my comment above. I have carefully read all the other comments on this. Though I am not 100% convinced, there have been some compelling arguments -- enough so that I am withdrawing my comment above, and neither support or oppose any of the proposals. --] (]) 18:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support indef''' - I also support a further topic ban on appealing this topic ban for a minimum of six months to a year. ]&#124;]&#124;] 21:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
	**And almost certainly banishment to a dark dungeon with rats, whips, spikes etc. Point made. ] (]) 21:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
	***Would the dungeon have Internet? DSL or cable? (Don't be so melodramatic, there's life outside of WP - I think.) ] (]) 22:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
	*I'm willing to '''give IRR a try''', with the caveat that it must be clear to Martinvl -- and I mean that he must say clearly and distinctly that he understands this -- that ''''''any''''' violation of 1RR, or '''''any''''' Wikilawyering, tendentious commentary or ] behavior will be '''''immediately''''' met with an indef block, with no community discussion necessary. In other words, I am in favor of '''''approving the indef block <u>in advance</u>'''''. I don't have any great hope that this will work, and I put litle stock in Martinvl's words of wonderment which began his appeal, which, frankly, seem specious to me, but I take it on good faith that he's got something to offer the project that may possibly make another try worthwhile - but the rope's gotta be really, really short. ] (]) 21:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Keep topic ban''' as 1RR cannot apply to his talk page comments, where he has been disruptive in the past. —''']]]''' 21:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
	::I agree. The more disruptive part has been the persistent Wikilawyering, not the reverting, so 1RR won't help any.
	::As to the indef, well, I viewed the previous appeal as an ] violation - and the threat has not since been withdrawn - so I feel he was lucky not to have already been blocked indef before this appeal. Plus let's remember that the topic ban has already been broken, as noted in the previous appeal. I put approximately no stock in Martin's saying he gets it, as per RGloucester below, and per my previous experience with him. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 22:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::Note: I support an indefinite block until Martinvl agrees to follow the topic ban. --''']]]''' 18:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*I don't think I support an indefinite block, however, the topic ban should remain. Martin is a long-time editor who has been around all edges of Misplaced Pages. He knows how it works, however, he has chosen to disregard that repeatedly. He may say he "gets it", but he has said such repeatedly, after the fact, and yet continues the behavior that leads to sanctions. For example, as a result of the 48 hour initial block that he received for disrupting the ANI, he said that "he would not've done that" if he knew the person who told him to stop "was an administrator". These type of retroactive "getting it" phrases should not be bought wholesale. Look at the history. Not to mention his previous repeated obsession with legality and justice. It suddenly disappears today? That seems a bit queer, doesn't it? ] — ] 22:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support indef''' on reflection. It's not forever and he can work on convincing admins on his talkpage that he is no longer going to waste everyone's time like this, and truly understands the issues. There does come a point where the sheer amount of time involved in dealing with this kind of repetitive, tendentious editing is too much. You fit in, or you get out, in the end - that's true of any community. The mere fact that this has rumbled on for so long and now is reignited shows that any sort of "ok - but be good in future" result, again, is insufficient, because every view other than Martin's must be wrong, nothing is ever Martin's fault, Martin "gets it" now, but never before when explained, if that serves the cause, and oh, it's all so unjust... This kind of timesink stuff may well be the death of this place if we refuse to address it. Yes, I mean don't set a precedent here that wikilawyering wins. '''Oppose''' the rats and whips, and also the spikes. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 22:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support retention of year long topic-ban and propose a 3 month block''' - whilst I am an involved editor, Martinvl will continue to post requests to overturn their topic-ban as they don't believe they have done anything wrong and will not defend the accusations against him, always trying to pin it on someone else or trying to worm out of it by a technicality even when that is turned down by several admins. The fact they didn't get a sanction for their incivility to me and DDStretch and the continued lying and twisting in regards to doing it at the UK article is in my eyes a let off for them never mind edit-warring with admins on AN/I of all places. A 1RR would be of no use. So instead of an indef block, maybe Martinvl would benefit from a short-term block of say 3-months so they can think about their behaviour and attitude. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
	'''Unblock''' Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and Martinvl is an editor, so they should be ''editing.'' So they took longer than the average editor to grok the intricacies of the bureaucratic non-bureaucracy we've erected around here; not that important. As one of the editors who took a shot (not "desperately") at explaining things to them on their talk page, my time will only turn out to be "wasted" if, at the end of the day, they don't end up editing in a collaborative fashion -- because that's ''supposed'' to be the goal of dispute resolution. Their post here makes it seem like they finally got it; personally I don't care why and long as they did. And we can't figure out whether they really did until we all stop yakking about it and they return to ''editing.'' <small>]</small> 23:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
	::To be honest NE Ent I don't believe Martinvl is being sincere. They haven't even apologised for their false accusations which equate to personal attacks on me and DDStretch, and the twisting he partook in to avoid taking the blame for it. So on that, how can Martinvl be described as finally getting it when they can't even bite the bullet and accept they where in the wrong and apologise for their incivility? Any editor with even the tiniest amount of remorse and wanting to receive penitence would at least acknowledge their fault and apologise for it - Matinvl seems absolutely unable to accept their fallibility, and at this stage any such acknowledgement and apology would more likely be an attempt to game. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::Exactly; this sort of stuff has been going on for ''years''. --''']]]''' 00:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''': As will have already been noticed by people who have been aware of prior events, I am involved as the administrator who initially tried to deal with the edit-warring Martinvl incorrectly attributed to Wee Curry Monster (thus downplaying his own deep involvement) on ]. We then saw Martinvl launch a series of actions that ran counter to the spirit of wikipedia, for which he has not yet apologized, withdrawn, or even acknowledged in many cases. All these are documented on the AN/I thread about him. I am not sure that Martinvl will comply with the small amount that he has acknowledged and written here after such a short time since his last problematic behaviour, and may be he cannot easily control himself at the moment. But we have at last seen a statement that begins (and only just begins) to acknowledge something. We should try to build on that, even if some of us cannot, at this stage, believe that it is true. There are, however, so far no apparently sincere expressions of regret for his edit-warring or personal attacks, or his other disruptive behaviour, bar the "no justice"-related issue. I think he needs to be guided firmly to deal with the other issues now. And if the action of the community now is to allow an immediate relaxation of the present sanctions, then I think he needs to be urged, if possible, to join the ] service to guide his behaviour on here to much more acceptable forms. It would count in his favour, in my opinion, if he voluntarily agreed to this rather than being required to. In addition, if the sanctions are immediately relaxed, I think there should be developed an explicit list of bullet points concerning specific aspects of his behaviour that Martinvl should be required to deal with before any relaxation should be considered. He should be put on probation about all of this (a bit like a suspended sentence). I know this seems harsh, but the extent to which his behaviour has been abberent to this project up to now, and the extent of a change we see in the apparent Damasene conversion before us would seem to require it for us to be sure. I would hope that if Martinvl is sincere in his change in attitudes, he would not object to doing this. The problem is that his prior behaviour seems so entrenched given previous problems with him, that, although his contribution to wikipedia could be very great in the area of measurement, it also carries great risks to wikipedia because of the disruption that has sometimes gone along with them. I hope he can be encouraged to contribute in his special area of measurement in the future, but I hope we can help him become a more agreeable editor to the wikipedia project by adopting some of the ideas (or adapting them after discussion) I have suggested here. If this is impossible, then I, sadly, cannot hold up much hope for his future as an editor on wikipedia. ]&nbsp;] 03:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Revert indef, reinstate topic ban as before''' - I've supported Martinvl in the past, but let's set that aside a second. Firstly, this appeal is not convincing enough to suggest that the initial concerns will be resolved from now on. However, it is not so purely disruptive for a lynch mob of "indef block" votes to be thrown into the ring (and the close of the previous discussion is irrelevant, to be perfectly honest; that's one admin's opinion, however valid it may be) - Martin is at least attempting to demonstrate a willingness to change, and although I can understand the lack of ], it is utterly unhelpful. I think Martin should change his editing focus for six months or so, work on his abilities in disputes, and attempt to find a mentor. If this happens and it is successful, I would see no reason to not lift the topic ban altogether - but that's a big if, Martin, and you need to do the work yourself, because no one can do it for you. ] ] 09:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Sustain indef block for now''' Until Martinvl gives a commitment to drop the stick, follow the topic ban and generally move on an indefinite duration block is justified. Unfortunately he's going around in circles on this issue pursuing the supposed injustices he feels he was subjected to, and this is not a good use of his time or that of the community. ] (]) 09:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Suggestion:''' because Martinvl appears to have made valuable contributions to articles ''about'' measurement, and since the conduct that has been found problematic seems to have been concerned only with the ''usage'' of measurements in articles generally, to narrow the terms of the topic-ban to those ‘circumstantial’ areas—I’m not sure how best to reword it, but the idea is to permit him to work in his area of interest, if not (or only under a 1RR) in its broader applications where disputes have arisen. ISTM the exception allowing him to follow up his GA nominations was already a step in this direction.—]]] 03:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:: I oppose this suggestion because Martin has addressed almost none of the substantive reasons for his block, and the one he did address seems so quick on the heels of his continued disruption in that manner as to make make some editors wary of its validity. Until he does show real and more changes in more areas where he was disruptive, and gives assurances that he has a clue about the way wikipedia works in all the areas he has created so much disruption, past experiences are that he will simply resume his disruptive ways. If your suggestion is to be given any traction, then he needs to address a list of bullet points we should develop specifically about his problematic behaviour, giving assurances about each one, before we should even consider relaxing the current restrictions. Even then, I am not sure it can easily be done without Martin getting involved with this service: ] ]&nbsp;] 03:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::@Odysseus1479: ''"and since the conduct that has been found problematic seems to have been concerned only with the usage of measurements in articles generally"'' - what about their conduct in regards to making personal attacks and trying to blame others for them? Is that not problematic also? A lot of issues need resolved in regards to Martinvl's behaviour before any relaxation should be done. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	*Just a note, for the sake of it. An editor has opened ] with regard to Martinvl. ] — ] 15:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	::And to add, as the editor who raised an SPI check in reponse to that ANI report, the SPI check demonstrated the two were unrelated. Furthermore for the record, I never thought there was much substance to the complaint. It is relevant to note that ] who commented in the ANI thread has been revealed to be a sock pupper of the banned edit ] as alleged by ]. ] <small>]</small> 20:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Indefinite block''', please. Martinvl says he wants to follow NOJUSTICE from now on but then he says that under the self-imposed restriction: "I will have to rely more on persuading other editors rather than making edits myself." The constant trying of other editors' patience is what brought him to this crossroads. The essay NOJUSTICE says we should strive to "'''allow editors to return to productive editing instead of getting bogged down in conflict.'''" Martinvl's proposal says nothing about allowing others to be free from conflict—instead, he is lining up his next persuasive arguments and planning his next RfCs. I think Martinvl must acknowledge that he must stop robbing productive editors of their time and energy. ] (]) 03:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	== Indefinite block of Eric Corbett ==
	<div class="boilerplate discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; overflow:auto; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa">
	:''The following discussion is closed. {{red|'''Please do not modify it.'''}} Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' ''A summary of the conclusions reached follows.''
	::This thread has burned itself to the ground 3 times over at this point: Actions in the near future: A RfC/U will be presented to discuss the interactions into and out from Eric Corbett. Everybody goes back to editing and improving the encyclopedia. Collapsing for the good of the community. ] (]) 11:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	---- <!-- from Template:discussion top-->
	*{{user5|Eric Corbett}}
	I'm afraid that Eric Corbett's actions over the past 24 hours have shown that he has returned to his less productive persona. I find this a shame, but every single edit he has made since returning from his 3 hour block has violated any number of civility based policies. I have therefore taken the step to indefinitely block him. As discussion on his talk page is unlikely to be productive over the next 24 hours, I've taken the unusual step of protecting the page for that period, so that calm discussion can happen here. I should also point out that no ban discussion should happen without re-opening his talk page, to allow Eric to participate, though I think participation in the next 24 hours would be unhelpful. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 15:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::I've unprotected the page. If you don't like his particular and/or peculiar way of arguing, just don't read his page. Eric tends to cool off when he's done being hot, and this shouldn't interfere with the discussion here. --]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>✌ 23:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:Yeah. Calm discussion here. Right. We know what will happen. Those wanting to ban until the end of time (and beyond) will muster their most strident arguments, as will his defenders along with those who just don't like those who want to ban. If this is supposed to be the high ground it looks more like a cesspit from the edge. ]] 15:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::That is no different than any other issue on wiki (or the real world really). You go to war with the army you have, not the army you would like. (Alternatively, Gotham has the Batman it deserves...) ] (]) 15:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::Not really. Show trials are show trials. ]] 15:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::: How does one excuse Eric's behaviour?
	:::: I don't want to see Eric blocked or banned (yes Eric, really). However given the choice between him editing and ''not'' abusing others, using editing to abuse anyone and anything that moves, or just blocking and having done with him, I see one choice that it's beyond anyone other than him to choose and two where one is very much the lesser of two evils.
	:::: We have a rule: you don't use these terms to other editors. It's a simple enough rule. If you can't work within it, you don't have the maturity to be part of such a community. Eric gives no indication of being able to. It's beyond me why he can't or won't, but that's his problem and it should no longer be ours. ] (]) 19:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	: Yes, poking a hornets nest with a stick always helps. It seems you've made up your mind that you're going to push for a ban, which is hugely regrettable. I'd prefer if you were to strike that and see where things stand tomorrow once things calm down. I find it quite astonishing actually that you block his ability to respond then discuss the idea of a ban. That's really not very nice. ] (]) 15:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	Just a thought, but perhaps a request for arbitration would be a better way to handle an appeal of the block than a noticeboard discussion here. ] (]) 15:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:Actually Nick, I'd personally oppose a ban, but was trying to stop the conversation before it started. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 15:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	: It's curious that at least two admins let the poking and provocation just above the final blocks slide, as one example:<blockquote>Not to mention "cunt" . Eric, its really obvious you were pushing the envelope to get exactly this result, so the melodramatic passive aggressive outrage is really cliche. You got exactly what you wanted. Be happy. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC) </blockquote> For a very long time, Mally's (Eric's) point about civility was the double standard in the way it is applied. That trend has only become worse over time, with other editors increasingly being able to get away with more, and their admin friends defend their even worse, wholly unprovoked attacks, while blocking Eric after he was poked at with not even a warning to the poker. (No diffs supplied on the even worse transgressions allowed by other editors since anyone paying attention knows which personal attacks I'm referring to, from an editor with a long history of same, but dragging worse examples into this will only derail this conversation. I do like Arsten's idea of an arbcase: I've got some relevant diffs to supply.) Fram or Worm, why did you not protect Eric's talk as soon as the poking started? ] (]) 15:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::@Worm, I think protecting Eric's talk page was a fabulously good idea, and was something I've been on the verge of doing myself for the past 12 hours. I think raising the stakes with an indefinite block was a bad idea. The blocks should be doled out ''after'' the calm discussion. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 15:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::I'm still of the opinion indefinite =/= infinite. I'm hoping that some calm discussion would agree what we expect from Eric should he return, and then he can be unblocked, perhaps as soon as tomorrow. Seems a lot shorter than 3 months to me. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 16:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::: Just to support Worm's actions here and to echo indefinite != infinite. I see an indef (which Eric could resolve ''tonight'' if he wished to) as much preferable overall to 3 months. ] (]) 19:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:Sandy, that was indeed one of the reasons I protected the page. 6 minutes after that very post, as soon as I was aware of what was going on and had read the history. I'm currently in the process of writing a up a statement regarding my indef, then I was going to deal with other comments on that page. I'm getting to it, but you'll have to give me a short while. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 15:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:: Thanks, Worm, appreciated. It would be helpful if admins who stood by and didn't protect talk explained why they let Gaijin42's post slide, and whether they do not find it to be equally attacking, even if no fing is used. ] (]) 16:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::After seeing I went to ] to see if EC had ever been warned for incivility and if so to block the account, if not to give a warning. I support the block, but I suspect that as Intothatdarkness says this will get messy. SG as to a warning this user has had lots of warnings so why do you think that another would be appropriate? SG please supply a diff for Gaijin42's post. -- ] (]) 16:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::: PBS, you don't seem to be paying attention. Not only is the diff there ... even if it weren't, it's not that hard to find. ] (]) 16:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::: SG where is the "there ..." that your are referring to and what is the diff? It would help me and probably others (and those that read this record when it is archived) if you would be explicit when making such statements. -- ] (]) 17:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::: Could someone else please help PBS find the now ''two'' diffs posted on this page? ] (]) 17:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::I have posted two diffs on this page. Which diff are you referring? -- ] (]) 17:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::I have to agree with SandyGeorgia here. If we're going to be sanctioning someone for reacting when poked, can we not address the poking as well? The hot-headed comments that get EC in trouble don't form in a vacuum. I seem to recall a massive ArbCom case not too long ago that said as much. ] (]) 16:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::And most of this started with the usual seasonal editing surrounding a page Eric and Parrot of Doom have put a great deal of work into. It happens every year, and usually generates some sort of drama. ]] 16:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::: The biggest poke of all came from that exemplary admin role model, Fram. No wonder Eric was so incensed. There would be something wrong with him if he wasn't. --] (]) 16:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::Where did I poke him? Please compare his reaction before and after the block (the ''only'' action I took here). I don't see any difference, so my "poke", the block, didn't make any difference to him being "incensed". ] (]) 17:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	I agree with Sandy. Indefing someone who is being poked and prodded on his own talk page is completely unnecessary. Frankly, a f**k off is hardly something to block someone over in the first place - it means pretty much the same thing as 'buzz off' or 'go away' and someone has to be fairly thin skinned to be offended by it. Sort of like putting someone in jail for jaywalking. Am very disappointed in worm (who is, generally, a reasonable sort of chap). --] <small>(])</small> 16:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	: For the record, I am not a fan of the current level of profanity ''et al'' allowed, accepted, tolerated here on Misplaced Pages, but I do understand the point of the double standard, the fact that other posters can say even worse things with or without fing c's and still get away with it, and the issue of poking. I don't defend Mally's (Eric's) language; I do understand the broader points. I hope. And Worm has said he is still composing a post of his reasoning. ] (]) 16:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::RP I do not agree that is the equivalent of 'buzz off', particularly as there is no other comment on that page which are directed toward EC that could conceivably deserve such reply. -- ] (]) 17:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::I don't disagree Sandy. And, I can't really understand why someone who as handy with the English language as Eric obviously is, has to resort to profanity to make his displeasure known. But, we live in a world where profanity is accepted and I don't see how we can effectively ban it from Misplaced Pages. Profanity is actually less offensive than, for example, what Gaijin42 wrote on Eric Corbett's page. --] <small>(])</small> 17:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::I agree that what Gaijin42 wrote on Eric's page was arguably worse than a simple profanity, since it was just like a diagnosis (a psychiatric one) about his entire personality, not just a "one off" profanity. Does Gaijin42 have the expertise to make such a diagnosis? Even if he has, did he carry out a medical examination for which he should have got informed consent, in order to reach it? If the answer to any of these questions is "no", then it was a direct and profound personal attack. ]&nbsp;] 17:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::] Not sure where you are going with this. Melodramatic and passive aggressive are not psychiatric diagnoses. Nor did I attribute such to his personality, but to the specific statements he was making. I did not acuse him of being bipolar, or schizophrenic, or any such. ] (]) 20:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::: This farce has happened too many times. Someone pokes Eric. Things escalate, until Eric crosses some line. Eric gets blocked. Parties who did the poking get nothing. (AFAICT) I haven't read all of the diffs, but it sure fits a pattern. I wish I thought Arbcom involvement would help.--]] 16:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*I'm putting this together to explain my reasoning. Overall, I consider myself a supporter of Eric, I do believe he's one of our better editors from a content perspective. However, I do believe he has stepped over the line a number of times. He has been blocked for long periods and has had many of those blocks overturned as unfair. Some, however, were fair. A three hour block yesterday for his actions on the Guy Fawkes especially was a reasonable block, indeed it was softer than many other users would get. Eric vented on his talk page and was needled targeted through the block. He left Misplaced Pages for the night and returned this afternoon. Not one of the edits he made was remotely productive. From returning to the article for more direct insults (which he knew goes does poorly with the community) to anti administrator tirades, every single edit made was unacceptable. <p>I removed his talk page access as he was being provoked, though the provocation was not an excuse for his behaviour. There would be no sensible discussion there. I've only removed it for 24 hours, at which point I hope that he will have calmed down and be able to discuss the matter rationally. If he feels he can do that sooner, he is welcome to email me (or any other administrator), who may remove the page protection. Please do be aware that people will be provoking him should that protection be removed, which is why I didn't remove talk page access for just him, but for everyone. If an admin removes it, I hope they'll be watching his page. <p>What do I think should happen next? A discussion at AN about what we expect Eric to do. It might be some sort of civility parole, it might be to stay away from certain hot spot articles. It might even be that he should be able to act like that with complete impunity, but it should be decided. If Eric agrees with whatever the community decides on, the indefinite block should be lifted. Should anyone want to take this to the arbitration committee, I will of course recuse. Should anyone believe my actions as an administrator were grossly unacceptable, my recall procedure is at my userpage. I've got to drive home now, but will be available for further comment soon. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 16:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*: One problem with your reasoning is that history shows your approach won't work. What ''will'' work, perhaps, is dealing with the double standard and the pokers. Mally (Eric) does not return "calmed down" when the pokers get away with it. ] (]) 16:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	] I fail to see how pointing out a recent example of Eric's NPA failure (with diff) constitutes a issue on my part. For the record, I have no grudge against Eric, in fact recently putting a happy ferret/weasel video on his talk page and holding a friendly coorespondance off-wiki with him about ferret hammocks. @] my diff is which includes a link to the diff by Eric where he called (either me or an anon IP) a cunt. ] (]) 16:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	: Obviously you don't; I'm not here to talk to you. ] (]) 16:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::]. I think you should apologize to Gaijin for your impolite remark to him. When you post at this forum you talk to all of us. Gaijin is a user of good standing in the community and has of course full rights to participate in the discussion – not least when it is an issue that he has been directly involved in – and to expect to be treated with the same respect as all other users. Regards, ] (]) 16:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::: I am talking to people who understand that Gaijin's poke was an attack and that the double standard is still alive and well, even after a full arbcase. Neither you nor Gaijin seem to understand that, and those who don't understand, won't no matter how much I type. So, I'm not here to try to convince you either. ] (]) 16:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::] You’re basically saying that you don’t want any conversation with people of another opinion than yourselves and don’t seem to respect them much. My view is that Misplaced Pages is a community where we all have a say, and were we are expected to discuss and work together in order to gain consensus. I haven’t been involved in or followed much the dispute leading to Corbett’s last block, but noticed he called the blocking administrator for “impotent arse hole“. Since double standard has been mentioned: I doubt there are many users here who will say so to an admin who has reprimanded them for incivility and get away with it. A minimum requirement for unblocking Corbett should be that he gives a sincere apology for this comment. Regards, ] (]) 17:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::: Again. You doubt that someone else would get away with same? Whether you aren't paying attention, or you are just unaware, you are wrong. They often do same or worse, and they often get away with it. ] (]) 17:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Please give an example with diffs of "They often do same or worse". -- ] (]) 17:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::: PBS, are you able to read what is on this page? You are three for three. ] (]) 17:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::I assure you that I have no one reading this to me, so you can take this reply as an answer to you first question. I do not understand what you mean by "You are three for three". What is the evidence best evidence you have that "They often do same or worse, and they often get away with it."? a few diffs would help because I have not seen worse than on Misplaced Pages. -- ] (]) 17:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	Just for the record, I'd like to say that I completely agree with everything that SandyGeorgia has written here. The double-standards that seem to be operating need to have firm action to end them. ]&nbsp;] 16:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:Agree. Especially since they're not limited to Eric. ]] 16:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*Yes, the poking was inexcusable, but so was the reaction - ''all'' parties involved here should know better by now. Is Eric's long-term history of incivility and personal attacks embarrasing (for both him and the Project) and disruptive? Yes. Should he be indef blocked for this latest shameful episode? No. ]] 16:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::If you are referring to my post as the poke, not that it had no impact on Eric's actions resulting in a ban, as he was banned for actions he had already taken before my post. ] (]) 16:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::: He was not banned (focus please). Once again:<blockquote> Eric, its really obvious you were '''pushing the envelope to get exactly this result, so the melodramatic passive aggressive outrage is really cliche. You got exactly what you wanted.''' Be happy. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC) </blockquote> Emphasis mine. It would have been nicer to just say what that message really says, which is something along the lines of, "fuck you, asshole, you got what you deserved because we all know you are passive aggressive and did this on purpose". You don't seem to see a problem with your poking, which has long been precisely one of Eric's points. ] (]) 16:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::Slip of the tongue, I meant blocked. Eric calls me a cunt. I post something about it on his talk page, and I'm the one who instigated it. Your logic is flawless. ] (]) 16:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::*He didn't: Semantics are important. Did I miss a diff where he actually called you a cunt? And how is "the melodramatic passive aggressive outrage is really cliche" NOT a personal attack? It's so tiresome to see all this focusing on one word, not even used in direct address. Why would you go to someone's talk page to piss on them? What did you expect to come out of it, except for momentary relief? ] (]) 17:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::That's basically equivalent to the old "But he started it!" (a classic of the genre). That shit didn't fly when I was 5 years old and trying to pin stuff on my younger brother; it doesn't (or at least shouldn't) fly now. If your comment had been "Eric, I was actually really offended by your comment, can you please retract it?" or something equally <s>milquetoast</s>civil, that'd be a different story. But it wasn't, and it isn't: ]. ]&nbsp;]] 16:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::: (e/cx3) I think it's the manner in which you posted it, almost certainly knowing about previous "Eric incidents", and yet you still went ahead and did it inhe way you did. I think that a more correct way would have been to either say nothing, or be completely neutral in your response. I don't think you were: it was a "counter attack" and you probably knew that Eric would react again. ]&nbsp;] 17:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::: No wonder Eric gets frustrated. Gaejin, '''focus'''! I never said you "instigated" anything. Ditto per Writ Keeper. I asked why admins let your provocation and poking slide (and I see that Worm has now addressed it with you and you ''still'' decline to see the problem). You can end this faster by admitting you poked, and that was wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right. Gee, I am so sorry <s>Eric called you a name,</s> you believe that Eric called you a name, and that rampant name calling is allowed and tolerated on Misplaced Pages (depending on which admins one has for friends), but you are missing the ''other'' point. ] (]) 17:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::: Strike, correct, better. ] (]) 17:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	Well I suppose congratulations are in order to Spartaz, Fram and Worm for upholding the standards we have come to expect from our admin tradition (though disappointing to see you there Worm). This is what we get when hundreds of lose cannon admins are allowed to operate with no centralised control and not even a mission statement. The real problem here is our unreformed admin system, which cannot operate skilfully the way it is put together at the moment. --] (]) 16:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::@ ] ''Yes, the poking was inexcusable'' obviously, it was excusable, as it happened, and no actions have been taken. Or does "inexcusable" measn something different to you?--]] 17:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::{{ping|Sphilbrick}} ah yes, because rashly blocking everybody involved, as opposed to dsicussing next steps, is a sensible move. ]] 17:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::Come on, GiantSnowman. You know what's at stake here: perception of unequal treatment. The way to solve that is of course not to block every poker--but blocking the bear is even worse if the pokers don't even get a slap on the wrist. What am I supposed to do, as an admin, give Gaijin a templated warning? Block him for that foolish remark? No, because I don't want to be that kind of administrator, and I don't think the other admins who are opposing this ridiculous block are either. I wish the others involved could take their fingers off the block button; the only thing they're achieving is continuing the perception that single-word based civility policies ("fuck", "cunt") are in effect and other kinds of incivility is overlooked. Or maybe it's not a perception; maybe Eric is right. ] (]) 17:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::On what basis would you block Gaijin42? Preventative, not punitive etc. Like I said, we need to decrease the drama, and issuing more & more blocks is not the way to do that. As for "unequal treatment" - well, I've already said that the indef block should not stand. ]] 17:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Your sarcasm does not decrease the heat, that's the problem. I wouldn't block Gaijin on ''any'' basis, but a civility cop who has more at their disposal than a simple checklist could. ] (]) 17:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::What sarcasm? We seem to be agreeing that Gaijin42 does not need a block - so why are we arguing? ]] 17:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:I admit to being disappointed in you Worm. The whole situation became uncivil because of Anselm citing civility policy in an uncivil way. Few people appreciate sanctimony and it is not uncommon for someone to get a little tasty when faced with sanctimony. We need to look at the actual cause, rather than the series of incidents that occurred afterwards. is what prompted all of this and it is far from blockworthy. Anselm's sanctimonious cries of incivility over that comment got Eric to say he doesn't give a fuck what Anselm thinks, leading to Anselm's templated warning about "personal attacks", and Eric's testy removal of said warning. Everything from that point is a product of snotty-nosed sanctimony on his talk page regarding the block. As far as I am concerned, Eric has been indefinitely blocked for calling a discussion "bone-headed" and suggesting people find something else to do and such a block is invalid on its face.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 17:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:: Absolutely correct, and that's saved me some typing. Frankly, nothing is going to change here until (a) some admins stop throwing ridiculous one-sided <s>indefinite</s> blocks around like confetti (that's not a particular dig at WTT, though it is one at Fram), and (b) those who instigate such actions through ill-advised poking the bear receive the same sanctions as those they provoke. ] (]) 17:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::Any examples of me "throwing ridiculous one-sided indefinite blocks around like confetti"? ] (]) 18:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::TDA would you consider blocking EC over (Notice it was not in response to a comment addressed to PoD not to EC). If yes then for how long? If no then what would you consider blocking someone under incivility? -- ] (]) 18:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::: Oh, let's see ... how about the last time you blocked Eric Corbett after he'd been poked to death by Doc9871 (who got away scott free)? ] (]) 18:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::: (If you don't remember, that was the one that led to two admins handing in their bits and one going on Wikibreak before being undone early - looks like your mission to rid Misplaced Pages of Eric has gone slightly better for you this time - so far). ] (]) 18:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::That was a one month block, not an indefinite one. Any examples of me "throwing ridiculous one-sided indefinite blocks around like confetti"? ] (]) 19:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::: Hm - I didn't mean to put "indefinite" in there (fairly clearly, as I was talking about your 3-month block). Apologies if that made it unclear. The rest of my comment, however, stands. ] (]) 19:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	Much has been made of the so-called poking. Note that the comments by Eric Corbett which directly caused the block were some 12 hours after the last post to his talk page, and were posted, according to himself, "after some serious consideration". None of the posts since his previous reply on his talk page can be considered poking either (so it's not as if he got a yellow "new messages" box, read those, and posted "incensed" about them, to borrow another editor's description. As far as one can determine, Eric Corbett posted his personal attacks calmly and deliberately, ''not'' in the heat of the moment.
	Was Gaijins comment after the block ill-considered? Perhaps, or at least badly expressed. But it hardly raises to the level of the attacks by Eric Corbett. ] (]) 17:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:We have different opinions. I think the remark by Gaijins by far more uncivil than Eric's comments.--]] 17:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::I suppose the part "the melodramatic passive aggressive outrage" is the one that you consider to be (most) problematic? It seems to me to be commenting on edits, on style, not on the person. Erics comment was directly about the editor though. One is slightly incivil and ill-considered, the other is a personal attack. Gaijin should have left out that part, but I don't believe that the rest of his comment was a problem, and nothing in it was even remotely blockable. ] (]) 17:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::: It isn't just the words, but the timing. If I told you that a mutual acquaintance borrowed $20 from me and never paid it back, that remark would be, well, unremarkable. But if said to the widow while she knelt before his casket... the same words would be perceived differently.--]] 18:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	===arbitrary break===
	I was initially unhappy by Worm's action, but I'm coming around to the notion that they may have been prophylactic. Unfortunately, strong words continue to be thrown around (and I can't exclude myself), when it might be ideal to pull together a summarized sequence of events. I've often seen EC say things that make me cringe. I've yet to see such a incident unprovoked.--]] 17:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:Could you take a look at ] and comment? I have no dog in this fight, but I am trying to put together some actual data on the provoked/unprovoked question. Thanks! --] (]) 22:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	Indeed, I fully cop to making a single nonconstructive statement as part of my ] response. I would however argue that my statement was perfectly accurate. As the OP to this thread pointed out Eric made a series of 20 or so consecutive edits that he obviously knew were in violation of policy, at a time when he knew the all seeing eye was on him. He made his posts either with the intent to flaunt his immunity as obviously as possible, or to get blocked. Could/Should I have posted differently? Yes. FWIW I in fact have apologized to Eric for poking him via email (which he explicitly declined to accept). The greatest reason I am sorry for my action is because I inadvertently provided a convenient ] to allow everyone to talk about something other than Eric's actions. His actions were ridiculous, and obviously require a block, but I do not advocate for that block to be indef, nor do I advocate for a ban, as I think if he can cool off he is a very valued member of the community. ], thank you for your post on my talk page and here as well. I respect your opinion greatly, and accept your admonishment. I have quibble with your interpretation of the semantics in Eric's post, but I think going into it would only further derail this discussion, so I again (publicly this time) apologize for my poke and consider myself duly chastised. ] (]) 17:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:?? You use the word "accurate" as if it were a rebuttal to incivility. I daresay that <s>everyone on</s><u>every one of</u> Eric's comments, even those I would agree are uncivil, are "accurate".--]] 18:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::I am sure that everyone will accept that your public chastisement and apology is equal to Eric's block! I do not think so. ]&nbsp;] 02:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	** I'm going to post my thoughts, but don't take them as is however. I kind of knew this would happen. I'm pretty sure Misplaced Pages has a policy of saying bad words such as the f word, and I haven't actually read the policy, but at least basic teachings from my grandmother tells me we should never say these things to complete strangers in public places (which I would apply to here) and more importantly, be nice. I do admit that Eric is definitely being provoked, and I do not know if I did as well, so I'm sorry if I did, but I do see that he has been getting posts that are designed to provoke him. By that, I mean some are trying to get a rise and trying to get him in trouble(no I did not deliberately try to do this, at least not purposely...) It's kind of hard to explain, but I do support the block... indef is kind of extreme however, but he needs to cease and desist this profanity, it isn't in the sites interest, and I don't think it's good moral to keep this up. Sooner or later, it's time to stop this. --] ], 18:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	=== Next step? ===
	{{archivetop|result=Solid consensus on this proposal.--<span style="font-family: Maiandra GD">] ''(])''</span> 02:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)}}
	I have a great deal of respect for ] as an administrator, but I don't think the indef block was the correct approach here. I understand that, in theory, "indefinite" doesn't mean "infinite", but I don't think anyone realistically expects Eric to negotiate unblock conditions, so we're essentially left with the choice of banishing a productive but prickly editor, or not. I think we ought to come to a consensus here which it will be, and my thought is that we '''reduce the block to 24 hours''' and be done with it. That won't make the people who think he should be banned happy, and it won't make the people who think he shouldn't have been blocked in the first place happy, but I think it's a reasonable compromise that recognizes it's not really OK to call people cunts and idiots and arseholes – whether provoked or not – but also takes into account the reality that sometimes our valuable contributors say and do things they shouldn't and it's not in the best interests of the encyclopedia to kick them off the site forever for it. ] (]) 18:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Concur'''. ] (]) 18:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' ]] 18:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' --]] 18:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*If that's the will of the community, I certainly won't stand in it's way. However, we've been here before and if we don't work something out, we are likely to come back here, as we know. However, Eric needed to be blocked for the comments, and 24 hours is a lot closer to the right length than 3 months. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 18:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:* No doubt we'll be back here the next time someone lands a unilateral 3-month (or whatever) civility block without gaining consensus for it first. I cannot see any reason for civility blocks to be more that a preventative 24 hours (especially, as in this case, whilst Eric's RFC/U link is ''still'' red.) ] (]) 18:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::* The reason for that is because everybody knows any attempt at an RFC/U would become an absolute circus, given Malleus/Eric's very well-known position on ] and the group of editors for whom he walks on water and for whom any attempts to enforce anything against him are made by rogue admins with horns, spaded tails and tridents. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 19:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::* Circular reasoning that, though; if an RFC/U is not possible now, it's precisely ''because'' various admins kept insisting in landing ridiculously punitive blocks on him when their first stop should have been AN or ANI. I bet that half of those, if they'd been short blocks, would have ended up standing when they were inevitably taken to the drama board. ] (]) 19:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' – as a compromise with the dark forces --] (]) 18:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''weak support''' Support longer. 3 hours didn't work. A previous 1mo didn't work. with that knowledge in hand, 24 hours seems unlikely to work. to be an effective measure against recidivism (and copycats), there has to be an actual credible threat of a real penalty. ] (]) 18:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Weak support''' Agree entirely with ]. --] ] 18:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	Looking at EC's short blocks have not been a deterrent from incivility the longest block to date seems to have been a month shorted to about three weeks. So I think that the block should defiantly bee more than a month (two or three) with the proviso that next time there is a breach it will be doubled. -- ] (]) 18:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' original proposal by 28bytes — ]] 18:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC) (aka Ched)
	* '''Support, but'''. Despite having occasionally crossed swords with Eric on the various drama boards I have the utmost respect for him as an editor - my interactions with him as an editor have, indeed, been calm, constructed, and greatly appreciated. What's needed, though, is that he recognise that, whether he agrees with it or not, and whether he likes it or not, ] is in fact one of the ]. Yes, he gets poked a ''lot'', because some people think it's fun to ]. But his well-voiced opinion of ] needs to, at least, be filed in the "agree to disagree" folder.- ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 19:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' 28bytes' proposal. ]] 19:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	* Meh. Not really sure what this accomplishes – there really is no way this works; as mentioned above, we know Eric's position on WP civility, we know a block will not accomplish anything, and we'll be back here again soon anyway, so this seems to me like a punitive block, as it will not prevent a future incident. That said, short of an indefinite block, which is also not a good idea, nothing will truly stop the behavior. I am at a loss. A topic ban from the user talk namespace also seems unfeasible, so at this point, I would support unblocking until this eventually ends up before ]. '''] ]]''' 19:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' with regret - would prefer unblock. The above discussion provides an unusually clear illustration of varying standards on incivility. Whether we like it or not, there are usage communities in which the use of "curse words" is acceptable, and usage communities in which it's a bright line never to be crossed; and there are also usage communities in which attaching a psychiatric label to someone as a form of disagreement is acceptable behavior and others in which it is insupportably rude. We are unfortunately stuck with these differences, and civility is an important grease in a huge, international project where there will be a lot of disagreements. But I for one consider we do not do nearly enough to discourage snideness, or even direct verbal attack, and in this instance I'm with those who consider Eric was less rude than others were to him. Also, note that his rudeness was confined to talk pages, almost entirely his own, so I have less understanding for the reasoning given by either blocking admin, that all his edits since being unblocked were non-constructive. ] (]) 19:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Immediate unblock''' I cannot believe (a) that Gaijin42 remained unblocked despite their behaviour and (b) is getting to decided, in part, what happens to Eric. To be allowed to bait a user into a block should not be permitted, to allow that same user to discuss the unblock is fully worse. If it wasn't too bloody late and the block had drifted from preventative to punitive, I'd block Gaijin42 now. I will, as an alternative, make it absolutely crystal clear they will be blocked the next time they pull a stunt like they did today, make no mistake. ] (]) 19:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support''', would support immediate unblock also, --] (]) 20:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' 24 hour block, support indefinite block until there is promise of change. I post this as an involved user (I posted about Eric's incivility at ] yesterday) though I suspect many people are involved in some way. Eric has been blocked multiple times in the past for similar incivility, and it has had no effect on his behavior. The solution then isn't to say "It's not working", give up on blocks and let him say what he likes. The "solution", such as it is, is to have an indefinite block until we receive a promise of change. As someone said above, indefinite is not the same as infinite. But if Eric, or anyone else, is allowed to interact with editors the way he has been doing, then Misplaced Pages will be a toxic place to work. ]] (]) 20:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' proposal by 28bytes. There must be some sort of compromise between those who want him infinity blocked and those who want him immediately unblocked. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 20:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - Why kick this can down the road when we know with 100% certainty that we'll be back here to waste time discussing it in a few weeks when it happens again. Something needs to be decided once and for all, or else Eric will invariably tell someone to fuck off again, and generate another predictable gigabyte of useless discussion and warring about the inevitable short-duration block he receives for it. This is the '''''<u>twenty-third time</u>''''' he's been blocked for incivility since his Malleus account was first blocked in May 2008 (no comment on how many of those were "correct" blocks, as that would be impossible for all of us to agree upon). I say we stop wasting time and draw a line in the sand. Either we agree to allow Eric to have special privileges to say whatever he wants with immunity, or we come up with a set of civility guidelines that he must agree to as a condition of being unblocked. No one is asking him to grovel to an administrator as a condition of being unblocked. We're just saying, "look, don't call people names, don't insult people's intelligence, and if you get angry with someone don't use profane words to express your frustration." While such conditions are arguably a bit stricter than what most other editors have to deal with, I think it is reasonable to impose slightly more well-defined boundaries on an editor who has been blocked '''''23 times''''' for the same thing. If he can't edit under those conditions, then he shouldn't edit at all. I don't think that's asking too much. ]] 20:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''': I can't believe people are willing to waste time on this any more. No contributor is worth this.&mdash;](]) 21:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*: I can't believe that people are allowed to blatantly bait users and get away scot-free. No baiter is worth it. <span style="text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">''''']]]'''''</span> 00:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' immediate unblock per {{u|Nick}}. Support action against those who baited him. --'''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 21:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''' per Scottywong and Kww. Eric - follow the basics of WP:CIVIL as the rest of us are all required to, or else go away. We can and will survive without you. ] (]) 21:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	* '''STRONG oppose''' - ] is not optional! If you cannot follow it then you deserve to be indeffed. Any admin that does not indef for such gross violations of this core pillar are undermining it and the encyclopedia. ]&#124;]&#124;] 22:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::Further: If the block is reduced without a guarantee that the incivility MUST stop or the next block WILL be a guaranteed indef with no reduction or release until it is guaranteed that this incivility will stop then I WILL escalate to ArbCom as the community CLEARLY cannot enforce ] in this case. ]&#124;]&#124;] 22:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::: Good luck with that. ] (]) 22:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support Unblock''' I'm very disappointed in the number of seemingly sensible editors who condone the use of profanity directed at other editors and I'm frankly astonished that anyone can think its ok to compare anyone to a cunt as part of a what should be a collegiate discussion but long blocks don't work and are over strict for the behavior anyway. I'd have supported a short block but this is excessive and time served is enough. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 22:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' - Support 24hr block - We've lost far too many great editors this year, Eric may be uncivil at times but yet he's a great editor here, & IMO doesn't deserve an indef over it, Those poking him should be sanctioned!.... <br />
	:-]] 22:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''. While action should be considered/taken against anyone who is found to have provoked Eric, there can be no doubt that he has a long history of deeply problematic behaviour and exhibited it yet again. It does not benefit the project to enable his behaviour by circling the wagons in his defence every time his mouth gets him in trouble. For that reason, I would oppose any arbitrary time limit on a block. The ball is in his court, and when he is prepared to behave within community expectations, then he should be unblocked. Be that five minutes from now or five months. And this can be considered concurrently to any discussion on anyone else found to be acting similarly poorly in this situation. ]] 22:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' per {{userlink|Epipelagic}}.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 22:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' -I've heard worse language and personal attacks and bullying taking place on here and by admins at that. The sooner we accept that Eric occasionally snaps and calls somebody a cunt or an asshole and don't batter an eyelid the better. Banning him isn't going to improve wikipedia, we're an encyclopedia not a school of manners. It does get tiring seeing the repeated process and drama which ensues but if you stopped reacting to him then it wouldn't happen. Why can't we just shrug and say "whatever, so what" anytime he calls somebody something? We can't afford to throw away anybody who edits wikipedia productively, uncivil or not. Unless he makes serious threats to kill somebody or delivers disgusting racial taunts at somebody banning somebody indefinitely over something like this is more preaching than sense over what is best for the website. No, it isn't acceptable to call anybody anything, but it happens, and you react like this to it. Why an admin can't just silently delete it and move on beats me. It becomes an excuse for more wiki drama everytime this happens. It needs to stop.♦ ] 22:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' ] (]) 23:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''. This is just the latest in a seemingly endless parade of incidents demonstrating that a permanent ban of this individual is long overdue. How many more years are we going to have to put up with this nonsense? — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 23:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' Eric is supporting our First Pillar - how many others are? e.g, Fram, how is user-friendly and welcoming to new users? Do you think you could have at least done a smidgen of source-hunting?? ] (] '''·''' ]) 23:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	{{hat|side discussion involving Drmies, Fram, StAnselm and Cas Liber regarding Fram and the First Pillar <small>]</small> 12:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)}}
	**Wow. Is there a templated warning for tag bombing? I did a smidgen on one of the articles; I'll look at some of the other ones as well. ] (]) 00:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	***Welcoming to new users? One article that Drmies sourced after my tagging (and which otherwise would have remained unsourced) was from January 2009, the other one that would have remained unsourced otherwise was from June 2006. Perhaps focus on the issue at hand instead of trying to derail a discussion with completely irrelevant nonsense? E.g. noting that you are not supposed to pick and choose between the pillars, and that working on the first pillar doesn't mean that you can ignore the fourth one: '''Editors should treat each other with respect and civility'''. ] (]) 08:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	****The issue at hand is that this has blown out of all proportion - the issue at hand is that we are here to write an encyclopedia - the issue at hand is civility and atmosphere. I reckon tag-bombing loads of articles does more to dampen new editors' enthusiasm due to the fact that maybe two orders of magnitude more people are affected, than by some profanities directed in the heat of an argument. <s>About 98%</s>most of Eric's editing time is spent building or reviewing content - how much of yours is Fram? (i.e. so don't go pick and choose pillars, to quote..umm..you)'' I can cope with the occasional blow up as long as passers by don't blow it out of all proportion - I watch the content of this place closely and see what gets improved and by whom. ] (] '''·''' ]) 12:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*****Well, if you're asking for statistics, Malleus Fatuorum had 61.14% of his edits in article space, while Fram has 62.94%. Eric is now on 72%; you're on 50%, I'm on 86%. I'm sure these numbers don't mean anything, but I thought I'd point them out. ]] (]) 12:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	******I was waiting for that one - I could go on to look at qualitative analysis of edits but I think that is getting off track. sigh..I must do less drama boards and more content one day... ] (] '''·''' ]) 12:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	******(ec) But Eric Corbett's mainspace edits are of higher quality than mine. Statistics are meaningless, and not really important anyway. It is because of his mainspace edits that he is still around after all this years, a non-productive or minimally productive editor would have been banned years ago. But that doesn't mean that his article work necessarily grants him infinite protection or some extra-special status. ] (]) 12:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*****No idea of percentages, but by far most of my time here is spent reviewing content, yes. I couldn't find old hoaxes or delete other undetected problematic pages otherwise. And in the course of this, I tag pages for some major problems as well, like being totally unsourced. If you feel that new pages shouldn't be tagged as unsourced, then feel free to propose a policy in that regard. If you want Misplaced Pages to become a pure meritocracy, then propose that as well. But use another venue than this totally unrelated discussion for it. ] (]) 12:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	******No I don't want it to be a meritocracy and hate the non-level playing-field nature of it. I have no problems tagging articles sometimes but for it to be ''all'' someone does? Just even a it'd be nice to see some sign of collaborative editing...just a few..that'd be nice. The point is as I made above - which do I wonder is worse for new editors/onlookers. ] (] '''·''' ]) 12:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	{{hab}}		{{hab}}
	*'''Support''' -- This user is clearly here to build an encyclopedia and actually follow the purpose of the website. The reason we end up here is because users are willing to get in fights with him and deviate him from being productive. It makes me sad that people can bait all they want and will be given at most a reminder while the user who was baited and snapped gets the beating. Most of the time, the users EC calls an asshole are generally assholes who were looking for trouble. Unblock him, stop the fighting, and lets go make some GA's with Eric, eh? ;) <span style="text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">''''']]]'''''</span> 00:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''. per Scottywong, Kww, Andy Dingley, Resolute, PantherLeapord, et al. Fram's 3 month block is the correct block. The reason blocks don't persuade Eric is that they don't get longer and longer like they're supposed to, so he doesn't take them seriously. Just enforce policy. --] (]) 01:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Immediate Unblock''' given that the people who were goading him have not been similarly blocked yet. '''NOT''' Blocking the goaders, or '''NOT''' taking action against the admins who reach for ridiculously long blocks as their first response to Eric will certainly strengthen the perceived lack of even-handedness here. ]&nbsp;] 02:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''. This editor resolutely refuses to accept one of the 5 pillars, and has consistently behaved in a way that drives other editors away from Misplaced Pages. Slaps on the wrist have had no effect. A long-term block is the only solution. -- ] (]) 03:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	**Ah, it's block Eric time, when the IPs come out of the woodwork, having forgotten their old log-in information of course, and lo, there appear the unverified claims of editors being driven away and blah blah. I call bullshit. ] (]) 04:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	***I have been editing Misplaced Pages for many, many years as an IP editor, precisely '''because of''' people like Eric. Without a stable talk page, I can only be bullied in public, and not by personal attacks on my talk page. That makes Misplaced Pages a little more bearable. There are plenty of studies on the exodus of editors from Misplaced Pages, and the reasons for that exodus. '''If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem'''. And might I remind you to observe ], regarding that snide "forgotten their old log-in information" comment. I'd support a block on you as well. -- ] (]) 05:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	**** I see, it's just on this particular occasion you felt it necessary to edit from a mobile phone, yeah? I call bullshit too. ] (]) 11:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*****<small>I support the IP's proposal to block Drmies. How dare he raise suspicions about a suspicious IP that has come out of nowhere? ]] 11:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)</small>
	******If you're genuinely suspicious, there's always ], but what I'm seeing here is breaches of both ] and ], and a strong slice of "foreigners go away, this is '''our''' Misplaced Pages." Yes, this is how I always edit. And it's not a mobile phone, it's a tablet. -- ] (]) 12:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*******It's OK for Mr. Congeniality's posse to close ranks around him when he acts up, but it's not OK for IP editors to say they prefer that policy be (finally) enforced. Go figure! (Down with ''IP-phobia''!) --] (]) 16:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' per Scottywong. Someone who cannot accept the Pillars...no matter how productive they are, can they be part of the community? Cheers, ''']'''<sup>]</sup> 06:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. But I would prefer an immediate unblock. And I do think that admin ] should lose his tools and be de-sysop'd. (Why? For behavior unbecoming of admin. What behavior? Look at Malleus's Talk page - Spartaz went back-and-forth with sarcastic exchange w/ Malleus, after his block. It is understandable that Malleus might be perturbed from being blocked on the basis he was, but even then, it seemed to me Malleus was cool and asking logical Qs of the blocker . But Spartaz was all-too-willing to play ping-pong w/ Malleus sarcastically, when if he were acting in becoming-admin behavior, he simply would have stated his case as dryly as possible, accepted any flashback gracefully, then exited the discussion. Instead he hung around to prove one-upmanship "superiority". Unbecoming. Baiting. He s/b de-sysopped.) I'm very happy that this discussion seems to be indicative of a systemic turning of a curve finally ... Very very smart & experienced editors (SandyGeorge, Devil's Advocate, Epipelagic, Black Kite, 28bytes, and DDstretch ) are all concurring that this is a bunch of nonsense (and it makes me feel proud to be on WP as a result - there are many intelligent editors here!). Intelligence is finally winning over. That said, all the calls for "But but but! Malleus violated the PILLAR. Can't tolerate that!" is BS lynching stuff, since the "pillar" is ill-defined, and doesn't attempt to identify poking or baiting, or dishonesty, or other forms of incivility that are perverse, that humans have honed for all of history since language was invented (and likely even before). What I'd really like to see is a wall of text from Malleus, where he would feel free to speak his mind in detail about what is unhealthy and wrong with the current system and how it should be re-fashioned for the betterment of the encyclopedia aims and everyone involved. But I can understand his disinclination to do that because his solutions would call for restructuring & change ... and as he has pointed out and I think others will concur, "Nothing ever changes around here." (So basically, why waste his breath?) So I'm glad for the editors named to step in and stop anything stupid from happening, like a lynch. To all editors who say "Off with his head!" I have a personal message for you in word-efficient Malleus style: Go fuck yourselves. ] (]) 11:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' per ]. It matters not who provokes who or even who said what. It doesn't even matter, really, what Eric said. What matters is whether or not the project is disrupted and who is central to it all. It doesn't matter if that person is the cause of it, or if a herd of others are responsible for it. It only matters whether disruption exists.--v/r - ]] 13:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:*That kind of attitude is one of the many things wrong with Misplaced Pages. Just because this site is not about justice does not mean it is about lynch mobs. At least, that does not mean it is ''supposed'' to be about lynch mobs.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 13:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::* *shrug* It is what it is. There is crap on both sides of the aisle. Pick the smallest pile.--v/r - ]] 14:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' What a surprise, people are claiming that someone who's chronically incivil should be allowed to get away from it "because he's a valuable contributor" (read: he has a whole bunch of people who are willing to scream and whine on noticeboards about him). This sort of thing has gone on for years and years with so many different people. Why not just MFD WP:CIVIL already? It's clearly not being applied evenly. ] (]) 13:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' - as really, incivility is a rampant problem throughout the site that exists because of passion, rarely malice. Indefinitely blocking for incivility only serves to limit the amount of emotion people can bring to their work, which will have a chilling effect on contributors. Many of the worst offenders in terms of incivility are very productive editors in every other sense of the word. Blocks should be given in context, and yes, part of that context is the value of a contributor to the project in other ways and what lies behind that value: ie, why they edit here. ] (]) 15:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Unblock now that 24 hours are up''': Note to any uninvolved admin: this section has a pretty clear consensus, if you read it through. There's no current consensus (yet) on what to do going forward, but there's clear consensus to either unblock immediately, or unblock after 24 hours (which by now are the same thing). --] (]) 18:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' we might as well try and reach a permanent resolution now because otherwise we're just going to wind up back here again. ]'']'' <small>(])</small> 02:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	{{archivebottom}}
	I have a hard time understanding how anyone found a consensus to unblock in the above. A small numeric majority by a group that provides no policy based reasoning for exactly why enabling Eric's chronic abuse is a good idea.&mdash;](]) 03:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:You want him banned; I get it. Perhaps someday you will get your wish, but for now I think it is time to drop the stick and move on. There are several open threads remaining here to work out how to deal with this on a long-term basis, but it's not going to do anyone any good to re-open and re-litigate this one. The close was a good one, and frankly I think a consensus-based decision on whether and when Eric should be blocked or unblocked is a refreshing change of pace from the we've seen in the past. Consensus doesn't always go our way, but there was clearly consensus here to go ahead with the proposed compromise, imperfect though it may be. ] (]) 03:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	::Actually, I'd prefer it if he would just behave himself. But no, carving one small subsection out of a large rambling discussion and declaring a clear consensus to unblock is an outrageously poor unblock, ]. There's no consensus to unblock Eric if you take the whole discussion here into account, and the only way to read a consensus into this small subsection is by nose counting.&mdash;](]) 04:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	===Alternative / complimentary next steps===
	As I stated to Nick above, I certainly don't support a permanent ban of Eric, but I would like to see some solution as this situation is untenable. I believe at a very minimum Eric needs to be aware that escalating his disputes in the manner that he does is not acceptable. I accept that people do provoke him, but at the same time, he needs to find a better way to deal with such people. Any suggestions that Eric might be able to follow would be appreciated. However, to improve things for the future, I suggest we come up with the following restriction on Eric, alongside the reduction in block length.
	*{{xt|Eric Corbett is put on indefinite civility parole, should any uninvolved administrator believe that Eric has violated ], then he should be blocked for a period of up to 24 hours. This time period does not escalate, 24 hours is the maximum period allowed under this restriction}}.
	My theory is that this will stop the disproportional blocks, yet it will send a clear signal to Eric that this state of affairs cannot continue. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 19:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' as proposer ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 19:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*:I'd support the baiting provision mentioned by a number of editor - as long as the restriction is displayed clearly at the top of Eric's talk page & on his edit notice. That way the "baiter" could not claim to be unaware. If it happens off Eric's talk page, we'd need some way to make sure they were warned. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 07:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' per my proposal below. (Basically the same idea, though the wording on yours is definitely more refined.) <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 20:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' And I agree with many of Adwilley's thoughts below. It might also be worth considering one-way interaction bans if there are persistent incivility against specific users who are bothered by his comments. Regards, ] (]) 20:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''<s>Support</s>''' - would prefer the indefinite ban to remain until there is promise of change, but if there is no consensus for that, this is the next best option. ]] (]) 20:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn support in favour of Scotty Wong's proposal below. ]] (]) 21:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - I see where you're going with this, but as illustrated by the conversation above, different administrators have very different views on what constitutes "incivility"; that combined with the baiting issue will increase the unevenness of applications of civility policy, not decrease it. ] (]) 20:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - Admins should not have their hands tied behind their back to deal with a problem such as this one. 24 hours is not a significant penalty, and it's not likely that would serve as a sufficient deterrent. ]] 20:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support''', ''provided'' that it include a provision that if he's ] into it, the poker gets the same treatment. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 20:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::I believe that is implied. I don't see any indication in this proposal that baiting and badgering would be dealt with any differently. In my own proposal below, the intent was that these rules would apply specifically to Eric, and that any poking or hounding would be dealt with in the normal manner so that the punishment fits the crime (which would likely be a stern warning on a first offense or a 24 hour block for repeat offenders). <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 22:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' I might support if there were provisions to deal with provocation and poking, but unlike The Bushranger above I have no hope of that being developed. Until baiting is dealt with, this is just another way to get rid of a contributor you don't like. ]] 21:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*Only if The Bushranger provision is passed, otherwise it's a baiters charter. ] (]) 21:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' Little 24-hour holidays won't encourage a change in Eric's behaviour, making the exercise a waste of time. Bushranger's comment also requires consideration. ]] 22:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - I would support 24 hours being the MINIMUM with standard escalating blocks. ]&#124;]&#124;] 23:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Question''' What about unblocking? A past problem has been blocks applied, then swiftly reverted by other admins. Will these 24 hour blocks (an idea which I support in principle) be sticky against such reversals? ] (]) 23:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*:If we have a restriction put in place, I expect the blocks to stick, yes. The reason they don't is because there is no agreement on what should be done, and because Eric is a valuable contributor people want him to stay about. With the 24 hour idea, things should calm down in that period and they should (hopefully) stick. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 10:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''', I appreciate that Worm is trying to find a workable solution, but as long as many other editors are allowed to continue direct and blatant personal attacks, which are condoned at ANI, it is wrong to target one editor for same. I would understand this attempt if the same standards were applied to all editors who lodge ''real'' and ''direct'' personal attacks; that is not the situation we have on Misplaced Pages today. I abhor the environment that has taken hold here, but it is not right to single out one editor while others routinely do worse. ] (]) 23:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	**SandyGeorgia who does worse than ? diffs please. -- ] (]) 01:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''', As I said above a month block reduced to about three weekm does not seem to have been enough to stop this behaviour, so this block for among others should be at least twice long, and if that is not deterrent enough then the blocks should get longer and longer with each uncivil comment that is made by the editor after a block. This argument that he was provoked is not enough of a defence for edits such as where the response was not to a comment made to him but one to another editor. -- ] (]) 01:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''. This will not work unless it is firmly and indivisibly tied to similar suggested actions to be taken against people who goad Eric, and those admins who sometimes seem as if they are "champing at the bit" to impose a block on him. ]&nbsp;] 02:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	===Plan for the future===
	This is something I've been thinking about for several months as a possible solution for the future. It is based on the following assumptions:
	*Eric does a lot toward improving the Encyclopedia (which should ultimately be the aim and goal of us all)
	*Eric has a tendency to lash out at other editors with unkind words and personal attacks.
	*There is not consensus as to how our Civility policy should be enforced, and Eric has become the a focal point of the debate, making him somewhat of a special case.
	*We have lost editors (including administrators) in the drama resulting from long blocks of Eric's account.
	*We arguably lose editors who encounter Eric's incivility and decide Misplaced Pages's not the place for them.
	*With the current state of affairs, we are unlikely to achieve a consensus on whether Eric's presence here is a net-positive or net-negative.
	*We are unlikely to reach a consensus to indefinitely block Eric (arguably one of the few long-term solutions available).
	*We are unlikely to reach a consensus to not block Eric.
	*Eric is unlikely to change his ways, even when faced with exponentially longer blocks.
	*The cycle itself (our response) is doing far more damage to Misplaced Pages than Eric's incivility, and something needs to change. We need a plan for the future.
	That said, here is my plan: '''When Eric Corbet makes an uncivil comment or personal attack that crosses the line, he will be blocked for 24 hours and his talk page will be protected during that time.''' No unblock requests, no offerings of sympathy or gloating from friends and enemies respectively, no surprise 3-month blocks, and most importantly, no drama, because we will have decided upon this course of action beforehand. This would apply to Eric only (perhaps as a test case or a personalized sanction, if you wish to think of it that way).
	This plan would be a compromise between users who argue that Civility is a Pillar and should be strictly enforced and users who say that bad words aren't the only kind of incivility and Improving the Encyclopedia takes precedence. The block would be long enough to satisfy the hurt parties who report Eric and to give Eric a chance to cool off, yet short enough to allow Eric to continue contributing to the encyclopedia if he wishes to do so. Whatever your thoughts are on this situation, please try to understand the views of the opposing party. The way I see it, the only way we're going to solve this is with a compromise. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 19:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	: No. ] (]) 19:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	: I agree with many of your bullet points. However, the assumption underlying the proposal appears to be that Eric occasionally crosses a line without being provoked. I haven't seen that happen, so a plan that includes a sanctions for Eric without even mentioning other parties is a non-starter for me, at least.--]] 19:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:The fatal flaw that I see with this is, of course: who gets to decide whether a comment crosses the line? What, in fact, ''is'' this line? Where is it drawn? I mean, to take a cynical perspective, this would give carte blanche to any of Eric's "enemies" (well, the ones that happen to be admins) to block him without question or recourse. I don't see this working unless we more clearly define what is and what isn't acceptable, and who is and who is not (if anyone) allowed to apply sanctions under this scheme, and since such details would never realistically be able to gain consensus, I don't see how this could be workable. ]&nbsp;]] 19:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::I'm surprised that we came up with such similar proposals Adjwilley! I certainly support yours also... and am surprised I didn't get an edit conflict. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 19:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::{{ec}}Ha, I didn't even see yours until just now. How funny! Looks like basically the same proposal, the differences being that mine has protection of the talk page and yours is more concise and worded better. (I know, I have a problem with conciseness.) <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 19:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::There should be blocks of increasing duration until we are left with an indefinite block - just as we would with any other editor.]] 19:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::That's a fine ideal to hold, but it ignores the reality that there is not a consensus to indef Eric, and there is not likely to be such a consensus. At some point we need to accept that the situation is not ideal, and holding steadfastly to one ideal might not be the best solution. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 20:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*On the "provocation" issue, there is one constant - Eric. I've seen him in conflict with a significant number of editors. He needs to work out a way to stop rising to the provocation. I agree that it takes two to tango, but the assumption that Eric is always provoked is as flawed as the suggestion that he's never provoked. Today, for example, Eric crossed the line without having edited for 12 hours. It was not an escalating battle, he came straight back from the short block and crossed the line - multiple times. I can also provide other examples (general late at night) where Eric has acted without provocation. I'll provide them tomorrow morning if no one else does. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 20:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	** I think he does more harm then good. Staying blocked is I think the only long term solution. Incivility is unacceptable, even if provoked. I'd suggest a year block, maybe that will keep him calm. --] ], 20:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::<small>I've been meaning to ask, Who are you and why are you involved in this? Last week you had under 100 edits. Today you have 171. You have only interacted with Eric once, on his talk page. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 20:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)</small>
	:::: I am more active I guess. Also, I hadn't made an account until recently. I'm not new. Also, just look at the below comments he made, --] ], 20:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Eric_Corbett&diff=prev&oldid=579295073579294209
	::::https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Eric_Corbett&diff=prev&oldid=579294209 Personal attack
	Is this really acceptible? And that's only two, you should clearly see more. --] ], 20:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC) 579294209
	:::::The second of those appears to be missing its last digit, so it points to the wrong page. But Dark Mistress, please see my "support" comment above. It's really not reasonable to use "profanity" (or any other term for it) as an absolute criterion for incivility. In the big wide world, it simply isn't true that people invalidate their arguments by throwing in a word your grandmother - or my mother - wouldn't like. I value civility. I believe this project has a problem with incivility. But I think you're being a bit myopic here. ] (]) 20:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::: Do not understand but fixed it I think --] ], 20:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::<small>I don't know about yours, but I know that ''my'' grandmother has said things that would make your eyes widen--both with ''and'' without profanity. ]&nbsp;]] 20:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)</small>
	As Writ Keeper said above, "who gets to decide whether a comment crosses the line?". That is the crux. At the moment we have hundreds of loose cannon admins acting independently with no central fire director. Individual admin have much too much freedom to punish content builders on their personal whims and in pursuit of their personal vendettas (we see that clearly happening in this thread). There can '''never''' be an equable and decent disciplinary system on Misplaced Pages until this absurdity is resolved. A small central group of editors needs to be appointed to deal with the disciplinary matters, making group decisions and operating in accordance to some sort of constitution which gives them direction. The real power trip enjoyed by many admins is their power to block and humiliate established content builders. So many unsuitable admins now have their grip on this lever that it has become impossible to prise it away from them. Jimbo has backed away from his stated intention to intervene. The WWF lacks the competence to intervene. The only hope left is mass rebellion. --] (]) 20:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*The answer to the question "who gets to decide where a comment crosses the line" is that the admins have to interpret ] as it is currently written. I know it's not ideal, but it's what we've got. The proposal above is damage control. This ties down any loose cannon admins who would interpret the policy as "Must Block Infinity". Mass rebellion isn't the answer. We have to accept reality and deal with it. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 20:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::: I didn't say mass rebellion is the answer, but it looks like it may be the only way this delinquent admin system can be reformed. Individual admins interpreting ] in their own idiosyncratic ways, and then individually acting on their interpretations is ridiculous. You can call it "reality", but its just a self serving manner of operating made up by admins. It doesn't work, it does huge damage to Misplaced Pages, it is insulting and demeaning to the content builders, and it can be changed. --] (]) 20:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::Interpretation is the norm, yes. The difference here is that this restriction would enable an admin to place an ''irreversible'' block based on their personal interpretation, since this restriction is explicitly designed to reduce or remove avenues of appeal or discussion (i.e. drama). That's going quite a bit too far in my opinion; nobody should have that kind of power here over something so subjective. ]&nbsp;]] 22:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:: Isn't that undermines the entire polices that governs Misplaced Pages? If that's the case, then that is... kind of not good. I don't see what's the problem here? If there is something I'm missing, tell me, but I will say this. Eric gets pocked at. Eric then throws out bad comments, profanity and then some admin decides to block him. Then an ANI dispute is filed, moved to here, and a whole great time waster this is. I fail to understand this, but that's bascially what's happening. If we have a polcicy prohibiting this, and we block users who vialte the polcies, I fail to understand why Eric is treated the same. I would hope this whole disscuasiuon would come to an end, but it will probably not. I will say this, however. Why didn't Eric choose to stay calm, and ignore it. I don't know who started this whole thing, but I just want an end to this nonsense. I don't have anything more to say really... but I may post more if I can think of something. --] ], 20:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::Sure, that's a valid point of view. An equally valid point of view is that in the end we are all here to build an encyclopedia, which is something that Eric does very well. I'm not arguing that either camp is right (in fact, I believe they are both right). I'm just saying that to put an end to the time-wasting drama we need a more permanent solution, which is what I proposed above. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 20:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	@Dark Mistress - I just wonder how on earth you could consider non-inflammatory? It is very hard to see this as anything othert than baiting. ] (] '''·''' ]) 00:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:Well, I want to chime in and say that I regard this comment as being made in good faith. It ''is'' still possible that this won't end well for Eric, and part of that at least is his use of "profanity". I can see how if Eric decided to stop using swear words, the opinions here might change somewhat. Anyway, I'm sure Dark Mistress realises now that her comment didn't help the situation, but there is no doubt in my mind that it was done in good faith. We should certainly try to stamp out baiting, but this isn't it. ]] (]) 01:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::Oh really? You really think that ''anyone'' would respond positively to that? As much as I can stretch my imagination I can't see it, and I can't imagine anyone with any empathy seeing it either. ] (] '''·''' ]) 03:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::If you make even a semblance of following civility guidelines, you wouldn't respond with the outright hostility that Eric did here. You make the assumption that Eric somehow has to respond to this. But he doesn't. He chose to react to, quite frankly, an innocuous comment on his behaviour with an attack. That was a choice he made, and apologetics for his abysmal behaviour helps nothing. ]]<sub><small>] ]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-7.0ex">]</sup> 04:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::I think it would only be innocuous so someone who was unable to interpret it as anything else but literally - which would exclude almost all editors here. ] (] '''·''' ]) 12:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	===Geometrically increasing block lengths===
	{{archivetop|result=No support, snow close <small>]</small> 01:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)}}
	Here's a proposal that I believe would actually serve as a more effective deterrent, and which would actually do something to reduce the likelihood that we'll all meet here again to talk about the same thing:
	*{{xt|Eric Corbett is put on indefinite civility parole, should any uninvolved administrator believe that Eric has violated WP:Civility, then he should be blocked for a period of 1 day. The next time he is blocked for incivility, the block duration will double to 2 days. Next time, 4 days. Then 8 days, 16, 32, doubling each time. The ninth time he is blocked, the block will last for a little over 8 months (256) days. The tenth block would be for a bit less than a year and a half (512 days). The duration of any civility blocks must follow this pattern, administrators will not have license to block for other durations if the block is for incivility. If there is a consensus that a block was applied incorrectly (civility policy was not violated), then Eric will be unblocked and the duration of the next block will not increase (i.e. it will be based on the duration of the last "correct" incivility block). If Eric violates the civility policy while he is blocked, then talk page access will be removed for the remaining duration of the block.}}
	*'''Support''' ]] 21:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. Actually, I think this would work better than the 24-hour proposal. ]] (]) 21:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' The crux of the matter is that admins (involved and not) disagree about violations of WP:Civility. ] (]) 21:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::Well, surely something needs to be done about that as a matter of urgency. It is, after all, one of the five pillars. Any ideas? ]] (]) 21:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::How about ignoring it? That's what they do at every newspaper I've ever worked at. People throw tantrums and cuss in the city room all the time. As long as they produce, nobody cares. ]&nbsp;]/] 21:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::The provision in this proposal that allows for blocks to be overturned by consensus should adequately deal with situations where an admin applies a block for an incident which doesn't actually violate the civility policy. ]] 21:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::DrJoeE, in the City Room your colleagues were paid. We aren't, and although I can put up with a lot, we have lost good editors because of the behavior of others. Not everyone likes having to put up with tantrums, etc. ] (]) 21:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::A fair point, although most journalists will tell you that they don't get paid enough...period -- let alone enough to put up with that kind of nonsense. But one learns rather quickly in the news biz that if you walk away, it's never an issue. And yes, I understand that Eric is as guilty as anyone of NOT walking away; I don't hold him blameless, but it's not solely his fault, by any stretch. ]&nbsp;]/] 22:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	* '''How ridiculous''' – Just a mean game where blocking admins like yourselves can have fun permanently disposing of Misplaced Pages's best copy editor. You know very well that Misplaced Pages exerts no controls and enforces no standards for blocking admins. --] (]) 21:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	** ]. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 23:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::: What's that meant to mean? Is that a threat or warning? --] (]) 00:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::: The fact you think it could be "a threat or warning" is in and of itself ''very'' dissapointing. What it is is a request that people not automatically assume that anything admin-/enforcement-related with regards to Eric is ]. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 01:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. I think no one should use the f word. I support this. --] ], 21:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' Another myopic solution that avoids the question of baiting. ]] 21:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::There is no need to address the question of baiting. If someone is being uncivil (which generally includes baiting), then they're at risk of being blocked. If someone baits you, the appropriate response is to notify an admin or start an ANI thread. The inappropriate response is to take the bait, and respond to it with a bunch of profanity and vitriol, which means you are also violating the civility policy. It would be ridiculous to make the policy such that you can be as uncivil as you like as long as it's in retaliation to someone else's uncivil comments. ]] 21:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::What is the most common admin advice in such situations? "Walk away. Go fishing. Find something else to edit." Why are admins so reluctant to take their own advice? ]&nbsp;]/] 21:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::Too easily gamed. It's far easier to run cover for a baiter or "civil" POV pusher. Especially if that baiter happens to be an admin. ]] 21:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' It occurs to me that if all the time and energy being spent (and already spent over the years) discussing Eric's use of F words and C words had been used instead on improving the encyclopedia - which is ostensibly why we are here in the first place - the encyclopedia would be much better for it. Just sayin'. ]&nbsp;]/] 21:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::That is exactly the problem that this proposal is trying to solve. The last thing we need to do is unblock and just wait for this situation to happen again, and waste another man-year of time discussing it. ]] 21:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' per DoctorJoeE. This is a farce, made worse by knee-jerk blocking and the easily offended. This was justified language IMO, used towards those who came looking for an argument, thus provoking the situation. Eric didn't go looking for this, they came looking for him, and they were told that they were not wanted. -- '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 21:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Kinda support''' - I disagree with the 1 day, 2 day, 4 day etc. doubling - we should go for 48 hours, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months etc. ]] 21:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' What do you mean by "uninvolved"? "Involved" should certainly include ''any'' administrator who has previously placed a later overturned block on Eric/Malleus. ] (]) 21:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:* Oh, and '''Oppose'''. There are too many people who like to wind people up on this project who then go whining to mummy when they quite correctly get told to fuck off, coupled with too many people in love with their block button who are happy to oblige them. ] (]) 21:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' Um -- are we in junior high here? The idea that such a system would ''improve the project'' seems a tad farfetched, indeed. ] (]) 22:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' per Collect - What we in primary school now??... ]] 22:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' as an absurd notion. It is a cute suggestion, but an absurd one nonetheless.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 22:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''- per Black Kite. ] <sub>]</sub> 22:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' Per BK, and telling someone to fuck off is not a blockable offence, what if Eric had said bugger off, or get lost, or any alternative therein, simple fact of the matter is some people will be offended regardless of how you tell them to fuck off. ] (]) 23:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	**If he had used any of those other terms, they wouldn't have involved profanity. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 23:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''', for the simple reason that it's complicated to the point I have a hard time taking it seriously. ''If'' we're going to decide to apply an escalating series of blocks as would be done for any "non-vested" editor, then we should...apply an escalating series of blocks as would be done for any "non-vested" editor. Throwing math at the problem is nonsensical. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 23:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''- per Black Kite. ] (] '''·''' ]) 00:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	{{archivebottom}}
	===Request for Arbitration===
	{{hat|Request withdrawn, my apologies for any wasted time. ] (]) 17:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)}}
	I've filed a request for arbitration on this subject. The request is ]. ] (]) 00:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:That alone was wanting. ]&nbsp;]] 00:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:: There really is no hope for Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 01:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:: There seems to be something seriously wrong with the arbitration request. It's all about "baiting", but there's no mention of what it consisted of. I am named in the report - am I being accused of baiting? ]] (]) 01:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::: The attitude of some who seem to knowingly bait or goad Eric is that they seem to be able to get away with it. It is possible that some therefore think themselves immune. I suggest a short, sharp lesson from now on will clearly act as a preventative to further goad-induced drama, as it is clearly disruptive. Admins and editors should be treated equally. There was an AN discussion back in July where I made a similar point, also about Eric. This: points to a comment made on my talk page (now archived) from someone who I did not name, but who clearly thought my comments about baiting were directed at him or her (with a slightly inappropriate joke, I admit, I withdraw, and I apologize for, even though it drew some insight out in one case). However, I do think such people are often engaged in deplorable behaviour. I think it illustrates why something should probably be done to address the issue. ]&nbsp;] 03:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::I guess I ought to inform the editor whose message I provided a link to. That editor has now been informed:
	:::::Thanks for informing me. I have stated many times that I have no interest in seeing Eric blocked, and that I did not "bait" him but spoke in an "honest" manner that he is quite big enough to handle. I don't know why that diff is being brought up, as I am not here to bait this user. Whatever "deplorable behavior" you think I engage in... whatever. ] ] 05:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	{{od}}I think the problem was that I did not name you in the original AN discussion, but you clearly thought that I meant you, when in fact, I didn't. Then, you made statements along the line that evcen if it was baiting, then nothing much could be done, because you went on to say: "I should point out that WP:BAIT is an essay, not policy. The most one could twist "baiting" to lead to a halfway legitimate (let alone an immediate) block is through WP:HARASS, which I most certainly was not doing." which I think is the problem. Baiting should be treated as straightforward disruption, with no special cases made for it, I consider. However, I want to clearly now state that I am very relieved to accept your statement that you do not wish to see Eric blocked, and that you did not knowingly provoke him, but there are sometimes when it is better to keep silent than speak the truth, because the manner in which the truth is stated can be misinterpreted even accidentally. I withdraw and apologize for any implication that '''your'' behaviour there was deplorable. For others, it is not so. ]&nbsp;] 05:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:Other editors certainly accused me of baiting the guy, acting as if I then "ran to Mummy" afterwards (which I certainly did not). No hard feelings, and sorry for any misunderstandings. I really don't give a rat's arse what Eric does regarding the civility policy, or what the community does regarding him. I can envision how it's probably going to play out, but others can deal with it. Cheers ] ] 06:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	===Simple===
	Just insist on getting consensus for any block of Eric '''''before''''' blocking. I've <s>always</s> <small>with one exception</small> operated on the principle that I only block when I honestly believe there would be consensus for the block, if it was discussed first.
	There are downsides (the biggest of which is that decisions on ANI tend to be wrong about 51% of the time), but they aren't as big as the downsides of the other proposals. Biggest upsides: It's simple. And it gets rid of cowboy blockers and cowboy unblockers. --] (]) 00:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*There is no need to single out Eric here. Proposal: If you want to block ''any'' established editor over something not blatantly obvious (account compromised, spewing racist stuff, etc), you should get consensus. We can fight over whether "established" means Grand laborious tutnum or whatever, but that Eric is established is clear enough--and that goes for plenty other editors as well. If admins are qualified to block as a judgment call, they should be able to form that particular judgment. Why that didn't occur to Fram is beyond me.<p>I don't want to be a cowboy unblocker. Floq, why don't you do the honors? ] (]) 00:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::I've already been dragged to ArbCom in an Eric-related issue, although it was a long time ago, I consider myself "involved" wrt Eric. --] (]) 01:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::Whose side were you on? We need a list or, better yet, categories, of who is in whose camp. Just for clarity's sake. It will make mutual vilification much easier. Jon Stewart did a nice bit (last night?) on how CNN likes to make difficult issues acceptable by asking whether something is a good thing or a bad thing, and that's the kind of mindset I find among admins who gladly do civility blocks. As for the "established" bit, I'm still pissed (yeah) that I didn't get a warning before I got my civility block. Somewhere in these threads is someone saying something like "well, why didn't a friendly admin go over to pour oil on the water"--talking is ALWAYS better than blocking, and anyone who's been here for a while (that includes most everyone on this very page) deserves that courtesy. ] (]) 18:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*I thought of proposing something similar ''to Drmies's idea of requiring consensus to block any established editor'', but then I thought, "Oh, it'll just get shot down because we'd be creating class divisions." Still a good idea, IMO. ]&nbsp;]] 00:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:* We already have "class divisions"; there doesn't seem to be any problem interpreting who is a "regular" in ] and Eric is not unique: leeway is given to plenty of other established editors, who have free license to actually and really (unlike Eric) lodge direct personal attacks, even following on arbcases. This proposal has some merit in general, but only if it doesn't single out Eric ... but then, it's really just common sense (what kind of admin is blocking when he knows there will be no consensus? ... oops, silly rhetorical question). ] (]) 01:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::I don't want to get into a whole paradigm shift discussion about doing this for all established editors (although I think it's a good idea, I have no illusions about how many zillions of kilobytes of arguing would ensue). I don't have the energy for VPP and/or WT:BLOCK or wherever this type of discussion would take place. I'm just proposing an easy, simple, reasonable compromise for one case that we've found to be particularly thorny. If it works, then yeah, we should consider doing it for everybody. --] (]) 01:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::*{{ec}}<small>] is a rather disturbing conception in and of itself, but that's a ''whole'' 'nother kettle of fish. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 01:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)</small>
	::**@Sandy: I know there are already class divisions, but people would oppose actually formalizing it. ]&nbsp;]] 01:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::*Oops, I only just noticed that Floq was only proposing this for Eric: I was more talking about Drmies's idea of all established editors, not Eric specifically. I've modified my post above to reflect this; additions are in ''italics''. ]&nbsp;]] 02:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - This proposal will cause established editors to be able to freely flout the rules as long as they make the occasional positive contribution. It will not matter how many times they abuse, insult, degrade and libel regardless of if they were provoked or not they will still be able to edit unhindered. Do we REALLY want that to happen? ]&#124;]&#124;] 00:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::No it won't. --] (]) 00:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::<small>''Will too!'' Well, maybe not, but it's, as the editor who closed the ANI thread indicated, "boring." Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes, as ] explained in ]. <small>]</small> 02:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::Dear God you can be tiresome. You want me to spend time constructing a rational argument in response to a silly comment which was based on nothing but FUD? I'd rather just point out that the comment makes no sense, and those who respect my opinion can listen to me, and those who don't, won't. I'm not trying to convince PantherLeapord of anything, I have no illusions in that regard. --] (]) 02:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''' too much in the direction of making him unblockable -- every discussion -- including the three month one a prior arbcom, has been a whole lot of churn and no consensus when all is said and done. <small>]</small> 01:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - that is giving Eric a privilege that no-one else has here. ]] (]) 01:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' The problem with blocking Eric is the admins that reflexively unblock him. If people would just ''leave'' him blocked until there's some reason to believe that he will actually behave in the future, this problem would resolve itself.&mdash;](]) 03:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:*'''Comment''' It is not just those editors who you say "reflexively unblock Eric"; it is also those who reflexively block him as well, including the goaders and pokers who seems to be drawn to his talk page like wasps to honey. Of course this does not apply to everyone. What is missing in all of this is careful and well-considered judgment all round, including that done by some of my fellow admins. It is something that the method of appointing admins seems to have failed at checking thoroughly in all cases, and which we, as admins, need to be reminded of (and may be even checked) periodically. This, though opening a can of worms (with no implications about their turning ability intended), is part of the bigger picture which really needs to be considered before a good, well rounded, critically and carefully considered change in policy that applies to everyone, can be developed. So, I sadly guess it never will be. ]&nbsp;] 03:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support, not just for Eric, but for all established editors'''. It's always struck me as crazy that the debates on this board are invariably about whether a block was justified, about whether or not it should be removed. The debate should take place ''before'' the block is made not after. It should be about whether to impose it, not about whether to remove it. ] (]) 12:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' It'd be a popularity contest. We could film it and put it on Fox and it could be a competitor to ]. We could even have viewers call ina and !vote. <small>The sarcasm starts at "We"</small>--v/r - ]] 13:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:*Sounds like you have as much confidence in your fellow administrators as I do. But doing it this way should at least remove the worst of the excesses. They would be obliged to make their case ''before'' hitting the block button. <small>It might be an idea for someone to change the title of the section to something more descriptive, in the vain hope that it might actually get some traction</small>. ] (]) 13:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::*When it comes to Eric, I have little faith in anyone, including myself, to make any kind of rational, fair, and acceptable decision. And that counts for both sides of the issue. It's a unique set of circumstances that Wikipedians, Eric among them, have allowed to develop into an intractable situation. A moving force and immovable object. It won't get solved without a serious quake. Perhaps the WMF should ensure that none of the servers are in California, we don't want to cause ].--v/r - ]] 14:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::*It's a pity that this suggestion has arisen inside of this wall of text relating to another Eric case. Getting consensus before blocking an established user has long seemed to me to be an obvious, efficacious method of ridding this board of a ton of its drama while simultaneously protecting editors from unwarranted blocks. Hopefully someone will revisit it when the present kerfuffle has died down. ] (]) 14:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::*And it would protect editors from a lot of warranted blocks. I think I've got enough friends around here where I could almost guarantee to avoid a civility block.--v/r - ]] 14:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::*That, coming from an admin, on the admin board, in the midst of a discussion about how we might possibly improve the risible performance of our admin corps pretty much sums up where Misplaced Pages is in 2013. ] (]) 15:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''', Eric's teflon coating is finally wearing off, and I see no reason to apply a new coat. ]] 14:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - nope, no special treatment. ]] 14:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support for all established editors'''. We're seeing more evidence here of the varying standards concerning civility. The "passive agressive" and flyby "it won't end well" comments are rated by some as not rude at all, and someone has stated that "bugger off" is not profanity as "fuck off" is ... I am not up on the current broadcast codes in different jurisdictions, but how is a reference to buggery any less sexual than a reference to sexual intercourse in general? And others have already stated that they find the former two to be unacceptably rude. Level playing field - and courtesy toward fellow editors, which is the point of WP:CIVIL. ] (]) 14:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support for all editors, oppose for just Eric''' I'm not keen on making Eric untouchable, but this is a sensible way of doing things. Indeed, I have long advocated that any editor with over (say) 1000 edits may only be blocked by bureaucrats. Admittedly, we'd need a few more crats, and the block should only be done under certain circumstances and it would need a few back end changes. Unfortunately, when I mentioned something like that elsewhere I was basically laughed out of the place. Anyway, this is a solution for the general case, but it needs more thought and discussion and certainly a wider audience than a handfull of people grumbling at AN. It is '''not''' a solution to deal with Eric (or rather it is, but not one I would accept) ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 15:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support Drmies' proposal''' - this should be policy already. ] (]) 15:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support refining Drmies' proposal, oppose for just Eric'''. (specifically: "Proposal: If you want to block ''any'' established editor over something not blatantly obvious (account compromised, spewing racist stuff, etc), you should get consensus. We can fight over whether "established" means".) This won't address the past abuses that contributed to the present situation, but recognition of the cowboy admin problem and uneven application of policy by grudge-bearing admins is long overdue; may the refining of the Drmies' proposal help avoid more of same for other targeted editors. ] (]) 16:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support generalized version''' The generalized version is obviously better (though there are definitional issues). I'd even support the specific version if it means less drama :) --] <small>(])</small> 16:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - Enough special treatment; equal justice under law instead. Treat someone like a prima donna and he just becomes a bigger prima donna. --] (]) 18:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''I assume this was clear from comments above, but I didn't bold anything up there'''. I obviously support the more generalized case as well. And curse you, Drmies, for stealing my thunder. --] (]) 18:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''. Pragmatic decisions based on projected impacts don't seem to be adequately taking into effect all contributions we're losing from people who are driven off by this sort of behavior. We full well know that Eric isn't deterred in the slightest by short blocks. ] (]) 19:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' per 96 above. Treat him like he's special and he'll think he's above the law. <span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #003399;">]</span><span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #FF8C00;">]</span> 01:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' no special treatment. ]'']'' <small>(])</small> 02:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	=== General civility sanctions===
	''It is proposed''
	Eric Corbett and those interacting with him are placed under general sanctions. Any uninvolved admin (say one who has not blocked him before) may impose sanctions including topic bans and/or blocks not to exceed 36 hours in duration for failure to interact in a collegial manner, broadly construed. Any editor who has been notified of these sanctions by any editor and who engages in any uncollegial behavior, broadly construed, may also be sanctioned. This may include, but is not limited to:
	* general perjorative characterizations of Eric's personality
	* references to his prior blocks / block log
	No sanctions may be overturned except by clear consensus at ].
	These sanctions shall not apply to dispute resolution boards, specifically ], ] and shall not apply to Eric's talk page, with the exception Eric may be banned from using Misplaced Pages notifications to refer to specific editors. <small>]</small> 01:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:'''Oppose''' - Did you just propose that I be sanctioned just for posting on Eric's page? I have some very strong language for that which I will not share with you. Seriously.--] (]) 01:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::That's not how I read it. ]'']'' <small>(])</small> 02:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::We now have a full blown witch hunt.--] (]) 02:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::How's that? Mark, with all due respect, I think you are misreading NE Ent's proposal. He specifically stated that these proposed sanctions would not apply to Eric's talk page. ]'']'' <small>(])</small> 02:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::I see that now, but think this is still a witch hunt. I get you point Auto, but I don't think this is at all appropriate for Misplaced Pages. If Eric is such a disruption and we fear for the sake of the project, ban him and make it permanent. Don't tell us that if we interact with ''him'' we are at fault. Really? This is wrong on so many levels...--] (]) 02:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::No. Would not be effective until after passage, if consensus is achieved. <small>]</small> 02:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::And that's better because.......?--] (]) 02:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''LOL Oppose''' - So, just mentioning one of the ''dozens'' of times that Eric has been blocked in the past will get you a topic ban or block? This proposal is nonsensical. ]] 02:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*As a general comment, if general civility sanctions (in some form) are a good idea, shouldn't they apply to all editor interactions? Why would they be limited to interactions with one specific editor? ] (]) 02:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - again; I would not have a problem if it was the MINIMUM length. Setting a maximum length tells them "hey; you can just do whatever the fuck you want, we don't give a shit!". ]&#124;]&#124;] 03:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*Sanctions for incivility should apply to everybody; that's the point of NPA. It's time we started using it. There are two things that we should not have to tolerate: one is the deliberate and repeated use of blatant rudeness to other editors, and the other is repeated discussions like this. Obviously, there will be for anyone an occasional outbreak, but we might rationally ignore it once a year per editor, but more than that means the person is either unable or unwilling to engage in acceptable human interactions. In either case, we should be free of them. What WP needs is good editors who can work with relative harmony on a common project, and both factors are necessary. Anyone who operates on a basis of you provoked me so I can insult you is not engaged here at a civilized level. The practical advantage of using language as a test--even specific single words--is that they are unequivocal. Once we have dealt with this, we can deal with more subtle problems. I am perfectly aware that mine will not be a popular view here, because too many of the regular participants in these discussions apparently would rather fight than work. The people who wish to insult each other and then fight about it can agree to do so, but not where it interferes with others, or with the public perceptions of the project. ''']''' (]) 03:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*Lol, part of me wants this to happen just to see the kind of zany shenanigans that would inevitably result from it.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 04:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''LOL Oppose''' indeed. (Might have to add that to my standard poll options.) — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 10:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''LOL Oppose'''. I get that the point of this is to protect Eric. But honestly, the best way to protect Eric is to stop enabling his behaviour. ]] 14:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''LOL nope''' would ban any editor who gets within 50 feet of him. Kind of like a restraining orer, only those who are the victims will be prosecuted as well. <span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #003399;">]</span><span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #FF8C00;">]</span> 02:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	===Request for data/evidence===
	(Uninvolved observer) I have been following this, and I have noticed that several comments deal with the difference between reactive incivility (responding to baiting) and unprovoked incivility What I would like to see posted here in response to this request is:
	*A sample (more is better) of incivil statements by Eric Corbett, These should have diffs so other editors can evaluate whether they are actually incivil.
	*An explanation of how the sample was chosen (X latest posts, posts in month X, chosen at random with dice rolls...) so other editors can evaluate whether the sample was cherry-picked.
	*A count of how many were provoked vs unprovoked, with diffs of any baiting
	Other editors can then post their own sample/analysis or criticize the current analysis.
	I am not taking either side with this request. I just want to see evidence that other editors can evaluate backing up any provoked/unprovoked claims. --] (]) 07:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:OK, I'll do it. Sample: last 100 posts (most recent first) ]] (]) 08:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	# Provocation:
	# Provocation:
	#
	#
	# Provocation:
	#
	#
	# Provocation:
	# Provocation:
	#
	# Provocation (directed at ]):
	#
	# Provocation:
	:I suggest the following evidence, although it has not yet provoked a reaction. However, the wording used is far from neutral, potentially could stir things up (which we aren't supposed to do), and is not suitable (especially so, coming from an administrator). ]&nbsp;] 10:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC) :
	#2013-10-30T07:28:15 SB Johnny (talk | contribs | block) removed protection from "User talk:Eric Corbett" (If you don't want to read Eric's trash-mouth rants, take it off your watchlist) (hist | change)
	:See this link:
	:I would have thought this should have been more like "If you have found the content of Eric Corbett's talk page unpleasant in the past, take it off your watchlist!" That is sufficiently neutral and what I would expect from my fellow administrators. It is not a complaint about SB Johnny, but I think it illustrates the problem of a lack of careful neutral language from registered users of wikipedia, be they administrators or not.
	OK, taking all of the above at face value and just counting, I get:
	*'''100''' recent posts sampled. (Were these all talk page posts or were article edits counted?)
	*'''87''' civil/other.
	*'''7''' provoked incivility.
	*'''6''' unprovoked incivility.
	*'''1''' provocation that was ignored. (Are there any others from the same time period that we have missed?)
	I personally don't count "I have a feeling it won't end well if you don't stop the profanity Eric Corbett", "Again, that is simply not a civil comment. I suggest that you withdraw it" or ] as provocations, so I would change the above to:
	*'''100''' recent posts sampled.
	*'''87''' civil/other.
	*'''9''' unprovoked incivility.
	*'''4''' provoked incivility.
	*'''1''' provocation that was ignored.
	I would be interested in the results if anyone else has done a count. --] (]) 14:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:So blocking someone for a clear personal attack, and explaining that block on the user talk page, is now "provoking incivility", somehting which in some of the proposals here should be blockable as well? If by "provoking incivility" you simply mean "doing something that may cause the other editor to be pissed off at you", then fine, I totally understand that most people don't react positively to a block; but if by "provoking incivility", people mean "blockable or really problematic baiting", then no, I don't think that my action / comment should be included in that group. Taking administrative actions like blocking or deleting will almost invariably anger someone, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done or that it should be considered an offense. ] (]) 07:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	===Attempt 2 @ civility restriction===
	Above, I suggested a similar restriction, and the largest issue was with the fact that this allows the agitator to get away with it, almost encouraging baiting. This restriction should be posted at the top of Eric's page and in his edit notice, so that it's clear to any new users.
	*{{xt|Eric Corbett is put on indefinite civility parole, should any uninvolved administrator believe that Eric has violated ], then he should be blocked for a period of up to 24 hours. This time period does not escalate, 24 hours is the maximum period allowed under this restriction. Editors who provoke Eric Corbett at his talk page should also be subject to at least an equivalent block for the period}}.
	The reasoning behind the 24 hour maximum is simple - this is primarily a cooling down period. The community ''cannot'' agree on a well defined civility policy, so we should not be blocking for significant period because of it. Escalating the blocks will lead, eventually, to a block of a year or more for a simple angry comment. This solution basically stops the escalation from happening and allows cooler heads to prevail after 24 hours. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 09:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - Again; I would support it if the time given was a MINIMUM time and not a maximum. We have to deal with this and prevent it from happening again and as such escalating blocks are still needed here. ]&#124;]&#124;] 09:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - the blocks ''need'' to escalate. A 24 hour block each and every time is not a deterrent. Imagine if Eric is going away for the weekend, or knows he will otherwise be unable anyway to edit for a period of 24 hours or more. Well then, the temptation to call a bunch of people "fucking cunts" would be too great. ]] 09:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*:I would agree that the blocks should escalate if we had a well defined civility policy which the community agreed on. As it is, it is just uninvolved admins making a choice, and there is no way that a single administrator should be making a block of significant length on a long term editor when the community cannot even agree on what constitutes uncivil. What's more, the idea that he would game the restriction and plan his outbursts appears to be an assumption of bad faith and I would like to see some evidence that he might behave in that manner. Like I said, this is meant as an actual solution here, and both sides might need to find some middle ground that we can agree on. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 10:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*::Do we even have any uninvolved admins left with Eric? ]] 10:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*:::We have ~600 active admins. Eric's got ~30 blocks. My maths says yes. What's more, if the admins who are turning a blind eye were given a clear mandate from the community, I believe they would be more willing to act. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 10:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*::::You know full well that one does not have to block an editor to be considered 'involved'. ]] 10:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*:::::I do and also that a block should be considered an administrative action and does not make one involved. I was, of course, using the number to demonstrate the scale. I think you would struggle to name 50 admins who are involved with Eric, but I would not struggle to name 50 from the ] who have never interacted with Eric. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 10:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' as proposer... ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 10:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''<s>Oppose</s> Comment (for now)''' I think it correct that blocks also need to escalate to the people who bait Eric at least, because they knowingly do it. However, whether they need to escalate '''in the same way and to the same extent, or less or more''' when Eric reacts to the provocation is another issue. They do the provocation, and so one might argue, they are not only causing disruption, but they are making another editor also suffer. One could argue that their blocks should increase at a greater rate than Eric's (if he is to be blocked at all). ]&nbsp;] 10:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*:I think you're making a false assumption there DDStretch - from what I've seen, the "people who bait Eric" are different each time. If someone can point out the same person regularly baiting Eric, they are welcome to come to me and I will happily deal with it (assuming I'm not involved with them). That will come in the form of a warning, then escalating blocks. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 10:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*::Ok, but build it in then, as a prevention for those tempted to return and do a bit more poking, or even for those who have seen poking and think it's worth a short block to play the game and get Eric blocked again (and I think many might be in this situation). I really think one can look at it this way. The pokers often know what they are doing. They will be gaming the system to get Eric into trouble in the knowledge that it will by this policy. If there is escalation just for Eric, it will certainly be easily gamed. I think that is worse than Eric responding to the poking. This is also not a breaking of the assumption of good faith (if anyone thinks it is), because it seems to be justified because I suggest that they all know that they are poking an easy target, any returners that may exist especially. So, it is a useful preventative. ]&nbsp;] 10:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*:::I've added the words "at least" to specifically tackle that. I hope that if this passes, the closer will note the possibility that the "pokers" block can be escalated. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 10:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*::::Thank you for considering what I wrote. I have struck my Oppose view as a result. I will think about it some more and see if I can move to a Support. ]&nbsp;] 10:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' as worth trying (of I course I like my proposal better), because it's better than the status quo. Eric is a strong willed individual who seems to be to be mercurial in his stance towards Misplaced Pages so I think we need to forget about "deterrence" and "changing his behavior." A solution that provides a relatively low drama low haggle response to his sporadic acting like a jerk is what is needed, something between ''content creators can do anything'' ] and ''ban Eric forever!'' ]. <small>]</small> 10:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' This is pointless. ArbCom has his back, and will desysop any admin who tries to block. ] (]) 10:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*:] that's got to be just about the strangest comment I've seen, given that he is currently blocked by me, and I'm on that committee. I see no reason why the committee would desysop someone for carrying out a community sanction. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 10:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*::And I'm currently de-sysopped for blocking him. Vacate that ruling, and I'll believe you. ] (]) 13:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*:::No, you were desysoped for ] after blocking and wheel warring; many admins have blocked Eric and few have been desysoped. <small>]</small> 13:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*::::ArbCom ruled that calling someone an f ing c was acceptable behaviour, and was not a personal attack, so you cannot say that it is now. All I did was allude to his having an untouchable status. ArbCom called ''that'' a personal attack. ArbCom also ruled that one of its own members was justly blocked for the same thing. And ArbCom said I had wheel warred in contravention to the facts. It was a purely political decision. Worm will wind up being blocked and de-sysopped for the same reason. ] (]) 20:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*:::::I'm doing this from memory, so correct me if I'm wrong. Arbcom did claim that Hawkeye wheel-warred by blocking not too long after an unblock, and that he made a personal attack by comparing Eric to a koala. I never thought the case was that black-and-white, I thought NYB (who opposed the desysop) had it right, at least on my quick reading of the evidence. Eric was throwing around the c-bomb after the unblock and Hawkeye said that that's what he was blocking for, he wasn't re-blocking for the first offense, and I thought Arbcom completely misunderstood the koala metaphor: koalas look cuddly and everyone loves them, and then they pee on you when you try to hug them. It was inoffensive by comparison with most of the things said about Eric then, and now. I'm not arguing that admins should block someone for the c-word, that's a subject of current debate ... but that's the point, if we can't come to a decision whether that's the way to go or not, then I don't think an admin should be desysoped for doing it once, with no other evidence of bad faith or carelessness. I know that not everyone saw the case the same way, but I was disappointed, and I hope you'll do an RfA again at some point, Hawkeye. - Dank (]) 04:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' again. You've addressed half the problem with your original proposal, but pointlessly short cooldown blocks will not achieve any change in Eric's own behaviour. This serves no purpose. ]] 14:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*:It serves a valuable purpose in that it actually reduces the controversy by giving us a procedure to follow. Few want Eric gone, few believe his comments are completely acceptable, this solution gives us something to do when he makes a problematic comment, so that he can come back later and carry on with a cooler head. I certainly don't see that as pointless. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 14:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*::We keep coming back here because Eric refuses to reform his behaviour. We will continue to come back here until either Eric reforms his behaviour, or Eric is banned. If we don't want the latter result, we need the former. This proposal fails to achieve that goal. In terms of reducing controversy here, we would still be in the same boat we are now: "did he get baited? Does that forgive him? Should those that baited him be blocked?" I like that your ideas are better than the other "Eric is a fluffy bunny who needs protection from evildoers" proposals that others are making here, but the simple truth is, the controversy starts and ends with Eric's own inability to deal with criticism or challenge. ]] 16:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	I appreciate the sustained effort by Worm, but any sort of civility restriction-- no matter how worded-- isn't the best way to go here, because uneven application of WP:CIVIL (indeed, of many policies by block happy admins) is already the long-standing problem. How can we solve a long-standing problem by enacting something specific to one editor that will engage more of the same uneven application of the same policy? Some editors are blocked while others (with friendly admins on board) get away with worse. Regardless if one thinks this instance was provoked, warranted, egregious, trivial, the last straw, more of same, or whatever, the past arb case saw evidence of the long-standing uneven application in Eric's case. <p>I believe the way to go is to attempt some version of what is proposed above under "Simple", to address the core problem-- that is, something that will encourage if not force admins to get consensus before blocking ''any established editor'' for anything other than outright <define exceptions> (this should be common sense, but we do have block-happy and grudge-bearing admins who make blocks that no one in their right mind can believe will gain consensus), and to discourage the same admin from re-blocking in a previously controversial case (eg Fram in this case). That wording should not be about Eric; it should address uneven application of policy that is commonplace, whereby blocks, unblocks or no blocks depend on who the editor is and what admin friends some editors have. Solve the underlying problem; stop the cowboy admins. ] (]) 14:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:I can see this proposal isn't going to get off the ground, so I'll leave it here. However, I don't believe a proposal like simple above should be something we're looking at. I can't believe it will gain traction across the community and even if it did, it would take a long time to get through. Hard cases make bad law, and so jumping in with what sounds like a good solution here is likely cause big problems elsewhere. So many different factors to look at. <p> In the mean time, we have no solution for Eric, who is a specific and unique case. This suggestion would reduce the actual problems that are caused by Eric (by removing him for a short period), whilst at the same time not removing him all together. It would mean the end of the insane 3 month blocks for an angry comment. The end of the pages and pages of text arguing over what we should do. It's a solution. The fact that both sides are criticising it makes me think it's possibly the closest we could get to a viable one. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 14:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:: Again, I respect your efforts (and apologize if I seem to be putting up roadblocks), but I just don't believe that any sort of civility restriction will accomplish what you believe it will ("not remove him all together") and in fact, may accomplish the opposite (that is, assure that we lose Eric, whose talents we sorely need, now more than ever considering the decline in writing competence evident throughout Misplaced Pages). <p>Why would someone who has been a long-standing target of unfair blocks have any motivation or desire to continue to contribute to a project that would codify and further that very same uneven application of policy against him in particular, while not addressing the global problem? Seriously, Eric is not stupid, nor is he needy. Because it is likely that you have never been on the receiving end of an unjust block delivered by a grudge-bearing admin, and may not really understand how demeaning this proposal might be, I suggest re-reading ] post on the arbcase-- or even asking her to elaborate. I don't believe anyone has ever motivated someone to change their behavior by rewarding the cowboy admins who got away with it and codifying the abuse that furthered the problem to begin with. You motivate someone to change behavior and continue contributing by recognizing, addressing and attempting to solve the problems that led to the problem. <p> If we can't do that, then perhaps it's time to get on with a discussion about unblocking Eric. Best regards, ] (]) 15:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::Don't worry Sandy, I see where you're coming from, certainly don't feel you're putting up roadblocks. Indeed, I too appreciate the genuine points you've put forward to help work towards a solution. With a few exceptions, I think there's been some genuinely helpful comments in this AN thread, better than the general noise that happens on an Eric thread. I am unable to empathise with someone unjustly blocked, as I haven't been. At the same time, I also find it hard to empathise with a person who flies off the handle when provoked. I've been provoked many times on the encyclopedia, and when I am, I walk away and respond when I've calmed down. I believe that I've remained civil throughout - I can count the number of times I've posted in anger on one hand and even then I defy anyone to spot them in my contributions. Eric doesn't have that self control, he's unwilling to walk away from bullies, so I'm suggesting we codify that stepping away. Force it to happen. Is it the best solution? No, the best solution is for Eric to do it on his own. There are genuine risks that it might fail or Eric might not accept it and leave us for good. Sometimes, such risks are necessary. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 15:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	'''Comment''' Much though I hate the idea of blocking people merely for mouthing off, worm's suggestion is worth thinking about if it is applied across the board. I.e., anyone who ever uses the f word (or the c word or the ]) is automatically subject to a 24 hour non-escalating block. The cost of mouthing off is well defined and we don't fall into the trap of ending up indeffing otherwise prolific content editors (who, often, seem to be the ones resorting to profanity in the first place). We have to find a balance here between what is useful (content) and what is just plain rude (profanity) without killing off our star editors and this seems like a good practical and commonsense approach. --] <small>(])</small> 15:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	: I would be happy if we didn't have f'ing c's going round in here, but those are not the biggest problem or necessarily what most discourages productive editors. Your proposal would subject anyone who uses an f or c to an automatic block, while we have other editors enabled at ANI, with a history, to engage in far worse insults, as long as they avoid the F or C. We see far more damaging (to a collaborative environment) posts routinely from editors who get away with it because they didn't use F or C. ] (]) 15:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::I hear you, and we've seen some wonderful block worthy examples in this latest Eric brouhaha. But, look at it like this. Some admins, like Spartaz, find a f you offensive enough for a block (clearly, he wouldn't have blocked for a 'buzz off' which means exactly the same thing). Others, like Fram, believe that these blocks should be escalating ones. Both Fram as well as Spartaz are willing to act on their beliefs and there is little that admins (I, for example) who think these blocks are not worth placing, let alone escalating, can do about it because of the way we're structured. (To state things simply - the unblock bar is much higher than the block bar.) Escalating blocks, in particular, are really bad because people who use profanity cannot really help themselves - they're just going to keep doing it - and if we're going to escalate the blocks we might as well tell them to leave. If, on the other hand, an Eric Corbett knows that the rule is profanity = short block of clearly defined duration, we might just avoid all this drama that is inevitable when people have diametrically opposite views on the same thing. Not a pure solution by any means, and not one that I like, but it might just be a practical one.--] <small>(])</small> 16:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' - I think we should do something, and this is the best proposal currently on the table. ]] (]) 02:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	=== The Five Pillars===
	* Just a thought for those waving around ] above - if we consistently dropped long blocks on every editor who repeatedly has a problem with some part of this, we'd have practically no-one left. Just remember, those pillars also include ] (there go dozens of editors on every contentious political or social topic), ] (ditto), ] (hello certain admins!), ] (farewell trivia article editors), and ] (that one would remove quite a few editors, including admins and at least one ex-ArbCom member). Just sayin'. ] (]) 11:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::We do, on the other hand, have a fairly regimented system of edit-war blocks - days, then weeks, then months. In your opinion, does that system work? And if it does, can it be used in other areas of Misplaced Pages? Or is it because edit-warring is much more black and white? Anyway, I imagine lots of fly-by users do get banned for ] and ] violations. It would be interesting to see some statistics. ]] (]) 11:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:: It's not about when editors "have a problem" with some particular policy, it's when they continue to behave as if there is no such policy or if it doesn't apply to them. These are the rules. No-one is required to ''like'' them, but all are required to live by them. If an editor can't, then they should go away. ] (]) 15:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::: Well said. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 00:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	=== Civility Restriction as DS ===
	Basic civility paroles don't work. All they do is paint a target on a users back for anyone to provoke then block then unblock then ANI then indef then blah blah blah. What needs to happen is a system be put in place for uninvolved admins review an incident, come to a consensus, issue a solution and have it respected. That forum exists and it is Arbitration Enforcement.
	If someone is upset with Eric, they file an AE request with diffs. The admins there will investigate, review for possible mitigating circumstances (like baiting), allow Eric the opportunity to defend himself BEFORE the banhammer is swung and the resulting consensus remedies are not easily reversed in a dramafest. In my mind this is the best way to fairly deal with his incivility and deal with possible baiting/frivolous requests.
	Normally a sanction like that needs an Arb case. As an Arb, WTT could theoretically get that ball rolling. Eric may even cooperate to get it done since that would likely reduce driveby blockings of him as people who go to AE with unclean hands get boomeranged in a hurry there. The exact wording of the sanction can be debated and voted on by Arbs as a motion or something.
	It's either that or come to no consensus here (again) and wait for the next blowup to have no consensus (again). ] (]) 15:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	: No, that forum exists, and it is RFC (there has never been one). ] (]) 15:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:I've said on the potential case that Arbcom was the wrong place and I stick by that - I'm therefore not willing to push for a case. It's plausible that the committee will agree with your suggestion, but it seems just as likely that they will come down hard and ban him. I've recused and have no inside information on this matter, I make that statement out of personal opinion. Each arbitrator would have to make up their own mind and I have not discussed it with any. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 15:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::@Sandy RFC's are nonbinding and can not produce an enforcable remedy.
	::@WTT I'm not requesting a case or asking you to do so. What I am saying is to ask ARBCOM to extend Discretionary Sanctions on a particular user (Eric) for civility. You are recused, yes, but you still have the right to propose a motion, even if you can't vote on it. Or do you? I'm not exactly sure. Either way, it should be possible to get Arbcom to concider this possibility without needing to open a full case. Doubly so if Eric agreed to it, but just to be clear... I'm not saying he will or that I speak for him. ] (]) 16:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::RFCs may be non-binding but they are a great place to start. ]] 16:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::I didn't mean that as an outright rejection of an RFC, so sorry for that. It just seemed like people were looking for a binding solution. If anyone thinks it would work, they should file one. Absolutely. Though that does pose an interesting question. If an RFC came to a consensus to use Discretionary Sanctions, would Arbcom honor that? And not just in this, admittedly novel, sense. If it was for a topic, like some geographical dispute, would that be possible? ] (]) 17:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	===Redaction—A small step?===
	Since any kind of decision re blocking this kind of behaviour (and especially with respect to this editor) seems impossible, perhaps the worst aspects of it could be mitigated by administrators being more proactive in redacting the really egregious personal attacks and profanity on article talk pages. This is where that kind of behaviour harms the public image of the project and is particularly harmful to new (or prospective) editors who come across it, even when it is not directed at them. I'm talking about pages like ]. There is no reason why ''anyone'' visiting that page should have to read discussions like '''"I really don't give a fuck what you think"''', '''"Who the shuddering fuck cares about a stupid link..."''' '''"If you don't want to be called a cunt then don't act like one"''' (not all of which were made by the editor in question, incidentally). That sort of thing on User talk pages is probably less egregious, less visible, and more easily avoided. On article talk pages, it presents a terrible "public face" of Misplaced Pages and leaving them there sends the worst possible message: ''This is how we discuss things here, if you don't it like go away, or rather... FUCK OFF!'' ] (]) 16:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::On that particular page, the profanity was being used quite deliberately by Eric and others to enforce ] and keep other editors away from the page and/or from Misplaced Pages as a whole. One question to consider is whether Misplaced Pages '''really''' welcomes new editors. As you point out, that kind of language on article talk pages says "no." -- ] (]) 23:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	=== Just some thoughts about user talk pages===
	User talk pages are strange things. It's in some ways a private space (more or less belonging to the user whose talk page it is), but also public, in the sense that anyone can read it (or even watch-list it).
	On facebook, for example, if someone was giving you grief on your page, you could just delete their post or even ban them from posting (or de-friend them, or whatever it takes).
	On a web forum, you can choose to ignore a "private message" from someone who is giving you grief, or you can tell them to go fly a kite. If the person didn't like being told to go fly a kite complained to a moderator about it, the moderator would probably advise them to just stop PMing the guy, or perhaps even tell them that going to fly a kite would be a good idea.
	Did I lose you yet?
	Well, if not, here's the thing that needs some thinking about: maybe telling people to go fly a kite (or jump in a lake, or get a life, or even fuck themselves) on one's own talk page should be treated altogether differently from doing so on an article talk page (or other content-oriented fora such as the Village Pump). Just something worth considering, IMO, since this whole situation is rather silly and "off-topic" (assuming the topic is supporting the writing good encyclopedia articles). --]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>✌ 22:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:If this were a social network, that would be fine. This isn't a social network. It is a collaborative project. Which means that nobody, absolutely nobody, has the right to ignore the feedback of other editors. If they are abusive, then they should be taken care of via all of the methods of conflict resolution and user conduct review that we have on this project. But any comments on your user page from other editors that do not violate policy are all things that you have no right to ignore. If you don't have the ] to deal with what other editors are telling you about your actions, then you do not belong on a collaborative project. ]]<sub><small>] ]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-7.0ex">]</sup> 05:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	=== Naming and shaming instead of blocking ===
	Civility is not easily enforced, and blocking people for incivility is not likely to work on the long term. Typically, there won't be a consensus to block an editor for civility issues, even if there is consensus that there are civility issues with that editor. What can work is to allow such an editor to edit, but only with an added text to the username that says that the editor is prone to uncivil behavior. The editor will have to earn the right to edit without that added text to his username by editing without civility problems for a significant amount of time.
	The added text also makes the civility issues less serious. By making the potential civility problem visible before it occurs, editors know what they can expect from the problem editor. That then significant diminishes the effect of any incivility coming from the problem editor. ] (]) 03:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:See the section above ] what if a person is using abuse on article talk pages to discourage contributions to that page and to help to enforce ownership of an article? ], as with other anniversary pages, is likely to attract new editors around the time of the anniversary. A new editor will typically make a change to a page under an IP address. If the change is reverted, they may find their to the talk page. How likely is it that a new editor is going to want to contribute to the conversations on that page given the language that is currently on that page and directed at others who have proposed changes? Where does your " civility problem visible" fit into that scenario? -- ] (]) 11:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	===A thought of my own===
	It's been a long time since I've edited or even looked at this page; I think the last comment I made here was right around Christmas time. At that time it was essentially the same issue at hand. Now I have no intention of getting myself involved in this beyond the following; instead of trying to recreate some profound comment, just read what I wrote . Everything, including the article in question, is essentially the same. If you're starting to get riled up about the goings-on here, look at ] and let it sink in for a minute; I know that for me it rather violently shakes me back into focus, and everyone I've ever spoken to has told me it does much the same for them. And now, I'll return to quietly perusing Susan Curtiss' dissertation and doing some work ''without'' the attendant theatrics. ] (]) 03:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	===RfC/U===
	Now that Eric Corbett has been unblocked, I'm starting ] to get this away from AN and to see if a solution which all parties can live with can be found. Everyone is invited to help create this RfC/U. My purpose is to focus on the interaction between Eric Corbett and other users, ''in both directions'', not to have a "list-everything-he-ever-has-done-wrong" festival. Evidence of his incivility and personal attacks will need to be provided, but evidence of the causes of his reaction, possible baiting, possible recurring harassment, or possible bad or execssive blocks, is of course also a necessary part of the process. Just, well, try to keep it constructive and civil wherever possible. It is not a policy-free zone where personal attacks will be ignored. ] (]) 08:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:I've asked for this to be moved to ]. I think an RfC is premature at this moment, it needs to be written, structured and evidenced. This will take time and creating it empty is the wrong way to do it. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 08:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	::Premature? It seems to me to be long overdue. "Creating it empty" is the standard way RfC/U are created by the template. I'm willing to move it to your user page, but not to keep it there for very long. Some attempt at resolution is needed, and I doubt that it will come from this AN discussion. ] (]) 08:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:Seems a bit pointless. IIRC, there's been an RfC/U before. -- ] (]) 08:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	::Not to my knowledge, I can't find a trace of it (old or new username of Eric Corbett). ] (]) 08:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	I have moved the RfC/U to ], my invitation to everyone wanting to find a solution for this recurring situation remains open of course. My intention is to get this back to a standard RfC fairly soon (days, not months) if possible. ] (]) 08:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:Note that WTT has since clarified that his "I think an RfC is premature at this moment, it needs to be written, structured and evidenced. This will take time and creating it empty is the wrong way to do it." doesn't mean that writing the RfC will take longer, which is better done in userspace first, but that he doesn't want to start on it until he has tried other avenues first. Make of that whatever you want. ] (]) 10:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	::For more information about my thought process, have a look at ] ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 10:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	----
	:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.''<!-- from Template:discussion bottom --></div>
	== Improper use of rollback ==
	An editor has made an improper use of rollback here . This rollback did not revert vandalism to the ] article. The edits rollbacked were not accidental, they were properly cited and clearly set out the various names of the division, and therefore cannot be considered unhelpful to the encyclopedia. The editor who made the rollbacked edits was not a banned user. --] (]) 22:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:Given the discussion above about "poking" bears, admins may care to review ]. ] <small>]</small> 23:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::Yes, this matter is much bigger than an alleged illegal use of rollback. Among other things, it's a ridiculous ongoing edit war about whether we should write ''ANZAC'' or ''Anzac''. The main editors involved are simply not engaging effectively. ] (]) 23:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::The rollback aspect is trivial; it merely enables one to save a few seconds when reverting. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 23:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	* "Illegal"? Which section of the Criminal Code was broken? You'll want to notify the legal team ... <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 23:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::It would probably be more helpful to cut back on the snark and reply to the substance of the complaint. ]]<sub><small>] ]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-7.0ex">]</sup> 23:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::No...it would probably be best if editors did not make legal accusations that do not exist.--] (]) 00:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::Can someone have a look at the illegal roll back? --] (]) 01:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Can someone explain how rollback abuse is not illegal?--] (]) 01:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	Was that even a rollback or just a simple revert? I can't tell. Anyone?--] (]) 01:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:Nevermind that last question. Rollback of 4 edits. --] (]) 01:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::This is a roll back. ]. Your link is not to a roll back, it is to the last of a series of edits which added a full stop. --] (]) 01:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::OK, then...if yours was the rollback and the other editor just reverted...who is at fault for abusing their tools? Hmmmm. An explanation is now required.--] (]) 01:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*Mark Miller linked to the addition of a full stop. --] (]) 01:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	**Since when is adding a full stop a roll back. --] (]) 01:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	***This would be snarking, I suppose becuase, I don't even have rollback privileges. What tha ...? Can someone focus on the illegal rollback linked in the first post of this discussion? --] (]) 02:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:<small>(])</small>{{reply|North8000}} The aspect is not trivial - per ], rollback is not to be used in situations like this.
	:I'm not quite sure how so many edits have been made under this header for irrelevant reasons. We know what RoslynSKP meant when they said illegal. There is no constructive reason to banter about the implication of legal action.
	:That being said, I'll raise this issue with Jim Sweeney. After that, I'll stop by that article's talk page. ] 02:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::Glad someone understands this. I am still waiting for an explanation as to where the actual rollback was, but I guess just not understanding is not an excuse for asking, but thanks. I'll just wait for my general sanctions to kick in over who I associate with on Misplaced Pages. Thanks you.--] (]) 02:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::{{reply|Mark Miller}} is a ]. ] 02:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::OK, I believe you. Now... why does the history not say it was a rollback? The only such rollback the history shows (and I admit my ignorance on this) is the last edit by Rskp? I am not trying to be an ass. I guess I am just one by nature and just need an explanation as to why, from my view of the situation, I only see a single rollback being done and not by the accused editor.--] (]) 02:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::{{reply|Mark Miller}} That's what a rollback looks like. You can tell due to it being marked minor, the text linking to ], and the layout of the edit summary. Also, RoslynSKP physically couldn't have performed a rollback, as they don't have the necessary privilege. ] 03:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:This is not the first time this editor has abused rollback privileges. See here --] (]) 02:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	By the way, as someone with rollback...if the editor abused it, take it away. Of that much...I will agree. But will not support using language that exaggerates the situation in any way. Thanks '''m.o.p'''!--] (]) 02:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:I feel you have been unnecessarily harsh, and lacking a bit of good faith. Considering our community's diverse composition (amongst English-speaking peoples), it is geocentric to assume the context of ones prose, basing it on your norms alone. With so many , and , as well as many other sports, "illegal use of" is nearly synonymous with "unsportsmanlike conduct" and proof that "illegal" is not exclusive to jurisprudence. Tighten up sir.—] (]) 04:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:: See ] here for discussion and link to the first instance. --] (]) 02:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	This issue has been dragging on across multiple articles relating to the Palestinian theatre of WW1 for about a year now (possibly longer). As one of the coordinators of the military history project I've commented in a few of the relevant discussions, but haven't used the admin tools given that I've had lots of interactions with the editors involved. My consistent perception of this dispute is that its RoslynSKP against the world: he or she has their preferred names for articles and units (which tend to be a bit old-fashioned, and don't take into account the fact that there are often different terms used for the same thing in this particular topic) and consistently takes a combative attitude to try to enforce this. Calling improper use of rollback "Illegal" is typical of RoslynSKP's ] approach - instead of trying to reach consensus through calm discussion, he or she routinely escalates disputes. The various editors RoslynSKP fights with are all in good standing, and often seem pretty fed up with dealing with them. As the archive box at the top of ] shows, RoslynSKP has tried to move this article to a different name ''five times'' since January 2012 (including a move review request) - four of these attempts have been made since mid-September this year. While Jim shouldn't have used rollback here, it's not hard to see how such stubborn and disruptive behaviour would wear down other editors. The fact that RoslynSKP dismissed the results of all the move requests by saying that a couple of days ago says it all really: this is not constructive conduct, and suggests a complete inability to drop the stick and move on over this issue. This thread appears to be an attempt to change the battleground and distract attention away from their prolonged disruptive conduct. ] (]) 07:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:while you're at it, could you please move ] back to ] for me? ] (]) 08:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::Done. Just passing by ... ''']'''<font color="green">]</font> 12:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::I agree with Nick-D on this. My view is that failure to achieve a positive result on one battleground (repeated RMs) has resulted in a move to a new battleground. At this rate, this is going to end up at ARBCOM and some editors are going to wish they hadn't escalated this. To deter continuation of this behaviour, a boomerang is probably in order. ] (]) 09:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::I also concur with Nick-D's take on this. I had a few encounters with Rskp after I responded to a GOCE request for an ] in the WWI scope. If the response I got from Rskp later is any example to go by, and judging by their behaviour at RM, then they have significant ] with anything they edit. During the course of my copy edit of the article, they would systematically go back and effectively revert many of the changes I had made. Normally, that wouldn't be much of an issue as that's the nature of WP, but when the end result is more verbose and difficult to read than was afte the copy edit, it's moe than jus a little annoying. A later discussion on the material in the article, I posited an opinion, which was responded to in an unnecesarily dismissive fashion entirely non-conducive of a collegial environment. However, rather than edit war over it, I notified Jim Sweeney as he was a major contributor to the article and left it to them to hash it out. Crisco1942 subsequently protected the article to stop the ensuing edit war. This single interaction with Rskp soured my taste for future interactions and I have subsquently made a point of not taking up articles within the WWI scope that they've been involved in, which I find somewhat sad as I am Australian as they are. Rskp is a polific writer in WWI, particularly on the ANZAC contributions to the war effort and that is laudable, but their interactions with other editors is leaves much to be desired. ] (]) 11:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	*Jim Sweeney cut the Populations living on the battlefields subsection of the article after it had reached GA. Given that the article was about a wide stretch of territory I thought it was useful, but Jim Sweeney is a cutter. See also ], ]. In one instance after only five hours he cut a quote because I hadn't got round to paraphrasing it. You have blinkers on. --] (]) 04:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	**The comment which Blackmane took exception to was made after I had suggested leaving the subsection so readers could make up their own minds about whether the "Populations living on the battlefields" subsection was relevant as the GA reviewer had not seen a problem. Blackmane wrote" I highly doubt the removal of a largely unrelated and generally digressive section in this article will affect its GA status. It's not about interest, or lack thereof, which is the point, it's relevance" and I wrote "Yes, thank you for your work Blackmane. However, you did not do the GA review so your comments should be seen in that light." This comments were made here when Jim Sweeney wanted the subsection cut. --] (]) 06:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	::To my knowledge I've never had the misfortune of dealing with Rskp, but I am surprised to learn that this has been an ongoing problem for more than a year. I do think its time that this was escalated - by which I mean page protections and blocking - so the rest of us can work in peace. I agree with Peacemaker - this is gonna end up at arbcom sooner or later unless one or more of us man up and lay down the law such as it were. It's not pleasant (it never is) however that doesn't change the fact that it still needs to be done. And judging by this post, it needs to be done soon. ] (]) 20:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	* I think people are starting to recognize the point of my first post (the one referred to as "snark"). The OP seems ot have a pretty serious history of problematic editing. In order to get his "preferred version" or at least one of his opponents potentially blocked, he used an inflammatory heading: "illegal use of...". This was designed to get immediate eyes, and immediate action in his favour. However, in doing so, he may have whipped out his giant AN boomerang. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 11:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	** For what it is worth I have had numerous interactions with RoslynSKP over several years, including quite a few disagreements, so I am hardly an uninvolved editor here. That said I fully endorse Nick-Ds cmts as an accurate, considered and remarkably restrained summary of her behaviour and I think this complaint needs to be considered in this context. Further scrutiny, and potentially sanction, is needed here. ] (]) 12:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	***I first interacted with Rskp quite about two years and tried to assist them to understand Misplaced Pages policies and generally help out. At first, I was very keen to help Rspk with their articles as I felt her work had the potential to go to featured status and wanted to help (I still think this, and I still want to help); however, because of the way in which Rskp has interacted with other editors, I have limited my involvement greatly over the past year because frankly working with them is not fun and quite stressful. A key part of working on Misplaced Pages is the ability to collaborate. That sometimes means compromising, accepting consensus (even when it goes against you), and moving on in the interests of progressing an article. It also means assuming good faith, maintaining a degree of friendliness and accepting that it isn't a case of "one editor against the world". I agree with ]'s summary, particularly in relation to ]. On a number of occasions I have witnessed this editor ] rather than seriously discussing the issues in a collaborative manner and attempting to gain consensus (for instance , , as examples). When other editors attempt to discuss the issues, these attempts usually meet with frustration. If they disagree with Rskp, their talk page posts have on a number of occasions been dismissed as "personal attacks", at which point Rskp has refactored those editors' comments, essentially removing them for anyone to read (for instance this just today: ), and/or the intentions, actions or opinions of those in disagreement with Rskp are derided on ], which frankly borders on an ] in my opinion. Further, efforts to come up with compromise solutions are greeted with responses using language that is not conducive to creating a collegiate editing environment. For instance, an attempt by myself to resolve one of the issues of contention on the ] article (i.e. the issue of whether to use the term "Ottoman Empire" or "Turkey") is basically labelled as a conspiracy because a couple of editors happen to disagree with Rskp's interpretation. I will reiterate, I have no dog in that fight and frankly don't care what term is used, but I do want editors to stop constantly reverting and actually attempt to progress the article; that is what I would like to see from this whole episode across all the articles affected. Everyone take a step back, take a deep breath and find a way to collaborate. Regards, ] (]) 13:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	*AustralianRupert I am at a complete loss to understand your three links regarding attempting to gain consensus. They are in fact to other editors' reinstating Harry Chauvel twice and a change of file name, all of which stand. And your final link is to the personal attack made on the ] article which I identified as offensive and collapsed a couple of times. Then when reverted, I twice attempted to add the Remove Personal Attack tag, both of which have been cut. And remain cut. I thought when a personal attack was made on an editor, when I was insulted and disparaged, "is not acceptable regardless of the manner it is done" and so I took steps to cut the comments. I really don't understand you at all. --] (]) 04:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	*AustralianRupert I am also completely at a loss regarding your comments considering the very good working relationship we have been enjoying during our editing of the ], and there are many other editors with whom I have collaborated very successfully to improve articles and to get some to B-class and GA. --] (]) 05:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	**Rskp, I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt until you called my intentions into question here: I was trying to promote collaboration by seeking a compromise to one of the issues that had developed between you and Jim, but your "the lock step trio" comment essentially labels my efforts and anyone else's as being part of some conspiracy. That does not produce a collaborative editing environment and frankly, I took it to be a personal attack. I remain impressed with your articles, and the effort you have put into the Sinai-Palestine topic, but I remain concerned about your ability to collaborate. ] (]) 06:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	'''Comments''' On top of the snarking about the improper rollback, now I am being impinged, here on the Administrators' noticeboard. I thought this was supposed to be a place to go for resolution not to be subject to attacks. I have been amazed at the level of harrassment that I have been subject to during my editing of Misplaced Pages. I made one comment to do with the issue of the Ottoman Empire/Turkey here In 1299 it might well have been the Turkish Empire, but the Anzac Mounted Division is about the First World War, when the country was the Ottoman Empire. Many english language publications refer to Turkey, its pejorative in this context, and POV. The fact that this was the second time the editor had made improper use of the rollback has gone completely unnoticed in the rush to impinge me. See here . --] (]) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	*Regarding the move of the ] article as soon as the Trove information was forthcoming, I immediately voted for a return to Harry Chauvel. I had been comparing Harry Chauvel with ], ] et al and thought it was wrong to have him the only one with a nickname. The Trove survey alerted me to the extremely wide use of the name Harry Chauvel and my reaction was immediate here --] (]) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	*Regarding the personal attack and my several attempts to collapse and then to add a REMOVE PERSONAL ATTACKS tag, these have all been undone. This is despite the comments being insulting. They disparaged me, and according to Misplaced Pages "is not acceptable regardless of the manner it is done". Why should I have to go to ANI what ever that is? Why is it not possible to add a personal attack tag without it being cut? This links to the final revert Why is it not possible to collapse a personal attack?--] (]) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	*The issue of the ] attempts to move the article are clearly on holiday for two months.
	*However, as the article itself has developed into a battleground for the names of the division, I thought it was important to add the sources for all those names, so readers could clearly evaluate the situation. However, using the British official historian for the first and second mentions has been repeatedly undone in what I am beginning to think of an an OWNERSHIP issue. See discussion here Now I see that the links are to the Australian War Memorial Web Site and the War Diary. Given the limited use War Diaries can be used as sources, I would have thought the British official history of the campaign a better source for these two versions of the name of the division. Further the editor refused to accept that Powles book formed part of the official New Zealand history, repeatedly cutting it. Even when it is clear that its the third volume of the official history. See discussion here On top of that the citation to the Australian War Memorial's copy of the Australian official history's contents page has been repeatedly mangled. See discussion here The other editor was under a misconception that the link was to a particular page in the history and not to the contents page. --] (]) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	*Ownership. Given that these are among the few edits to the Anzac Mounted Division article that I have made, the amount of edit waring associated with them points very clearly to Ownership problems by the same editor who made the illegal rollback. But it appears any criticism of that editor is not to be heard. What about my work? What about all the articles that have been written or rewritten which have got to GA? Don't I have good standing? --] (]) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	:See also ] for related edit warring discussion. --] (]) 05:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	===Arbitrary break===
	It's pretty obvious that the ensuing commentary has taken this into the realm of an RFC/U. Perhaps it would be preferable to put a pause on further additional commentary and reserve it for the RFC/U that will probably be inevitable? Should this be wrapped up as "no consensus that rollback was abused"? ] (]) 14:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:If you're gonna move the discussion to a new venue then leave a link behind so we can find the new location for the talk. That's all I ask. ] (]) 05:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	::I cannot understand your negative comments, considering the very good working relationship I have been enjoying with AustralianRupert, during our collaborative editing of the ]. And there are many, many other editors with whom I have collaborated very successfully, to improve articles, and to get some to B-class and GA. --] (]) 06:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	== Ban request for User:Jonathan.bluestein ==
	Both {{Userlinks|‎Chesdovi}} and I feel that {{Userlinks|Jonathan.bluestein}} should be banned for reverting good faith edits at {{pagelinks|Haredi Judaism}} without adequate reasoning as explained at {{pagelinks|Talk:Haredi Judaism}}. Thank you, <big>] ] ]</big> 21:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	* Jonathan Bluestein here. These two users are both Haredi Jews. They have strongly biased opinions on matters relating to that page. User {{Userlinks|‎Chesdovi}} has been serially deleting contents off that page for months now. The talk page is full of extremely long discussions in which {{Userlinks|‎Chesdovi}} is trying to make up all sorts of excuses as to why additions I have made to the page are invalid and inappropriate. Over the last few months I have added over 70 (!) relevant sources to the segments I have edited in order to 'please' {{Userlinks|‎Chesdovi}}'s demands. To no avail. Whenever I am not around, he takes the opportunity to delete any materials criticizing actions by the Haredim. The sources I have used are mostly from Israeli mainstream media, and relate mainly to two issues: 1. Military conscription of Haredi Jews. 2. Controversies related to Haredi actions against 'immodesty' shown in public in Israel. The debate at hand has been raised within Misplaced Pages's resolution center, but no resolution could be reached. Neither did asking for moderators to intervene helped in the past. I believe that the sole purpose of this request here is to eliminate my influence from that page, and with it to gain an opportunity to once and for all erase any trace of criticism towards Haredi populations. I wish to ask any moderators looking into the matter to read the wikipedia page being discussed first, and then thoroughly go through the long discussions on the talk page, to see the long history of our disagreements and how they were debated and resolved in the past. Thank you. ] (]) 21:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:*Hyphens, you'll need to explain what you'd like to be done. Do you mean a siteban (i.e., Jonathan's not allowed to edit Misplaced Pages at all), or a topic ban (i.e. he's not allowed to edit articles related to Haredi Judaism), or an interaction ban (i.e. he's not allowed to edit pages you've been editing, and vice versa), or something else? Regardless of which one you mean, you absolutely must demonstrate extensive disruption by Jonathan; bans are a drastic solution that are only imposed when we've tried other solutions without the problem being resolved. ] (]) 02:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::I feel ] has limited editing experience. After all my "mentoring", he still does not "get it." I am sorry to say, I feel his continued edits are a blight on this page. As a "litmus test", I added his material to ] and soon after it was removed by another editor who stated: "This is an interesting and potentially important section to add; however, as it is, it is full of OR and unsourced assertions, and is not balanced." ] has been trying to insert his ] of undue, pov, unsourced, etc. etc. material for some months now. It is clear ] has had enough "warnings" about his editing style but continues to add text which violates policy. He may be sincere, but he does not seem capable of understanding what belongs where, if at all. He needs to be blocked from this page so it can be fixed and the tags removed. ] (]) 10:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	*It is worth investigating some of the recent edits by Chesdovi to get a perspective on what is behind this ban proposal. I agree that some sources added by JBluestein are not usable, but Chesdovi is removing a good number of sources that *are* usable -- and also removing material on the basis of a clear ideological dislike for the message they convey. In that context, the ban proposal is merely an attempt to eliminate an ideological opponent. BTW, the post at 10:39 just above is a clear violation of ], and in general there might be a call for ] here, at least for Chesdovi (not for hyphens, though) -- the POV-pushing is by no means limited to one "side". ] (]) 11:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	**And Nomoskedasticity wishes to be seen as a neutral broker in this discussion? My foot. If Nomoskedasticity acknowledges "some" sources JB added as inappropriate, why has he never removed any? He is always seems very quick to remove or tweak to the intricacies of material only I have added, happy to leave this rest of the page full of bunkum. It is an absolute fallacy to suggest that I wish to push my POV or "eliminate" an opposing ideology. My edits clearly demonstrate my attempt to edit neutrally. Nomoskedasticity has a real gall to even suggested I have a POV pushing problem. It is the edit's of J Blustein which are a genuine problem here, and it is him and Nomoskedasticity who are intent on blurring real editing issues by claiming the issue at hand is to do with pro/anti Haredi stances. This is unfair and offensive. Nomoskedasticity has not ever once highlighted JB's problematic edits, until his latest post, which is an obvious attempt to frame himself as neutral on this issue; how idiotic. In his latest edit on the page, Nomoskedasticity has re-added primary sources which have been discussed previously at talk. Yet Nomoskedasticity does not feel he needs to discuss the inclusion of these primary sources himself at talk, but re-adds blindly. Shameful. ] (]) 12:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::: I actually think that among all the people who have been editing the page in recent months (including myself), ] has been one of a few that maintained very decent and respectable neutrality. I fact, he did delete or have called for the deletion of a few of my sources, with sound arguments. Probably about 4-5 sources so far, and they're now gone. Weren't good enough... As for Chesdovi's other claims here - I find no reason to try and counter his claims. I sincerely believe that reading the page, talk page and the sources themselves would easily reveal who is the troublemaker among us. The admins are welcome to check out the facts and decide for themselves. I should add, as I have before in the dispute resolution discussions, that this issue and page would better be examined by someone versed in Israeli culture and Hebrew. All points of controversy relating to this page have to do with events in Israel from recent years, and most of the sources on the page in general are in Hebrew. The latter fact is because the vast majority of news reports, article, studies and literature about and relating to Ultra Orthodox Jews (Haredim) is written in Hebrew. ] (]) 12:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Jonathan, if ] modified some of your material, please can either he or yourself point me to where that occurred, because I do not remember this happening, and I have checked and cannot find when this happened. Hebrew sources – how helpful. JB adds reams of text cited to Hebrew sources. But why? JB obviously can converse in English. Hebrew sources are unhelpful, confusing and usually against guidelines. What has J Bluestein added to this page? Material about specific peculiarities of the Haredim and why are so loathed in Israel by ardent seculars like himself. That's all. That is the glaring POV issue which strikes me. He is a proud anti-Haredi activist in wiki and in real life. That’s okay and obviously, I am not against inclusion of such material, so long as it adheres to normal editing parameters. ] (]) 12:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	*For the record, here's a sampling of what has been going on:
	**On 00:38, 24 July, Jonathan deleted a sourced paragraph of ] without explanation. This unexplained deletion was reverted by ] on 14:54, 24 July.
	**On 20:46, 29 July, ] changed "Lithania" to "Lithuania". On 01:19, 30 July, Jonathan changed it back to "Lithania".
	**On 20:21, 5 August, ] changed "a Haredi men" to "Haredi men". On 04:05, 13 August, Jonathan changed it back to "a Haredi men". On 10:31, 30 August, ] changed it to "a Haredi man". On 00:50, 25 October, Jonathan changed it back to "a Haredi men".
	**On 16:02, 13 August, Chesdovi added tags "<nowiki>{{According to whom}}</nowiki>" & "<nowiki>{{Weasel-inline}}</nowiki>". On 19:36, 9 September, Chesdovi removed those tagged sentences altogether. On 00:50, 25 October, Jonathan restored those sentences, but without the tags.
	**On 11:41, 27 October, I changed the "]" (which links to the general concept of Sabbath) to "]" (links to the Jewish Sabbath). On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored "]" without explanation.
	**On 11:41, 27 October, I removed the phrases "even go as far" and "might prove" which do not seem very encyclopedic to me. On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored both phrases without explanation.
	**On 11:41, 27 October, I removed the word "interestingly", classified as ]. On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored "interestingly" without explanation. On 10:42, 30 October, I removed "interestingly". On 22:26, 30 October, Jonathan restored "interestingly".
	**On 11:41, 27 October, I removed the not-so-encyclopedic-looking and unnecessary sentence "There had been more extreme cases, too". On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored the sentence without explanation. On 10:42, 30 October, I redeleted the sentence. On 22:26, 30 October, Jonathan restored the sentence.
	**On 11:41, 27 October, I ]: <nowiki>]</nowiki> → <nowiki>]</nowiki>. On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored "<nowiki>]</nowiki>".
	**On 11:41, 27 October, I changed "segregated men and women and required women to go up from the back of the bus and sit in the back" to: "required men to go up through the front of the bus and sit in the front and women to go up from the back of the bus and sit in the back." (The fact that men are not allowed to enter from the back or to sit in the back is important because it shows that this is not an issue of ], just separation between the genders.) On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan changed it back to "segregated men and women and required women to go up from the back of the bus and sit in the back". On 10:42, 30 October, I restored "by requiring men to go up through the front of the bus and sit in the front" and added a reference to: "{{cite journal|last=Kobre|first=Eytan|date=Dec/28/11|title=In The Hot Seat|url=http://www.mishpacha.com/Browse/Article/1697/In-The-Hot-Seat#showDiv1|journal=]|accessdate=Oct/30/13}}" On 22:35, 30 October, Jonathan redeleted the words "by requiring men to go up through the front of the bus and sit in the front" together with the accompanying reference.
	**On 11:41, 27 October, I changed "Orthodox and Secular Jewish women called 'Neshot Hakotel'" to "Jewish women called 'Neshot Hakotel'" (the source cited () actually says that 'Neshot Hakotel' is comprised of Reform women). On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored "A group of Orthodox and Secular Jewish women" without explanation.
	**On 11:41, 27 October, I changed "Male, Female and Mixed" to "male, female and mixed". On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored "Male, Female and Mixed".
	**On 01:29, 28 October, I removed the reference to which is unrelated to "the show of exposed arms and legs", as discussed on ]. On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored the reference.
	**On 07:45, 28 October, I added links to and '']'' ]. On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan removed those links without explanation.
	**On 07:45, 28 October, I removed 9 references unrelated to, but lumped together under the banner of 'immodest' women, and thus causing a mess out of the article, as discussed at ]. On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored all 9 references. On 10:42, 30 October, I redeleted the 9 references. On 22:26, 30 October, Jonathan restored 7 of the 9 references, and replaced the other 2 with duplicates of the existing references.
	**On 07:45, 28 October, I changed "On March 2013" to "In March 2013". On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored "On March 2013".
	**On 07:45, 28 October, I changed "'Mehadrin' buses - bus lines" (n-dash) to "'Mehadrin' buses — bus lines" (m-dash). On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored the n-dash. On 10:42, 30 October, I restored the m-dash. On 22:35, 30 October, Jonathan restored the n-dash.
	**On 07:45, 28 October, I removed the not-so-encyclopedic-looking and unnecessary sentence "The cause for the existence of 'Mehadrin' buses was, to begin with, the wishes of many Haredi communities to further set men and women physically apart, for the same reasons and rational that called for 'modest' female display in public". On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored the sentence. On 10:42, 30 October, I redeleted the sentence. On 22:35, 30 October, Jonathan restored the sentence.
	**On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan changed " mainstream rabbis " to "mainstream Rabbis ". On 10:42, 30 October, I changed it back to "mainstream rabbis". On 22:26, 30 October, Jonathan changed it back to "mainstream Rabbis".
	**On 10:42, 30 October, I changed "have been known to censor pictures" to "have censored pictures". On 22:26, 30 October, Jonathan changed it back to "have been known to censor pictures" without explanation.
	*If think that will have to be enough for now, as I'm running out of time. <big>] ] ]</big> 13:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	**The first diff hyphen produces is a good example of how Nomoskedasticity is happy to add superfluous material to this page. On 00:38, 24 July, Jonathan indeed deleted a sourced paragraph, but he merged it into the text he added in his next edit. This was over-sighted by Nomoskedasticity who carelessly re-added the exact same paragraph on 14:54, 24 July, making it appear twice in the article!! This is of course of no consequence for Nomoskedasticity who seemingly likes to add ]. ] (]) 14:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::: Both Chesdovi and -- -- -- failed to include my answers and explanations for the above-mentioned issues, which were addressed and appear on the talk page. They only put here a part of the discussion - the part representing their writings and opinions. The full-length discussions from the last few days are found . At this link are the lengthy explanations for my edits and additions, which both users have claimed 'did not exist'. I wish to again stress the fact that in my opinion, in order to understand what has been going on with that page, it's best that one takes the time to read the entire talk page. Then one could see that most of the issues at hand had already been discussed over and over again, countless times. ] (]) 15:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::: On a more personal note, I am not an "anti-Haredi activist" as Chesdovi suggested here, and have never claimed to be one. ] (]) 15:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Jonathan, you stated above that Nomo deleted about 4-5 of your sources. Please show me which ones. Or was it an oversight? ] (]) 17:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::I seem to recall it happened, but I couldn't find it being discussed on the talk page. Perhaps he explained it in one of his edits, or perhaps I was wrong. It doesn't really matter and has no relevance to your claim that I should be banned. You are merely trying to point out that myself and that user are somehow united under an anti-Haredi cause. Which is funny, considering you and user -- -- -- are both Haredim, and have very distinct political agendas about that page, which you have been promoting with sincere cooperation. ] (]) 18:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::You made a claim which cannot be supported. Pretty much sums up the additions you have littered this page with: Sources which do not support the text…. Neither do you have the courage to admit your error: "seems, perhaps, doesn't really matter." Well, the poor additions you continue to add to this page do matter. That’s what this report is about - whether what you add matters – and mark my words, it does. Nomo does tend to have an air of neutrality about her, but the problem is, her efforts at balancing this page are, well, unbalanced. They have not once focused on the material you have added. But my goodness, to give the impression that Haredi men only get violent if a women is "scantily" dressed was taking it too far… They have to be dressed in what is "deemed" immodest, i.e. midriffs would probably pass, right Nomo? I mean that is pretty much in the mainstream nowadays. "Scantily" would have to mean walking down the street clad in a bikini and trunks. Clarification of that fact was imperative, but nothing Jonathan added needs attention? "Decent and respectable neutrality" indeed. Having noticed you have just re-added a copy-vio youtube clip, I really suggest that you leave this page alone and use you time more productively by attending a protest or parliamentary meeting. There you can say all you like without having the bother of finding RS to back you up.... (Please see ].) ] (]) 21:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::: It's always the same. You claim something I added is wrong, misinterpreted, not suitable for the page, etc. I answer in length and provide 1-10 additional sources. You ignore the sources and raise another claim... and so forth. Luckily for the editors, the talk page is pretty clear about who has the sources supporting the truth, and who isn't. Any native Hebrew speaker would laugh at most of your arguments. But since you're so keen on criticizing the use of Hebrew sources, in the future I will make sure to bring on dozens more in English for your pleasure, stating the same things and supporting the same claims. Your criticism has caused the number of sources you don't like on that page to rise by the dozens (I gather I added at least 50 sources over the last few months, from many different books and websites). How many hundreds of sources more should I include? Would you like me to cover with at least 1-3 sources for every single sentence I added to the article so far? That might actually be possible. There's plenty of news, articles and literature about the Haredim... ] (]) 01:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::: Yes. I think 1-3 sources for every single sentence separately is much better than 17 sources for 1 sentence but which refer not necessarily to that sentence, but to different (albeit similar) issues discussed elsewhere throughout the article. <big>] ] ]</big> 08:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	Admins should beware of the list of edits that Hyphens listed above. Take the second one, for example:
	* On 20:46, 29 July, User:Chesdovi changed "Lithania" to "Lithuania". On 01:19, 30 July, Jonathan changed it back to "Lithania".
	Looking at the actual history shows that Chesdovi's edit made many changes, with 300 letters removed in total, and Jonathan's was a revert of a long sequence of Chesdovi's deletions, more than 12,000 letters altogether. The spelling of Lithuania is about the least significant issue in there, so why is it OK to mention only that? I'd like to know if there is a kind explanation, since the only one I can think of is that Hyphens deliberately misrepresented these edits to make Jonathan's edit look malicious. This suggests that Hyphen's behavior here and in the article should be scrutinized carefully. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:I meant to demonstrate how carelessly Jonathan reverts good faith edits while putting back his previously deleted additions. If only this discussion will cause Jonathan to cease this careless behavior, then opening this discussion was somewhat worthwhile. He should at least learn how to use the ] button before saving.<big>] ] ]</big> 08:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:: So you don't have an excuse for misrepresenting the evidence. I suggest that you be blocked for dishonesty. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	::: The evidence was meant to show Jonathan's carelessness, and nothing else; and I honestly think that that is what the evidence shows. I didn't think that would be considered "misrepresenting" or "dishonesty". <big>] ] ]</big> 09:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Jonathan here. I certainly admit to have been careless at times. In the beginning of my edit war with Chesdovi, he used to make many consecutive deletions. He still pursues this strategy. This meant that he'd make several edits in a row, each time deleting different things. That is, instead of making all the changes he wishes to make within a single edit. In the meanwhile and in-between his several deletions, many a time people made useful grammar and phrasing corrections to the article. To counter Chesdovi's deletions, I used to copy and re-paste a version of the page I have kept to myself beforehand (since he'd pick and choose to delete materials from different parts of the article at different times, and it was sometimes difficult to follow his deletions). But by undoing Chesdovi's deletions in this manner, it often occurred that I have accidentally deleted some useful additions and fixes that had been done to the page by others. That is why during the last month or so, whenever I made a new edit and undid Chesdovi's deletions, I tried to make sure that my own copy-and-paste version of the page included the additional changes that have been made since the deletions. I have also specified in all of my recent edits that I have kept these changes. Still, I did miss a few things here and there. When user -- -- -- complained about this on the talk page, though, I immediately agreed and returned the useful materials and phrasings which have been accidentally deleted (this can be seen ). In general, I have been in agreement with many suggestions and corrections made by Chesdovi and others on the talk page, while I cannot recall a single instance in which Chesdovi was in agreement with anything I added. He complained about the vast majority of my sources, and attempted to refute or dismiss almost all of them. Neither did he contribute much to the page - it was mostly me writing and adding sources, and he complaining about it and deleting my materials, as well as materials previously added by others. I wish to repeat once again - the history of the relevant talk page reveals the nature of this long argument to anyone willing to go through it. The banning request, in any case, appears inappropriate. Not only because of Chesdovi's personal agendas. Take a look at the talk page - user -- -- -- and I are negotiating things in a rather friendly and professional manner, devoid of personal attacks, and slowly find agreement on various matters. Why would he then ask for me to be banned?... ] (]) 11:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	*I'm inclined to support a short block, at the moment. I can see Jonathan blanket reverting people without checking what they're doing, and essentially edit warring to do this. Bringing up an editor's ethnicity, and claiming that they must be biased as a result, is bang out of order. However, we've got mud-slinging left, right, and centre in here, and there may be justification for blocks on other users as well. As a result, I suggest this thread is closed. ] ] 00:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::Hi Luke. With all due respect - may I inquire if you have read the facts beyond what has been posted on this thread? By that I mean - have you read the history of this dispute on the actual talk page? I ask because of the following facts, which are apparent on the talk page:
	:::1. Chesdovi never denies being an Ultra-Orthodox Jew.
	:::2. User -- -- -- identifies himself as one on his own user page.
	:::3. Chesdovi has been serially accusing me for months as being an "Anti-Haredi Secular activist posting Anti-haredi government propaganda".
	:::4. Chesdovi has been bulk-deleting my sources consistently without bothering to read them, claiming they are irrelevant, false, a form of anti-Haredi conspiracy, etc. Then, after I have explained in length on the talk page why they are relevant, he'd delete them again.
	:::5. Chesdovi, who can read Hebrew to some lesser extent (shown as he expressed a general vague understanding in what's in many of the Hebrew sources), serially pretends that the content within Hebrew sources is irrelevant to the page. This has forced me to translate massive amounts of content from the sources on the talk page to justify their relevance... which did not prevent Chesdovi from deleting them again afterwards with other excuses. User -- -- -- who also claims to be able to understand Heberew, has done similar things on a few occasions (made claims of irrelevance based on supposed understanding of source text to not be relevant to not be relevant to the page/paragraph).
	:::6. Many of the topics discussed on the page, as well as the relevant sources, are what I've referred to as 'common knowledge' with regard to Jewish and Haredi religion/culture. Meaning - that the common Jew/Israeli knows these facts by default, as part of Jewish/Israeli education (for instance - in Israel, all Jews study the bible for 11 years straight in school and are tested on almost all of it, so they all know the general plot-lines and the meaning of famous verses). Therefore, stating some things about this culture/religion is akin to stating the cold war was primarily between Soviet and Western powers - sort of fact that you don't really have to argue about or thoroughly justify. Chesdovi, on the other hand, was very manipulative on the talk page, taking advantage of the fact that non-Jews aren't aware of many such things being 'common knowledge'. He then attacked many of my edits and sources with the claim that the interpretations for sayings in Hebrew (either in news sources or religious ones) are false, and that I have to prove somehow that such things actually mean what they say they are (basically accusing me of serially lying, since he knows I'm an Israeli and a native Hebrew speaker). Then, I would go out of my way to translate those things Chesdovi argued against, and bring more sources to support their proper interpretation. The result would always be that Chesdovi would claim that I'm still wrong, and delete my sources nonetheless. The best example for this, perhaps, is found . Chesdobi argued against a common and well-accepted interpretation of a verse from the ] ({{Bibleverse-nb||nu|15:39|JP}}: "ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם אשר אתם זונים אחריהם"). I quoted this verse as relevant to the page, because that verse is, in my opinion, the source for prohibition in Haredi society for Haredi men to look at 'immodest' women. Chesdovi claimed I completely misinterpreted the verse, and a call to prove my claims was also subsequently made by another user. I then brought forth the following sources in Hebrew to prove my claim<ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref>, and also this one in English<ref>http://m.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/7906/jewish/Chapter-27.htm</ref>. These are all sources from Haredi websites, and some of them are quoting very famous and universally-accepted Rabbi authorities, such as ] and ], in support of what I have argued. Chesodvi completely ignored these sources, and replied as follows: "As has just been demonstrated, Jonathan has no idea what he is doing here. He needs to be blocked from this page asap".
	:::I have taken the time to explain these issues here because I suspect that admins have not taken the time to read the talk page in length, as it is a long and an arduous task no doubt. Yet I gather that it would not be fair to consider my banning without being exposed to the whole story. I sincerely believe that reading the history of what has been going on the would reveal a different reality than presented here on this page. User ] have already commented prior here that there seems to have been a manipulation in the presentation of facts with regard to my edits, and I agree with him. ] (]) 12:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	It is unfortunate that after all this time Jonathan still cannot grasp why primary sources are not preferred on Misplaced Pages. Let me just reveal to him that the biblical injunction which forbids gazing lustfully at women is not learnt from the one which he insists he learnt in bible class. It is in fact primarily induced from Deuteronomy 23:10. And let him also be aware that there is no source in the classic Jewish texts that forbids men looking at women. The problem only arises when a man needs to recite a prayer in which case he cannot do so in the presence of certain areas of uncovered flesh. He claims to know everything, but in truth knows very little. This ignorance will not continue to feature on Misplaced Pages! In his latest limp attempt to provide sources for why men avert their eyes, he has managed to collect no less than 8 "sources". THEY ARE ALL INVALID! I fear for the Israeli bar! Let me proceed to demonstrate the problems, and this will be the last time I will do so:
	To substantiate his claim:
	:"Haredim who live among secular citizens usually either ignore the way the latter are dressed, or in the case of Haredi men, even go as far as looking the other way on purpose to avoid eye contact with the "overly exposed" body of a female"
	He cited: "Origin of the rule of not looking at things which can cause sexual arousal is in the ], in a verse stating: "ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם אשר אתם זונים אחריהם. למען תזכרו ועשיתם את כל מצותי והייתם קדושים לאלהיכם" (see: ספר במדבר, טו, לט)</ref>"
	By using a raw primary source, he in in fact using original research to substantiate the claim that men "look the other way on purpose to avoid eye contact with the "overly exposed" body of a female" hence his use of quotations, for by ''his'' standards the women are not "overly exposed"! Let him just find a proper source which will back his claim without the need for quotations. He finds no problem with this bible verse as a source, but in an effort to placate me he provides the following:
	1. "The very extensive Hebrew Misplaced Pages page discussing the matter, mentioning this verse as the source for the rule prohibiting to look at private parts"
	:The "source" in in fact Hebrew Misplaced Pages which cannot be used as source. HE HAS BEEN TOLD ABOUT THIS BUT STILL PERSISTS TO USE IT!!!!!
	2. "Explanation by Maimonides, linking this rule to prohibition of looking at 'matters of prostitution'"
	:He uses a text of Jewish law discussing the laws of Idol Worship. (He mistranslates the words "ואחרי עיניכם", זו זנות as 'matters of prostitution") But nowhere in this primary source does it mention men avert their eyes from women to prevent arousal. It is not discussing that but Idol worship. No wonder...
	3. "An article from a book in the Habad library explaining that the meaning of the sentence is that following the whims of the eyes and heart is like an act of prostitution"
	:This is a excerpt of a discourse, a primary source, which nowhere mentions that the verse is used as a reason why men avert their eyes from women.
	4. "An article with a quote by Rashi, explaining that this sentence means that the eyes and heart lure the eyes to make an offense, and therefore one should not look"
	:This source does even mention the word "women".
	5. "This article from an Israeli Yeshiva explains that the meaning of the sentence is that the eyes and heart create lust and wanting by looking and thinking about something."
	:This article actually discusses the issue of reading heretical material. It contains the paragraph from Maimonides Jonathan brought above in source 2, which does not link women and the verse?!
	6. "Rabbi Bnayahu Bruner from mainstream Conservative Jewish website Kipa answering a question about this quote, and explaining it means that one should rule over man's inner lust, and avoid the direction in which his heart and eyes lure him"
	:Nowhere in this source does it mention women. Neither should we use a Conservative source to substantiate Haredi behaviour!
	7. "An article confirming that this interpretation of the verse is the most common interpretation"
	:Again, no mention of women here.
	8. " http://m.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/7906/jewish/Chapter-27.htm"
	:A primary source which just mentions "sinful thoughts". Not women.
	The use of all these fake "sources" is an attempt by Jonathan to back up his own assertions. These are not reliable sources by any means. He keeps filling with this article with similar rubbish. Why must we put up with this any longer. It has been going on far too long. He will just not listen. He has no understanding of what policy demands here. He has left this article a total and utter mess. ] (]) 20:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	== bulk deletion request ==
	Drafts about the following topics were found in ]; a table listing the topics, with links to the drafts, is in ] under "Sublimeharmony sandbox topics". I'm requesting deletion of the following pages in furtherance of the ban against the company Wiki-PR.
	{{collapse top|list of articles}}
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	{{collapse end}}
	&mdash;] 00:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	{{hat|List of articles}}
	Let's check these pages and make it simpler for deleting admins. I'm putting my name after the ones I've checked, along with a comment. Please add your input to ones where I've already commented; don't let mine be the only comments. ] (]) 02:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	*] — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. ] (])
	*] — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. ] (])
	*] — not so sure. ] (])
	*] — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. At AFD, but simply on notability grounds. ] (])
	*] — not so sure. ] (])
	*] — leaning toward delete. ] (])
	*] — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. ] (])
	*] — leaning toward safe; stub with only basic factual information and simple wording, not like the type of stuff we're seeing on the problem articles. ] (])
	*] — safe; written by longstanding editor ]. ] (]) 02:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	*] — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. ] (])
	*]
	*] — not eligible for speedy deletion, since it ]. ] (])
	*] — not so sure. ] (])
	*] — not so sure. ] (])
	*] — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. ] (])
	*] — not so sure. ] (])
	*] — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. ] (])
	*] — leaning toward safe; written by ], whose writing is mostly on things like the ], the ], and ]. ] (])
	*] — original page deleted and replaced with new page, but not so sure because of the author's lack of track record. ] (])
	*] — leaning toward safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page, although the citation bombing makes me somewhat leery. ] (])
	*] — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. At AFD, but simply on notability grounds. ] (])
	*]
	*] — safe; original page deleted and replaced with four-sentence stub whose longest sentence mentions criticism. ] (])
	*] — not so sure. ] (])
	*] — leaning toward delete. ] (])
	*] — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. ] (])
	*] — not so sure. ] (])
	*] — leaning toward delete. ] (])
	*] — safe; written by someone who's editing in lots of different fields, including ], ], and the ]. ] (])
	*]
	*] — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. ] (])
	*] — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. ] (])
	*] — safe; created by someone whose editing doesn't look spammy, and later modified/expanded by someone who's safe. ] (])
	*] — not so sure. ] (])
	{{hab}}
	:First thing, Rybec, I've collapsed the list to make this section more manageable; that forced me to modify your signature slightly so that it wouldn't be included in the collapsed area. Secondly, blind deletion is a bad idea: some of the pages in this list were deleted after it was compiled, only to be recreated without problems by other, seemingly unaffiliated editors. See the history of ] or ] for two examples; I checked just four articles and found these two. I strongly suggest that admins not delete a page on this list until its history has been checked, lest we delete good content. Finally, a little bit of process: all of these articles were created before the ban, as far as I can see, so they're not eligible for deletion under that criterion; however, the pages in question are definitely being created for advertising purposes, so they're speedy deleteable as spam. ] (]) 02:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	::To clarify, I'm not asking for immediate assistance from an admin. Rather my intention was to start a discussion about these articles as a group, so that they might be deleted if there a consensus emerges to do so. Whether the contributors of these articles are affiliated with Wiki-PR is unknown, because the Morning277 SPI has been closed. I didn't mean this to be about the contributors (although I did notify them) but about the article topics. &mdash;] 04:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::Although these articles may have been created before Wiki-PR was banned, they were created '''after '''Morning277 was blocked. ] (]) 04:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::Most or all were restored after Morning277 was banned. &mdash;] 22:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	== Question about post-deletion-discussion actions ==
	Occasionally, editors may move articles that are at ] (during the discussion); if the discussion closes as any sort of '''delete''', the closing administrators will sometimes overlook the pagemove and delete only the resulting redirect instead. As I'm not an admin myself, I obviously can't carry out the delete, so what's the best way to deal with this? I usually use ], which works just fine, but I wonder if there's anything better. ]'']]]'' 02:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:I'd say do three things: (1) Keep using G6 as you're doing now. (2) Leave a note at the movers' talk pages, asking that they not to move pages without adding a big warning to the top of the AFD, something like "NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: page has been moved". (3) Leave a note at the admins' talk pages, asking them to be a little more careful. Wish I could suggest something more directly useful, but I don't know what it would be. ] (]) 02:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::If you notice that the page was moved while the discussion is still open, feel free to replace the article name in the header, with an appropriate eit summary. ] ] 03:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::This is why I wrote ]. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 04:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::Remember too that these articles (where the AFD closes but the moved article remains because it was moved) usually end up appearing at ]. Once there, admins usually take care of it pretty quickly. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 19:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::No, nowadays usually I take care of it pretty quickly... =P ]'']]]'' 19:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	== A suggestion ==
	{{hat|1=This drifted off the original good-faith suggestion pretty quickly. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 08:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)}}
	{{archivetop|NAC: I thought it was a reasonable suggestion, but then I got sucked in and just ended up adding to the madness, so I'm closing this. Anyone who thinks that there's any purpose in re-opening it (??), be my guest. ] (]) 21:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)}}
	The Eric Corbett-related discussion is taking up a huge amount of space on this board. Would it be a good idea to spin it off onto a sub-page, with a pointer left here? ] (]) 03:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:Oh god, please don't. Every time we subpage something, it ends up dying on the vine and we never end up getting any real results until it finally goes to ArbCom. Witness Betacommand, the past times we've subpaged a Malleus/Eric discussion, Rich Farmborough, etc., etc.... ] (]) 03:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	::Does that mean you believe that the discussion(s) is (are) heading towards a substantive decision while embedded here? It appears that ArbCom has already decided not to deal with this, in favor of RFC/Us, which (as usual) no one appears to be interested in starting, so why are do we need to clutter up AN with continuing discussion on this topic? Maybe (I know this is a radical concept) everyone should just ignore Eric Corbett's potty-mouth, and just let his targets know that he's a valuable contributor who's not really responible for his outbursts, kind of a Wikpeedia version of ].. ] (]) 10:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	::: ''"ignore potty-mouth"''
	::: I'm happy''<small><sub>(sic)</sub></small>'' to do that. However (Read ]) Eric also does this as the worst sort of ] to new editors. We shouldn't expect them to have to suffer this. (TL;DR: , ) ] (]) 12:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	: How about a namespace? ], ], ], etc. ] (]) 12:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:: Suggestion too conservative. We need a new sister project: '''WikiMalleus''' (malleus.wikipedia.org)   (: --] (]) 14:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	::<small>The namespace could be colloquially referred to as ]. ] (]) 20:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)</small>
	{{archivebottom}}
	{{hab}}
	== Someone with oversight please help ==
	* I am an ordinary administrator. In ] someone put this request:
	**''{{article|List of longest rivers of Mexico}}: This is sort of ] of a cut-and-paste move. The article was originally started in ] with a ''long'' history of userspace drafts. Then it was then moved to mainspace, along with the irrelevant history. If possible, please move all edits prior to back to ]. Thanks! ''<b style="font-variant:small-caps;">]]]</b>'' 20:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)''
	**When I tried to delete ] to perform the history-split, the deletion was refused as "''this page has over 5000 edits''". Can someone with the power to delete very long histories, please do this history-split for me? ] (]) 06:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	*I think only stewards can do this -- see ]. ] (]) 07:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	*:I noticed that this page has now been deleted. I attempted a partial restore, but something went wrong. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 12:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	I have restored the relevant revisions, 4480 revisions remain deleted. ] (]) 13:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:I was trying to do the opposite: restore the irrelevant revisions so that I could move them elsewhere. I suppose we could move ] to some other temporary page, then restore the rest and move it elsewhere, then move the article back? &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 13:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	::Yes, busy doing just that. The restoring of these 4000+ revisions takes some time, but afterwards it's just a move to userspace, and a move back of the temp page to the original one. If the sandbox then needs further history splitting, we can always do this, but I don't think it is necessary. ] (]) 13:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::History moved to ] (lower numbers already existed, didn't want to complicate things). Temp page moved back to ]. Please let me know if anything still needs to be done, or if I made a mistake in this somewhere. I don't do these very often, AFAIK ] is the expert on these. ] (]) 13:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::Thanks, ]. It generally sounds good, but IMHO it's a bit weird (and also contrary to the letter of the request above) to have the be blank. I'll move it to the sandbox in 24 hours if nobody objects. ''']'''<font color="green">]</font> 02:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Naaah ... that'd make the user sandbox history look bizarre, and it's not really that big a deal anyway. Am I indecisive? I've been wondering for years! ''']'''<font color="green">]</font> 05:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	== Page move undo ==
	A page ] has recently been moved without discussion and against consensus to ]. This is unilateral, against consensus and has been discussed perviously. Can this please be undone to restore the consensus ad to ensure that discussion and consensus are formed before it is changed unilaterally. The title Mayor of Tower Hamlets redirect to the new pages and is not a disambiguation page and the page created to supposedly avoid confusion with is a red link article. ] (]) 14:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:], I don't see any discussion of this on the article talk page. Where is the discussion that established the consensus you want to restore? ] ] 15:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	::The consensus was there way no consensus to move a very similar article and that discussion can be seen ]. I believe that the consensus not to move that article discussed here shows no consensus for moving any of the elected mayors in England and Wales articles. This article is also specifically mentioned in the discussion on moving the other very similar article. It is also not right to spread the discussion on to every article talk page as that would be pointless and only serve to create a disparity of information. ] (]) 15:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::Um, ], that move discussion was closed as "no consensus" which doesn't really firmly establish a consensus. Moreover, it was about a different article. While it is true that a list of similarly named articles, including ], was mentioned in the RM discussion, if you want to establish a general consensus to apply to all similarly named articles, the discussion would need to be more widely advertised then being at another article's talk page. it should be an RfC or at least advertised as if it were, in my view. Also I see only 3 editors making formal expressions of opinion ('''Support''' or '''oppose''') and only 5 or 6 commenting at all. Not a very wide consensus in my view.
	:::My advice is to start a discussion on the talk page of the article (now ]) or else start a general RfC and mention it on that talk page and other appropriate locations. ] ] 15:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::I also don't see any attempt to engage with the editor who did the move. That might have been a good first step. ] ] 15:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::I see that but as neither of us are admins neither one can undo what has been done today. I understand that there was nothing malicious here and it was all in good faith but this was unilateral and needs reverting as going against consensus is undone and this cannot be undone unless by an admin. I will of course contact the there user and engage in a discussion but first the long-standing consensus of no consensus need reverting to. ] (]) 15:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::As an admin I am unwilling to undo such a move without either agreement by the moving party, or a significantly clearer consensus on the matter. Other admins may have different views. ] ] 15:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::I don't see how this requires direct administrative intervention. We have ] for contested moves. Is there some reason this process hasn't been used? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::: Concur, if you want the title moved back make the request at ]. It is clear that the recent un-discussed move was not without controversy and should have been handled through RM. But that's what RM is for, getting titles correct, if they aren't. --] (]) 16:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::: While i can see what is being said here the onus is being placed on the wrong party. The move was a contested and controversial move so should have been moved only after going thorough a requested move. It should;t be that to go back to the long satnding title which came about after discussion a requested move should be undertaken that just strikes of being the wrong way round for doing things. If it was an uncontroversial move to start with then fine, I can see the logic behind requiring an RM to move it back but in this case the action undertaken was controversial so should have gone through RM procedures. If an Rm is required for moves of this kind then it gives carte blanche to make controversial and contested moves and then say well you now need an RM to go back to what it before the controversial or contested move was made. ] (]) 18:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::: You point out one of pitfalls of the WP norm that allows any autoconfirmed editor to move pages. The only thing that prevents chaos with page moves is the need to have deletion authority (admins) when redirects are involved. This is not an uncommon scenario, and indeed many editors do exactly what you describe. However, RM is the venue to discuss the move. Experienced editors and admins follow that venue and in many cases when this type of scenario occurs, an admin will chose to move the title back to the previous one immediately if the facts support it. --] (]) 19:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	] should take these concerns to ]. This isn't the correct venue. ] (]) 19:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	* An admin will likely have to do it. It should, indeed, be moved back and an RM begun <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 22:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	*:Instead the OP here has nominated a closely related article for deletion, see ]. ] ] 23:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	*::Whether it's under criterion 2D or IAR depends on your level of AGF, but nothing good could come of that AfD so in the interest of maintaing a reasonable heat:light ratio I've speedy closed it. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 08:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	== Revisiting Drmies' proposal for a general rule on civility enforcement ==
	{{archive top|result = Closing as a waste of time. <br/>If the community wants to make a fundamental change in such a key policy, it will occur after the community sits down, evaluates options, considers pros and cons and thinks through the implication of fundamental change. This is throwing spaghetti at a wall to see it it sticks. It isn't the way a proper functioning community considers major modifications to policies.--]] 01:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)|status = not going to happen this way}}
	'''Proposal: If you want to block any established editor over something not blatantly obvious (account compromised, spewing racist stuff, etc), you should get consensus.''' (Drmies' words, kiped from #Simple, above)
	*'''Support''' as re-proposer. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, and should always be carefully considered. Assuming good faith - and supporting the right of all kinds of people to edit (avoiding entrenched bias and treating fellow editors with respect, the underlying purpose of ] - we must recognize that people have varying notions of what constitutes unacceptable rudeness. The massive discussion about {{U|Eric Corbett}} above showed this very clearly: for some, certain words are beyond the pale; for others, disrespect matters far more. (Full disclosure: I'm in the latter camp. I swear like a Marine off-wiki and I have a low tolerance for attack argument, including snideness.) It also demonstrated that we have more than one problem: it's not just Eric, it's not just the difficulty of factoring in extenuating circumstances ("poking the bear" etc.), we can't even agree which kind of incivility is driving more editors away. All we can agree on is that civility matters. Let's turn the issue around. We think hard before blocking a new editor, because ] people who don't yet know the ropes is unfair. We should also be sure before blocking those who ''do'' know the ropes. They - we - deserve that much respect, and getting consensus will afford more time for talking and untangling the situation so that a block is no longer needed, in addition to overcoming that bias we all largely unconsciously have. It will, I hope, exchange lots of short discussions here for the occasional mammoth ones ... such as about Eric. ] (]) 18:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	It completely lacks any objectivity and would simply result in editor's aligning themselves for or against their favourite/disliked fellow editors. ]] 18:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:So... you mean it's what we have now, minus the actual blocks. I think I like it. ]&nbsp;]] 19:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:Me? I love it. Simple, sensible, avoids controversy, will reduce drama, acknowledges common knowledge, easier than the "clunky" "involve a bureaucrat" thing I saw, applies common sense. Oh, no, see... I did it again... I just listed all the reasons it'll never fly. Sorry. Mea culpa. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 19:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' First of all, you'd have to get everyone to agree on a definition for ''established editor''. Second, we already have problems with the relationship between admins and non-admins. This sounds like something that could create friction between newbies and everyone else, because if a new editor (someone who is not established) gets involved in a dispute with an established editor, the newbie is in greater danger of winding up blocked. Third and finally, how would this be enforced in cases where a block is issued without consensus? Does the block get lifted? Is the blocking admin desysopped? Yes, this could prevent some drama, but it won't entirely do away with it. ]'']'' <small>(])</small> 19:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	::Are we really opposing new proposals now because, although they would improve things, they wouldn't "entirely do away with" existing problems? --] (]) 19:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::I'll put it more bluntly: I don't think this will be an overall improvement. I agree with what JohnCD says below about "introducing "established editor" as a divisive new social distinction..." I also agree with what he says about the difficulty of finding consensus in high profile cases. In other words, he's approximately 100 percent right, in my opinion. ]'']'' <small>(])</small> 21:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	::I was going to say - what's the definition of an "established editor"? ] (]) 19:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::*{{edit conflict}} Enforcement could be a nightmare and this indeed could create more friction between admin and editors. And I agree that the term "established editor" is....without clear definition. Some call editors who have established an account and passed all criteria for article creation to be established and that doesn't take much. Some others feel that editors that have a particular percentage of edits that are in article space only are established while others look at the edit count alone. Nah....this looks like a dead end, but Drmies is the actual proposer and may have more input on this that could convince editors of it's viability.--] (]) 19:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Yes, please'''. If I were to pick nits, I would quibble over details - I'd prefer to leave "established editors" out of it, and instead say "if you want to make a block that you suspect will be controversial, you should get consensus first" - but ''quibbling over details is going to be the death of decision making on Misplaced Pages''. I strongly support the idea behind this, and we can tweak details if we find we're discussing too much, or arguing too much about whether someone was an established editor or not. --] (]) 19:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	::The entire proposition is based on the notion of editor's who have earned special recognition - established editors - having earned special rights. You can hardly remove that stipulation on the basis of it being an insignificant quibble. ]] 20:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::Egotist that I am, i shall take that as support for my proposal :) --] (]) 20:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	*Oppose on the basis that this would turn things into a blatant popularity contest where editors with enough friends to filibuster away a prposed block will be able to get away with anything. The solution is to not F and C bomb other editors. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	*How unfortunate that you have brought forward a rough, worthy first proposal with no attempt at refining it. That's not exactly the path to success. I support in theory, but it would be wise to work on the wording before bringing it forward again. ] (]) 20:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	*Uh, how about '''hell no'''. No one should have special status. Everyone should play by the same rules. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 20:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	**No, that's not true. Look at how we block VOAs: on sight, even without (final) warning if need be. ] (]) 20:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	*The idea of "before you take an action that you know will be contentious, discuss it" is a good one (and is actually already enshrined in ]). The idea that certain users should be more insulated from the possibility of blocking than others, solely by virtue of being "established" (how long do I have to be around before I'm "established"? How many articles do I need to write? how many policies do I need to have discussed?), however, strikes me as extremely wrongheaded and unfair. Yes, you should discuss contentious actions before taking them, but contentiousness has to do with circumstances, not the relative longevity of the editor. ] (]) 20:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	**I am nearing my eighth year without a block, and I have a simple rule: if someone warns me not to do something, I stop doing it and start discussing the issue ''even if I disagree with the warning''. If I ever get blocked, I don't know what I will do but I might just quit. Don't you think that an administrator contemplating a block should take that into account before destroying an unblemished record without warning? Yes, I do think that I should be treated differently than a new editor with one vandalism edit. --] (]) 20:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::Of course you should. The premise that you should not, or that there is any real difficulty in establishing who "you" are, or when this simple rule of thumb should be applied is bogus. But that premise will prevail. And one day shit will happen to you, or to me, and we will go away, because the maths involved in all of that no longer adds up for us. That's wikipedia. I wish it wasn't, but it is. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 21:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	::*Guy, if by "take that into account" you mean "take into account that you are likely to be personally offended and ragequit if blocked", no, I don't think that's relevant to any decision to block or not block if you were to suddenly go off the rails. Similarly, "But Guy's friends will raise a big stink" and "Guy has been here for eight years, not just one year" are also irrelevant. What could be, and often is, relevant is to a decision to block or not block is "Does Guy know this behavior is a problem? Is he doing it anyway?" and "Is Guy's behavior so bad or recalcitrant that a) he needs to be stopped in his tracks and b) it would be clear to ''any'' reasonable editor that that's the case?" Those things, note, have to do with the circumstances of the situation and what is known about your understanding of policy - Guy usually X-es, and he knows Y is bad, but now he is Y-ing, do I have reason to think/not think that a block will fix Guy's Y-ing - but nothing to do with with your longevity or importance as a persona. ] (]) 21:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::And that's lovely, Fluffernutter, and I think all that's really being proposed here is that the need to consider those things should exist as a given. It doesn't always happen. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 21:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Well no, what's being proposed here - that is, the actual wording of the proposal - is in fact something entirely different: that if someone has been here long enough (or is important enough, or wrote enough articles?) and is Y-ing, their "importance" overrides all other concerns in deciding how to address the issue, and changes the blocking/DR process to something different than we would follow for anyone else who was Y-ing. I can't support that, because it privileges those who have been here longer (or, perhaps, who have "big" names - again, we've failed to define "established") solely because they've been here longer (or have a big name, etc). ] (]) 22:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Not how I read it - see my answer to Guy. But exactly why I said ''"The premise... that there is any real difficulty in establishing ... when this simple rule of thumb should be applied is bogus. But that premise will prevail."'' {{P}} <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 22:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	*{{ec|3}} <small>(non-admin AN/ANI stalker observation)</small> In theory, this proposal sounds like a good solution. In practice, though, as others above point out, the language is just too broad for consistent and effective enforcement. Unlike many others, I'm not implying that we have a rotten admin corps, but I'd like to point out that the dramuh-boardz attract many non-admins (like me), many of which (not like me, I hope) tend to be problematic editors. Their presence, especially if involved in the dispute that leads to the potential for a civility block, could potentially lead to even more difficult situations. I do support the ''spirit'' of the proposal, but it would have to be carefully modified to avoid class tensions and such (and as Floq says, quibbling over details is bad for the 'pedia). The one modification I suggest is that the consensus be built from ''uninvolved'' editors, or involved editors must declare themselves as such; the problem with this is that it would also be impossible to enforce, considering how few editors actually read messages such as those on top of the edit window for this noticeboard...anyways, just my two cents here. <small></small> ]'']]]'' 20:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	**AN and ANI are not exactly the same; I hadn't specified. ] (]) 20:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	***The lines are slowly getting blurred. I'd say that in the past week or two, maybe 1/3 of the sections here probably should have been at AN/I. Although, it is true, AN gets a lot less visitors. ]'']]]'' 20:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	* Of course there should be some sort of consensus process before productive editors are blocked. The core problem is that currently any one of hundreds of loose cannon admins can block on whim. There can never be equity or stability under this cowboy system. The ability to block such users needs to be taken away from run of the mill admin and given to a disciplinary panel of admins specially appointed for the purpose. These problems will continue ad nauseum until this happens. --] (]) 20:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Strongly oppose''' based on having seen what this kind of concept, be it de jure or de facto, for bans and admin action has done every single place I've seen it come into play. More specifically, more well known and popular people become almost untouchable outside of the most absolutely egregious actions while new and/or less popular people find themselves being hammered and sacrificed to protect said popular people. In turn, this leads to resentment of the controlling cliques by established members (eventually driving them away or into much less participation) and scares away (or just outright bans) possible new members. Everything becomes about popularity and who your friends are. This is already a huge issue as it is (although generally after an admin action has been taken) and outright making it an official guideline or policy will just enshrine it into the system and encourage it. That is the last thing Misplaced Pages needs. ] (]) 20:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' once again because Misplaced Pages is not a popularity contest. Unless we're going to get ] to film it and call it ].--v/r - ]] 20:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:* I thought it more a ] sort of thing...but I digress...--] (]) 21:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)ress.....
	*'''Oppose''' - all very well for uncontentious situations, though I am not happy about introducing "established editor" as a divisive new social distinction; but in a high-profile case like the one we are all thinking about, how do you expect to achieve consensus? The predictable armies of opponents and supporters will line up crying "''We shouldn't put up with this!''" and "''But he was provoked, and those other people are as bad!''" The same discussion we waste a day on every few months will happen all over again, and nothing will be decided, again. ] (]) 20:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	*If anything, experienced editors should be held to a higher standard, not lesser. CIVIL is a core pillar. By definition, every editor needs to adhere to it, and if they refuse, they need to leave. Making excuses and caveats that longstanding editors don't ''really'' need to abide by it is basically the worst possible idea. ]]<sub><small>] ]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-7.0ex">]</sup> 21:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:*'''Suggestion''' In common with many legal systems, we should have a mechanism where the "accused" editor has the power to reject the participation of an admin, as in some jury systems. Too often I have seen admins involved in edding issues then morphing into the WP policeperson. The core issue is often not the status of an ed, but the often shameless personal involvement of admins who have been involved in the same incident, who then go on to use their blocking powers in subsequent escalations. I think an editor's ability to reject an admin in a disciplinery scenerario should be explored, if the above reasons apply. Ideally an admin that has had no previous interaction should be appointed to look into it. I think this would drastically cut the number of senseless blocks and embittered and lost to-the- project eds. A '''The suitability of this administrator to enforce sanctions in this case has been challenged on the grounds of prior envolvement/whatever''' template could be introduced. It must be at a low and accessable level. It would freeze further action. A mechanism could then be introduced to appoint another mop. In the meantime, all further relevant editing by that editor would cease. This would be the GF faith price that an ed would offer in order to envoke the challenge procedure. ] (]) 21:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::On the other hand, I am definitely supportive of tightening up on ]. It is a rare, but unfortunately still too common occurrence that admins become inextricably involved with editors, but are able to hide behind the technicality that they were just doing admin enforcement. ]]<sub><small>] ]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-7.0ex">]</sup> 22:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''':Codifies untouchability and misses the point: most of Eric's misbehaviour ''is'' blindingly obvious.&mdash;](]) 21:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	*:As is most of yours. ] ] 21:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	* '''Comment''' – As always, vehement opposes to a proposal like this pour in, mostly from admins (all with a conflict of interest here, some blatantly incompetent to be making decisions about content builders) and users who contribute a lot to drama boards and very little to building the encyclopedia. These users should not be permitted to vote on issues like this. So long as Misplaced Pages governance is under the control of these groups, this miserable downward decline into the muck will continue. --] (]) 22:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	**'''Comments'''. Yes, experienced editors should be held to a higher standard; if they deserve a block (and not only for incivility), it should be pretty easy to get consensus. Blocks are, after all, a last resort. As to making a class division between new editors and established editors, I understand the worry, but we already have one - all admins that I know of try hard not to block newbies except in egregious cases, and established editors ''are'' generally held to a higher standard. Yes, "established" is hard to define (for one thing, some people register an account but then edit very little), but if there's doubt about it, can it hurt to post here before blocking? Remember, the obvious cases where there's harm being done are obviously an exception. And most of us manage to figure out who not to template under "don't template the regulars" - that's more sophisticated than this suggestion, because considering an actual block arises less often. As to codifying untouchability, the civility requirement, and Eric specifically: the idea is to level the playing field so he (and others with long block logs) are not considered in isolation; if we have such a guideline in force and the expectation of a few such discussions on this board per day, a lot of the drama would dissipate; for one thing, we'd have a more robust admin consensus on things like civility because we'd have considered a lot more cases. Anyway, those are my thoughts; I'd rather the nitty gritty be simple, but I'd also rather it arise out of discussion. ] (]) 22:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''.This whole project has been built on consensus. All of the content is built through consensus. The policy is built through consensus. Arbcom and admins are elected, which is a form of consensus, and arbcom decisions are also arrived via discussion and voting. It's only when handed a mop that editors suddenly start making important decisions unilaterally. Surely, it's blindingly obvious that if ANI cannot arrive at a consensus to block an editor, then that editor should not be blocked. ] (]) 22:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	**"It's only when handed a mop that editors suddenly start making important decisions unilaterally." - ???... Completely untrue... ]'']]]'' 23:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	::*Whatever. But do you not agree that if ANI cannot arrive at a consensus to block an editor, then that editor should not be blocked? ] (]) 23:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' The idea of seeking consensus before enforcing blocks in problematic cases. ] (]) 22:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''STRONG OPPOSE''' - This is quite simply the STUPIDEST concept that I have ever seen proposed here. Why do you want admins to gain consensus for taking a PREVENTATIVE and STRICTLY PREVENTATIVE action - Blocking to PREVENT further disruption due to incivility? ]&#124;]&#124;] 22:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	::I can't use as many capital letters as you did, simply because I hurt my left thumb earlier, chopping some garlic, and it keeps slipping off the Shift key. I hope that's ok. I just wanted to say that. Oh, yeah, and "read the proposal". That was the other thing I wanted to say, I remember now... <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 23:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	::: I need to get to know this Begoon guy. ] (]) 00:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::Hope your dinner wasn't ruined, but if it was garlic it may have been worth the "owie".--] (]) 00:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	::I read the proposal. Still think it is the most STUPID idea I have ever heard! ]&#124;]&#124;] 00:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	::Can you please expand? ] (]) 00:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::Well, maybe you should stay around a bit longer than you have, maybe get a few more article edits under your belt (a few more than a few hundred), and you'll hear stuff much more stupid than what I could ever dream up. ] (]) 00:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:"A touch Watson! A definite touch!" ] (]) 00:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	::::I '''so''' wish I could block you for that blatant assumption of bad faith. Oh no, hang on, I wish you could block me - or something.... <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 00:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' One of the basic principles of WP is that all editors are treated equally, and we judge on the basis of their work and their behavior, not their tenure or friendships. To the extent that someone is an established editor, they should know better how to do good work and conduct themselves properly, and know not to get themselves into situations where they might be blocked. Administrators are trusted to implement both specific and implied consensus, and to come here in doubtful cases for confirmation. If an individual admin decides on a block in a way that is found to violate consensus, it will be overturned here; if they do so consistently, there are other ways of proceeding. To ask for prior permission before placing blocks is essentially giving established editors a free run at disruption in the hope that they can argue their way out of it. We have in my opinion been altogether too lenient on established editors, to the point where complaints that the established people here form overlapping cabals is beginning to sound less like a paranoid delusion. ''']''' (]) 23:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:* You make some valid points, but there is also the issue of a few (hopefully very few) loose cannons in the admin community. They tend to make swift and arbitary decisions, sometimes while having an editorial COI, and the issue never makes it here. We must have mechanisms in place to discourage that. I think there are issues that both communities need to honestly admit to and address. ] (]) 00:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	::*But there seem to be as many of those loose cannons as the other type, who adamantly support certain editors no matter if there is general consensus from others that they are right or wrong - which often leads to all of the "no consensus" discussions that happen here. ]'']]]'' 00:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::*I agree. I am trying to take that subspecies into account here too. An admin with COI can be a party to favouritism as well as summary execution. I would like to see admins being restricted in topics where they have a specialisation/interest, as that often breeds a POV familiarity in both camps. Compltetely impartial admins who have had no interactions with any offending eds should be brought in to impliment any bans. But the more realistic option is consensus in bans where the civility breach is open to a wider interpretation. ] (]) 00:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:*If all editors were ''treated equally and judged on their work and behaviour'', there would be no problem. But they're not. If admins acted only when they ''believed they had consensus, and came here in when in doubt'', there would be no problem. But they don't. An editor will only be able to "argue his way out" if there is no consensus. If there is no consensus, there should be no block. ] (]) 00:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:* DGG, if all admins were of your calibre there wouldn't be serious problem. But they are not. --] (]) 00:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::And there's a great deal of sense in that comment too, folks. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 01:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	::In a nutshell. ] (]) 00:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	*I don't want to propose policy or guidelines. I'd like some common sense; I'd like admins to think (more) before they shoot (from the hip or elsewhere). There is no doubt that there's a few admins who have a few editors high on their hitlist--Eric's not the only one with a target on his back, I'm sure. But really, ask yourself this. Eric was blocked for, what, 3 hours? for incivility. Fine. Some would say he had it coming; I wouldn't have blocked for it, but hey, one can read the civility paperwork and call it justified. But the thing is, then he got blocked for 3 months, and then indefinitely. Now tell me what happened to those blocks. Were they not overturned? Does that not mean that the blocks were perhaps wrong? (If they were right, they shouldn't have been overturned--and "wrong" and "right" are a matter of consensus, of course.) On we go: the blocks were wrong (too long, too harsh, not well-argued, whatever), and they were undone. What was the effect of that, besides yet another shit storm here and elsewhere? Eric's got two more notches on his block list, two more reasons for someone to say, "well, he's got 24 blocks, he deserves the next one"--''when the very fact that the blocks were overturned means they shouldn't have been issued in the first place''. We're setting aside the fact, of course, that such indefinitely escalating blocks must feel like escalating kicks in the bollocks for said "Eric Corbett". All animals are equal--well, not really, some are more unequal than others, because any unfair blocks ''still'' count against them. "Ah, well, it was the pro-Eric cabal that overturned a valid decision"--screw that. If you say that, then our entire consensus-building system is broken, because ''every'' decision made via consensus, from FAs to the MOS, is theoretically decided via some cabal.<p>What I wanted was for some people to exercise some common sense, and to consider that ''if'' the blocks were overturned, they were wrong, but they are still there as a permanent mark, as a temporary but painful frustration/kick in the pants, and as a reason for considerable controversy. ] (]) 00:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	::Yeah - but you were also hoping it wouldn't be wikilawyered to death, just for a kind of (wtf) refreshing change, weren't you? Go on - be honest. I know you're an uncontrollable optimist. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 01:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::Well I think ] should be enforced much more as a first step. As someone mentioned above. ] (]) 01:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::: Enforcing INVOLVED doesn't solve the problem. Once a cowboy has blocked, and maybe even removed the block immediately with a false summary, no matter how much you enforce INVOLVED after the fact, the block is still on your record. Even if you desysop the abusive admin. And in Eric's case, then the block log is used against him over and over, no matter that few of the blocks were deserved. That's why this proposal aims to stop the abusers before they can strike. ] (]) 01:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:: Bit by bit Misplaced Pages is turning into a turkey shoot where admins who contribute very little to Misplaced Pages get to hunt down and dispose of the best contributors. It's a fraught and unjust environment for those who come here to write the encyclopedia. It's not fixable, because the admins themselves determine their own working conditions. --] (]) 01:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:*"''I don't want to propose policy or guidelines...I'd like admins to think (more) before they shoot (from the hip or elsewhere)''". You won't get the second part without the first part. I thought that was the whole point of the discussion. Ah well, never mind. If it had been a proposal it would't have had a cat in hell's chance of getting through. ] (]) 01:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''. It it not in Misplaced Pages's interest to institutionalise a "two grades of editors" concept. Also, if there '''are''' in fact unjustified blocks, established editor are '''better''' able to cope than new editors, who will simply walk away. Agree with Irondome on ], however. -- ] (]) 01:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:* See above on the false notion that INVOLVED solves this. And we already have two classes of editors. Abusive admins can lodge bad blocks; regular editors can do nothing about it. Even when the admins are desysopped, the block log follows you. ] (]) 01:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
	::I did not say it solved it at all. Please see my more original and forceful proposals upthread. I merely indicated it as a possible initial sticking-plaster. ] (]) 01:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	Why do admins close down highly active discussions such as this one, as soon as core issues start to get air? It it because content editors shouldn't express their views. --] (]) 01:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:He didn't include it in the closing statement, but the proper WP:ALPHABETSOUP is ]. There's no way this is going to pass. ]'']]]'' 02:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	::Actually, SNOW wasn't at all relevant (although it might be accurate). It was a process issue. I didn't read halfway though before deciding it was a waste of time. While working to codify my reaction, I saw ]'s '' it would be wise to work on the wording before bringing it forward again'', which I now wish I had used as a closing summary. @]. I'm in favor of getting some discussion of core issues. A straw vote on a hastily worded idea is not the right way to do it.--]] 03:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::Still hurts my feelings a bit--"waste of time". Sphilbrick, you're a nice and intelligent person, though you have a confusing user name. Will you promise me one thing? Think before making a block that's possibly boneheaded or likely to be overruled? One person at a time--it's like prayer, I'm going to change the world. ] (]) 03:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::: Ah, that's sweet, Drmies ... I can give you a (short) list of admins to start working on changing, one at a time! Sphilbrick did the right thing; this wasn't the way to go about proposing such a major change, it should have been a properly formulated and well thought out RFC, the wording should have been considered before re-launch, and it is unfortunate that the way this was re-launched actually doomed it from the start. Good on you for the idea, but good on Sphilbrick for shutting it down, as that gives it a better chance to re-appear in better form in the right time and place. Best, ] (]) 03:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Wise words. There are elements in the closed thread that can be used as a nucleus for a newly framed proposal. Cheers ] (]) 04:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::::: As is often the case, I think I state something clearly, but find I did not. My statement that the discussion was a waste of time was not intending to suggest that the core of the idea was useless. It is more of a process statement. What should one do if one has a decent idea, and slaps together a draft version? The right thing to do is to think hard about the words, and the implications and the alternatives, and carefully draft a decent proposals. The wrong thing to do is to put the draft wording up for an up or down vote. The notion that we would make a fundamental change to such a far-reaching policy based upon a simple up or down vote at AN is, or ought to be, preposterous. AN does have a role. It's a good place to add a link to a page where editors are invited to a brainstorming session to discuss ways to address problems. (I modified my sig to see if that would make it less confusing.) And I agree with ]. There's some useful thoughts in the discussion. Let's go off some place and discuss.--]] 13:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::Bah, just shows that I've spent too much time at ]. I agree that it's a step in the right direction, but needs to be much much more carefully considered and framed before being put out to vote (and I think it would belong at ], no?). ]'']]]'' 05:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::: I think it would be better at ]. I'm trying (without much success) to push the paradigm that one should work out the wording of proposals before showing up at ]. I think ] has the potential to be that starting place. I still see some shortcomings in the way we develop proposals, and I suggested some alternatives at ], which went over like a lead balloon. So now I'm wondering if we need to do brainstorming somewhere else.--]] 13:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::::I meant the final vote. ] looks like a good brainstorming ground, but it doesn't seem to get a lot of traffic compared to other pages. ]'']]]'' 20:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Short of someones talk page, I dont know where to discuss. WP should have "conference room" pages for discussions on things,esp to iron out wording of proposals. Six or seven eds can request it, book it and have a "meeting". Its not ready for a board yet ] (]) 20:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	==] request for admin review of closure ==
	The RFC has been ] by an uninvolved non-admin, which is fine, but (IMHO):
	# <s>The closure isn't specific about the exact proposal (by name) to implement.</s>''(after revs, it's clearer. See ]. --Lexein)''
	# The closure states that there's "clear consensus to remove links" - there's no such thing - it's highly contentious.
	# The closure doesn't seem to consider the usual policy weight of !votes. There's no indication that ] issues were excluded, such as ], ] predictions of future "bad acts" like advertising, and possible future "spam", and other (IMHO) assumptions of bad faith.
	# The closure doesn't consider that future anonymous edits to add links to Archive.is have been addressed entirely by the newly implemented edit filter(s) by {{U|Kww}}.
	# The closure doesn't consider that Archive.is links were in good repute for 9 months before the recent (August, September) flurry of botlike edits brought the issue to the RFC.
	# The closure offers quite unclear suggestions to deleters of Archive.is about what to put in the edit summary.
	I'd just like an uninvolved admin to review the close on its merits, and add a detailed note there, to address the above points and any others which the admin thinks of. --] (]) 21:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:: Go ask the closing admin <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 22:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::Unfortunately there was no closing ''admin'', it was a non-admin, as I indicated in the first line above. And I did ask ], but he has declined to review or revise. I don't think all the boxes were ticked for a proper assessment of !votes, as I've listed above. So I'd like an admin experienced in closing deeply contentious RFCs, and RFC's which directly affect Misplaced Pages's ] (RS V upon linkrot, in this case), to review. --] (]) 06:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	*''Comment'': I would like to note that the RFC was listed on the ] list and was picked up by a volunteer there ]. I would also like to note that the OP of this thread as been the source and target of significantly less than civil discourse. Hobit did not participate in the RFC and therefore is persumably neutral to the dispute. No drastic changes are required (only editors to scrub the links out of the wikitext) which is a normal editorial process, therefore it is not unreasonable that a experienced editor should be able to render a consensus. ] (]) 12:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::: The decision to remove the links was pretty clear. The decision to blacklist them was close and went against my own instinct about what the right thing is to do. But I felt the consensus was clear enough and the arguments reasonable enough that it was the only way I could close it. If it is the sense of un-involved editors that I got it wrong, I won't be upset or offended--feedback is welcome. ] (]) 14:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	{{anchor|Lbelow}}
	::::: I've indented your reply to me. I've struck the first item, as clarification of language was added. I've changed to a numberedlist, in the hopes that those numbered points could actually be discussed and clarified in the close. It was not an uncontested, easy RFC. Therefore, a close which does not address the valid counterarguments ''at all'' seems incomplete. For example, statements in the close about "risk to Misplaced Pages" were validly contested in the RFC viz. our sources deal with DMCA issues, and so does WP, so our linking to those sources constitutes no "risk" to WP. The close doesn't note ''any'' of the valid ''oppose'' points, and opposing comments, which dispute point-by-point, many of the support !votes. It's not just vote counts, is it? My strongest point, that links to archive.is by in-good-standing editors, to deadlinked sources which happen to have been archived only by Archive.is, should not be included in the deletion of the "over 10,000" links to Archive.is in place before the swarm edits. --] (]) 16:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Sure. #2 I believe the consensus was clear to remove the links. I'm seeing opposes from an IP, you, Luke, Ohc, Qalnor and Jztinfinity. Out of 26 comments, the numeric consensus is pretty clear especially if the IP and Qalnor are discounted. In order to overcome that, their arguments would have to be fairly flawed. Worries about future problems from a company/site what has shown significant ethical problems in the past and a willingness to ignore Misplaced Pages rules wouldn't seem to be clearly flawed--in fact I'd say they were reasonable. On #3 I don't see how opinions stated were violations of any of those wiki-links you cite. And it certainly isn't bad faith to assume that an organization which has violated Misplaced Pages rules and used what looks like an illegal botnet to do so might have something "more nefarious" coming down the pipe. Assume good faith isn't a suicide pact. If someone does a bunch of bad things, it's reasonable to worry that they might continue to do bad things. On #4, that's true. But given that the consensus was to remove the existing links, I don't see why that's relevant. On #5 it's not the closer's job to consider that--it's part of the discussion. And the weight of the discussion was that the bad behavior exhibited in the recent past was worrisome enough to justify pulling all links to that site. On #6 I'd be happy to clarify if you can explain what wasn't clear. In any case, that's just a suggestion and not part of the consensus. I was simply worried that an automated removal of archive.is links could greatly annoy a number of users and that the situation should be described to them as clearly as possible.
	:::::::This is a serious issue with serious ramifications. ] is a very important thing for us to address and Archive.is seems like a great way to do so. But after abuses related to Archive.is the community had significant reservations about allowing links to go from Misplaced Pages to Archive.is and has chosen to remove those links. I'm hopeful we can find a way to get them added back, but it's going to take some time and effort to build up the trust needed. As a note, I'll most likely be off-line for the next 24-48 hours. ] (]) 19:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::<small>Given the flaunting of policy and bad faith involved in the addition of those links by the unapproved proxying botfarm, ] will get that rock on top of the mountain before anybody can possibly trust them again. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 22:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)</small>
	::::::::: So 9 months of good faith ''should'' be ignored for a few hundred proxy edits by a still unknown party? Seems like a bad choice of permanent solution to a temporary problem. --] (]) 23:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	::::::: {{ec}} Thanks, {{U|Hobit}}, but I still disagree about your interpretation of consensus. This reads like *Comments and discussion comments indented from !votes, were disregarded, and that two editors were disregarded, without explanation. If true, that's sending the message that nobody should ever bother commenting at RFC's, that only !votes count, and that's ''not'' what ] is about: it's ''about'' discussion, including comments. This lack of consideration is fundamentally why I wanted an experienced RFC-closing administrator to make an assessment. Faulty logic, such as ] conjecture that future anonymous "spam" will occur, even though it's now impossible due to filtering, can certainly be addressed by a closer. About removal edit summaries, something clearer would be: ''In removal edit summaries, please add "rm per ]"''. I'd ''still'' like an independent uninvolved experienced admin to review this close. --] (]) 23:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	* '''Endorse''' - The ] close was that there is a community mistrust of Archive.is and its interaction with Misplaced Pages. To address that community mistrust, (i) all Archive.is URL links are to be removed from Misplaced Pages and (ii) Archive.is be listed at ] (to prevent an external link to Archive.is from being added to an English Misplaced Pages page when the URL matches one listed at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist). Per ], RFC review is to determine at the Administrators' noticeboard whether the RFC closure was a reasonable summation of the discussion. Those supporting what ultimately became the close made strong arguments that there was a community mistrust of Archive.is and its interaction with Misplaced Pages. There was little to no rebuttal of these arguments. Those proposing the removal of all Archive.is URL links and blacklisting of Archive.is took into account the community mistrust of Archive.is whereas the other options did not sufficiently address the community mistrust of Archive.is in view of those alternate options. In looking at the strengths and weaknesses of the various positions, it seems clear that the RFC closure was a reasonable summation of the discussion. Endorse. -- ] (]) 11:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	I think that now that 2 admins have commented on your petition to review the closing (and not overridden the closing), it seems reasonable to put down the stick and walk away. As evidenced by my own efforts in hand checking the links , removal of the archive.is links can be done, but must be done carefully so as to ensure that we don't loose any thing in the removal of links. ] (]) 18:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	== Announcement: Localhost glitch ==
	As of today at , some routine server operations caused an unexpected ] glitch that has resulted in ] ]. We're aware of the issue and are hard at work on fixing it - for the time being, please '''''do not''''' block the aforementioned address due to the potential for wide-scale collateral damage. Thank you, ] 00:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	: That's an awfully accurate diagnosis. I wonder if it'll turn out to be correct. ;-) ] is looking into the issue now. It's still unclear why 127.0.0.1 is editing. The issue appears to be affecting all Wikimedia wikis, though the edit rates are obviously differently everywhere (e.g., ]). And some wikis exhibit symptoms from much older, unrelated bugs (e.g., ]). --] (]) 01:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	::Weird. But what does this mean? Did our software misattribute someone's edits to this address? I don't see being a computer going crazy or a rogue WMF staffer playing around; I've read the server admin log but don't understand it. Perhaps you should add an edit filter to keep localhost from vandalising the ''The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills''. ] (]) 01:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::I'm not a tech person but I would guess that something went wrong with squid that stripped out XFF headers resulting in edits being attributed to the load balancing server rather than the actual editor. Just a guess though. ] (]) 01:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	::::That's not precisely what happened but it's pretty close. See ]. --] (]) 02:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::I don't think we need more people in the ], now do we? {{smiley|tongue}} ]'']]]'' 02:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	This should be fixed now, see ]. The fix isn't instant so it might take a little while for these 127.0.0.1 edits to completely go away, but I haven't seen any in the past half hour. --] (]) 02:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	== Block review of Lfdder ==
	{{Userlinks|Lfdder}} was blocked by {{admin|WilyD}} for two weeks, after he made a remark directed at Willy himself. After the Eric Corbett fiasco, just above, I thought we established that ] blocks of established users are a drama-ridden minefield (even if the community is sharply divided on their merit). Even if we put ] aside (as the target of the snapping, WilyD probably shouldn't be the one to take a block, but I don't make a big deal out of ''that''), I have a serious concern about the culture of "respect my authoritah" blocks. Escalating civility blocks on long-term positive contributors has the long-term effect of driving them away and further deepening the ensuing admin/editor rift (or appearance thereof).
	Lfdder is admittedly not the easiest personality to work with, and his mid-October blocks were a rightful result of ] at . However, I don't think it is cool to use it as an excuse to open a hunting season aganist him... and this block has quite improper connotations of revenge.
	Anyway: I'm putting the merits and length of this block for community review, since WilyD did not change his mind . Lfdder did not request an unblock (other than lifting of autoblock), but I am doing so on his behalf. "You talk like an idiot" snap at an admin on a user talk page, while certainly not within ], ought not to be a reason for two-week block. ] (]) 10:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Unblock''' - saying "you talk like an idiot" is not a blockble offence, and certainly not for 2 weeks. Lfdder's incivility is problematic (IIRC I have blocked him before) but this recent outburst does not stray into 'blockable' territory. However, I will ''always'' stand by my belief that severe incivility should be blocked. ]] 10:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	*Comment: I nearly came here with the same request, but when I looked into it, it seemed the block was for an unrelated incident I knew nothing about. If it really was for his comment on my talk page, I'd agree a block (of any length) would be inappropriate. Moreover, in order for it to not be used as a precedent in the future, it should be reverted with a comment in his block log that this block was inappropriate. — ] (]) 10:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Unblock''' per GS. A block was not called for. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 11:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	*I've gotta admit that Wily has a point (see ]). With four civility blocks in the last three months, throwing around names and childish insults at a random passerby, with whom you have no history, seems like a fairly justifiable block to an outside observer. ]]<sub><small>] ]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-7.0ex">]</sup> 11:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Unblock''' mostly per GS, however I would like to note a couple of modifiers
	*#Giving established editors a larger safety net creates the establishment of 2 sets of rules, one for new/unestablished editors and one for established editors. The rules should be equally applied, regardless of who the target is.
	*#] is what causes me to significantly react in this case. If you block because a user directed the attack at you, the impression is that the block is retaliation. Involved is there to protect admins from themselves and accusations of bias.
	*Therefore, I propose that WilyD be slapped upside the head with a trout so that they don't do something like this again. ] (]) 13:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	* '''Comment''' My first reaction mirrored that of ]. We have ] for a good reason. However, we have to avoid gamesmanship. If an editor directs an uncivil remark at an admin, simply to preclude them from taking action, that's a problem. If the block was a reaction to that comment, it is a problem and should be reversed. However, the history looks a little muddled to me.--]] 14:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	**That's why there's the "Any ununvolved admin" exception in ]. Obviously if you choose to invoke that line, you really '''should''' (read must) bring it to ] to get the action confirmed. ] (]) 14:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	* '''Unblock''' and comment block log - per kwami. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 14:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Not a ] situation, unblock''' This is not an issue of ] since WillyD was acting ''as an administrator'' only. He clearly was telling that user, as an admin, to quit nominating an article for CSD after it had been declined by two admins. Throwing a ] at an admin does not make said admin involved. In fact, it's ]. If we accepted the premise that calling an admin a name makes them involved, two things happen: 1) We change the threshold from the Admin's actions to any user's actions. As it currently stands, ] is based on the choices and actions of the admin. 2) All any user would have to do is say "All admins are dickheads" to involve us all. Or, less exaggerating, call any admin patrolling or whom appears to be patrolling that topic area a dickhead. Other than the fact that WillyD '''did not''' violate ], I think two weeks, or even a block, is a bit excessive for the name calling.--v/r - ]] 15:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	=== Unblocked ===
	I see a clear consensus here to unblock ], so I've done that. The question of admin involvement is less clear, so I've kept the unblock rationale neutral (it seems unproductive to delay the unblock until that point is settled.) ] (]) 16:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	*Lfdder is an interesting case. Pity I don't understand fuck-all about what they're doing here, all this technical stuff, but they are pretty unbearable every now and then. I can't tell whether they're always right (and BTW, Eric isn't always right either, and by "not right" I mean "I don't agree with him") but they're not unreasonable. I have no comment on the involved bit either, but two weeks for a comment like that is too much.<p>Note that Lfdder is also one of those editors I'd call "established", and I have on occasion , though they were blocked shortly afterward. Now, the comments are interesting in their own right ({{U|Nyttend}}, please don't get me wrong, I'm not taking issue with the block). Two reasons are given: edit warring on a TfC closure and personal attacks aimed at the closing admin. The first is a perfectly valid reason for a block, no one would dispute that; the personal attack, I don't know--"you suck at it" (being an admin), if that's what it was, that's not much either, and I note that Nyttend points at the block log as a kind of aggravating factor. (Nyttend, I'm trying to state this as a bland fact, not as a critique: I got nothing against you, nothing whatsoever.) That's the same thing that was pointed out in Eric's most recent AN thread ("just look at the block log!"), and it was mentioned , and again in a brief discussion over an Eric block. So, I guess that Lfdder suffers from the same thing: block or escalating block based on a glance at the block log. I can't judge if Lfdder's log is full of incorrect blocks, but someone is going to have to admit that an overturned block was a wrong block, and that certainly applies to Eric's log.<p>OK, I think that we need to stop looking at the block log for those civility blocks. If someone is totally impossible, ''totally'' impossible and a net negative, block them indefinitely. If not, in ''any'' other case (established, net positive, etc), there's just no point in longer (escalating) blocks, no point whatsoever. ] (]) 02:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	:*I'm rather confused about your meaning. I understand that you're not criticing me, complaining, etc., but I simply don't understand your point. Are you simply talking about how I mentioned the block log as a factor? My point was not that we need to impose escalating blocks (I wasn't even attempting to address the issue, if I remember rightly); the point was that Lfdder is familiar with our civility policies to the point that we didn't need to go through the normal warnings. It's basically analogous to the way in which someone unfamiliar with ] will be given leeway because they're unfamiliar with it, but if you've been blocked in the past for an ARBMAC violation, you won't be warned because you quite obviously know about the standards. In the same way, Lfdder unquestioningly knew that sanctions would follow from NPA violations. ] (]) 02:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	::*See, I just don't think that civility blocks, especially the longer (escalated) ones, do anything useful. If an editor is cussing and swearing, you can argue that a short block will make them stop and have an effect. A longer block, I just don't see the use of it. (But I am not sure I see the point in longer blocks in the first place...) Yes, I know that Lfdder (and Eric too, of course) knows our policy. It's just that I think that sometimes (not always!) a warning of sorts (not a stupid template) can help defuse a situation, and I think that's preferable. Let's face it, the way in which an editor commits ARBMAC violations is not the way in which an editor commits civility violations. Take Lfdder--they get exasperated with votes in a TfD discussion and get more and more irritated with what they perceive as votes based on a lack of knowledge. That's an increasing pressure that they vent in the way that we are familiar with. Sometimes a conversation can help get them out of that. Maybe. (In this case, it didn't; I clearly didn't do a very good job, and I'm not faulting ''you'' because I could have done better. Besides, the whole TfD discussion, with the closure revert, was reason enough.) Someone breaking 1R restrictions or committing some gross POV violation because they're a Nazi (or violent adherent of either side in the Israel/Palestine conflict, or whatever), that's an entirely different ''process'', not one that a decent conversation can bring any kind of alleviation. ] (]) 03:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	:*{{reply to|Drmies}} So a Wikipedian walks into a bar and asks the barkeep, "You know what the difference between an established editor and a regular editor is?" The barkeep says, "No, what?" The Wikipedian says, "You'll never see anyone argue that escalating blocks don't work for regular editors."--v/r - ]] 02:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	::*TParis, maybe you picked a different contrasting type there. If the point were pressed, I'd probably say that most regular editors can call themselves "established". Also, Wikipedians don't walk into bars, you dope. They sit at home with their laptops; outside of the house, they're unbearable. Cheers, ] (]) 03:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::*Haha, you've got me there. --v/r - ]] 03:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	::::*Not necessarily; I made at a Wendy's. ] (]) 03:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::::*Good point, actually: ], where I picked up a little something tonight, has free WiFi. But editing WP on an iPhone just sucks the big one, esp. in an edit conflict. Some of my delightful prose and much wisdom was lost tonight because of an edit conflict during a swim meet. Words we'll never get back. (Wait--Wendy's??? come on--that shit will kill you.) ] (]) 04:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	== Electoral Commission RfC ==
	The RfC to select the three-member Electoral Commission for the ] was opened. We need volunteers for the commission, and comments on their suitability from all editors. Details are found at ]. Regards, ] <sup>]</sup> 12:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	== What exactly was I topic banned for? ==
	{{archive top|As per OP request ] (]) 05:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)}}
	I would like to request a proper explanation of the reasoning behind my topic ban, enacted per ] - or removal of the ban if no such explanation is provided. As far as I can tell, three issues were raised in the discussion:
	#The initial report was for a single rude statement that I made in a discussion. Even if some hold the opinion that this crossed the line of ], surely a single statement like that doesn't merit anything more than a mild warning - particularly since previous sanctions applied against me were based on a completely different policy.
	#Several users brought up my block log in the discussion. How is it fair to bring up my block log when, as I already mentioned, previous sanctions against me were based on a completely different policy - and the last block was more than three months prior to the discussion? Additionally, I had significantly changed my conduct since the blocks in question in a specific attempt not to run into issues with that other policy again - and now I just got sanctioned for something completely different instead.
	#The other issue that I noticed was discussed was my conduct in the discussion itself, but this seems even more unfair than the above point, since had the discussion not been started it wouldn't have been an issue in the first place! Furthermore, I changed my conduct in the discussion later on.
	I realize that the optics of making an actual appeal this early may not exactly be positive, but from what I have seen, many - if not most - appeals are based not on the original ban but on the conduct of the user during it. In this case, however, I think that the original ban was not justified. (That isn't to say that I have no conduct record since the ban to point to at all - in the intervening weeks, I have made a very large number of productive edits, being both careful not to violate the topic ban and to stay away from the kinds of issues that may have led to it in the first place.) If I were appealing this ban in what seems to be the more standard way, I would almost certainly have waited for at least half of its duration, but, again, I think it was unfairly imposed in the first place. ] (]) 18:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:See also: . To me this seems like a typical case of ]. ]&#124;]&#124;] 22:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	::Please do not pay attention to this user, who is very close to being reported for outright ]. It's becoming quite ridiculous, actually. ] (]) 22:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::Do you have any diffs to support that rather dramatic allegation? ]&#124;]&#124;] 22:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	::::Again, please ignore this user. I really do not want this discussion derailed. ] (]) 23:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Sorry, but discussions here do not work that way. And the more you say "please ignore X" the more likely it is to be considered that you're trying to divert attention from something lest it ] on you. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 23:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Okay, let's see: I requested clarification of my topic ban at my user talk page, and now I would like it to be lifted completely via a request here. How is this anywhere remotely near forum shopping, and why are you supporting this user, who has repeatedly violated ] towards me at the very least? ] (]) 23:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::I am not, in fact, supporting anybody. I am cautioning ''you'' that your constant assertions of "ignore this user" will only make people ]. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub>
	::::::::@]: Yet you did not "caution" the other user for immediately launching into an allegation without even attempting to address the points I brought up. ] (]) 23:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	{{od}} and now we also have ]&#124;]&#124;] 23:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:Unfortunately for you, my message was specifically worded knowing that you would write this (and I even pinged you in it). ] (]) 23:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	::Uhh... did you just admit to ] me? ]&#124;]&#124;] 23:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::Well, if you want to put it that way, sure - I "baited" you into making yet another foolish post here. (By the way, perhaps you should check what you're linking to before actually doing so...) ] (]) 23:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	*Since Dogmaticeclectic is clearly determined to create as much drama as possible, I'd like to request an admin to close this, probably with a ] block for disruptive editing. Dogmatic; you've admitted to baiting a user, and then you've gone and spammed a bunch of personal attacks. ] ] 00:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	===I suppose it comes down to this===
	Since quite a few members of the Misplaced Pages community continue to act extremely abusively towards me, I think the question now is whether I should go to ] or simply do a ] (the latter obviously after the ban has already expired). Anyone (besides the community members in question) have any thoughts on this? ] (]) 00:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	*Doing a CLEANSTART is obviously going to fail, since the entire point of it is to stay away from the topic areas where you have been found to be disruptive in. ARBCOM won't accept a case, since they rarely accept any case. ] ] 00:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	**I'm really trying hard not to be sarcastic here, knowing just how much you want me banned completely, but still: what do you suggest then? ] (]) 00:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	::*If you stopped baiting users (which you admitted to above!), stopped abusing users, and generally stopped being disruptive, then there'd be some hope for you. ] ] 01:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	::*I can't see how this is going to end with anything other than you indefinitely blocked given your behaviour today. You were topic banned from editing Microsoft related articles because you have a reasonably long history of edit warring and tendentious editing, whether you like that or not, the community has agreed your editing patterns on Microsoft related articles are problematic and required attention, which has resulted in the community telling you not to edit Microsoft articles. I had my finger hovering over the block button, but I thought it was fair to tell you how close you are to being indefinitely blocked and giving you the chance to archive this, log out for a few hours and calm down. ] (]) 01:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	], you and several others have done pretty much everything possible to get me community banned simply because I disagree with much of your editing. Even if I changed my conduct completely - which I have already done to a very significant extent - all of you would almost certainly still be trying to achieve that goal. ] (]) 01:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	*Rubbish. I have called for you to be indefinitely blocked (not community banned) because of your constant disruption and abusive behaviour towards multiple editors. You made working on Microsoft-related articles an arduous task instead of a pleasure by YOUR own conduct. As for disagreeing with much of my editing, considering that I don't focus myself in this one area, I'm calling bullshit on that attempted get-out clause. ] ] 01:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	**@]: Whether what I wrote above is correct or not, the fact of the matter is that the next step for even the most minor policy violation (which is obviously pretty much guaranteed to occur at some point) is pretty much guaranteed to be a community ban. ] (]) 01:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	***Conspiracy? Sure. No, that's not the fact of the matter--you've spent hours here and on ANI, and by now you should have become a little wiser. Really, the next step is (as {{U|Nick}} hinted at above, but you didn't listen) that some admin gets so irritated by the constant whining over what those terrible wiki editors are doing to you, how it's all their fault, how the only they wanted is to ban you (cause they can't handle the truth?), and so on...so irritated, I say, that they simply block you indefinitely for this incessant disruptive editing. Not a community ban, mind you (please get it straight), but a simple straightforward indefinite block. ] (]) 03:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	===Request===
	Please close this whole thing. ] (]) 03:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	{{Archive bottom}}
	== Request for closure review ==
	{{archive top|It's all good. Closed, self reverted, comments made. ] (]) 05:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)}}
	, of one of the most contentious discussions I've seen on Misplaced Pages, appears to be based on nothing more than a vote count. Is that appropriate? – ]\<sup><font color="gray">]</font></sup> 21:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:I self rved the closure myself ] (] - ]) 22:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	::...which is why when you ask someone about an edit they made, you should give them more than twelve minutes before going to AN. I'm just saying. --] (]) 23:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::Without expressing any opinion one way or another about the merits of the matter under discussion, it seems to me that this is an excellent example of the general principle that those of us who are not administrators (myself included) should refrain at all times from closing contentious debates. Non-admin closures, in my opinion, should be limited to cases where consensus is clear and indisputable. That seems not to be the case here. ] ] 04:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
	==is the ban over?==		== Proposed community ban of Marginataen ==
	{{Archive top|result=Asked and answered.--] (]) 14:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)}}
	is my ban over? or are going to be incredibly technical about it and do it by the days?] (]) 09:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	:According to ] it expired yesterday. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	::I know better than to edit without some form of announcement given to me. it seems odd to not be notified.] (]) 09:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::Yes, it's over, and you're free to edit anime and manga articles again. — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 09:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	::::Thats all i needed to hear.] (]) 09:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	{{Archive bottom}}
			{{userlinks|Marginataen}}
	== Weird hoax reality TV show articles in multiple userspaces ==
			This user has been indefblocked twice for various issues over the years (and is subject to a ]), and two days after their last unblock, they were ], as ]. Well they've gone back to ]; their are a good sampler. Despite being ] that English variety/date formats are set per article, not per topic, they have ] for their mass-editing; I was going to send them my own warning about this but the discovery of this message tipped me over into submitting a ban request.
			They clearly have extreme ] problems with their editing pattern; also the idea of a non-native speaker of English trying to police/standardise the use of English variety templates on Misplaced Pages does not sit well with me. I have undone many of their most recent edits, some of which ] Manual of Style violations of]. Furthermore, in the light of ] (that wasn't actionable) about their interest in right-wing topics, perhaps their ] of the spin-off article ] might need to be looked into. In short, I'm not sure what benefit is being gained by this user's continued presence on this project. ] (]) 06:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	Recently, I discovered two very similar reality TV show articles in two different user sandboxes:
	* ]
	* ]
	Normally, I wouldn't think much of this, but here are the weird circumstances around these articles:
	# The show that both of them are about, ''Modelesque'', doesn't exist. It is completely fictitious and seems to be mentioned nowhere on the internet besides these 2 articles.
	# Both of the users are obviously experienced Misplaced Pages editors (probably the same editor), but have edited almost nothing except these fictitious articles. In other words, they appear to be throw-away sockpuppet accounts.
	# On October 12, ] demanded an explanation from ]. No explanation or reply has been given by GuysGirls, but he/she continued to edit the fictitious article.
	# Unlike most hoax articles, these articles contain nothing humorous or even interesting. They are about as banal as you can get.
	# Wiki-PR's biggest client is ] whose main product is reality TV shows. Is there a connection? I have no idea.
	Since no policies have been violated, I'm not sure what, if anything, to do about this. Should it go to Sockpuppet investigations? Should the articles be deleted? Should the accounts be blocked? ] (]) 20:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
			:{{midsize|(Will abstain as I hope no one will require sanctions and I am pretty clearly involved again despite hoping I wouldn't have to be, but just wanted to make clear on my own edits that if I made any errors on the sweep-up, please let me know and I'll fix them. Thanks.)}} <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 06:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:You can send the articles to ]. Hosting articles about fake reality shows in userspace is in violation of ] and ]. MFD seems to get a lot of these and they are routinely deleted. '''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 21:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
			:'''Support'''. Doing the exact thing that get that them blocked after being unblocked. I’ll also add that they unilaterally changed articles into British spellings with no explanation or discussion given either. ] 06:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Looks like Kaldari already deleted them, and just undeleted it for reference here. I'd originally planned to check back in a month, since that editor didn't edit too frequently to start with, and delete the page unless they'd explained what was going on. But since they did edit in the meantime, they obviously got that message and ignored it. I have no idea what their angle was with it&mdash;I can't even find an indication that it's a real show.
			:'''Support''' pretty clear repeat violations of previous block reasons. Doing enough of this to be disruptive and unproductive, not listening to feedback or starting appropriate discussions. ] (]) 09:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	::They're oddities, but I can't imagine what either Viacom or Wiki-PR could stand to gain from fake articles about shows that don't even exist. I'd certainly have no problem saying we ought to block both accounts until they explain what's going on, though. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
			:'''Support'''. Might considering a RFC on Meta to globally ban Marginataen in the future. ] (]) 10:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Support'''. Repeatedly making disruptive edits even after having been blocked several times and promising to mend their ways. ] (]) 12:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 12:56, 19 January 2025

Notices of interest to administrators

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

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Open tasks

Centralized discussion

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

Noticeboard archives

Administrators' (archives, search)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166
1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175	1176
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

XFD backlog

V	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Total
CfD	0	0	1	67	68
TfD	0	0	0	4	4
MfD	0	0	0	3	3
FfD	0	0	5	21	26
RfD	0	0	1	71	72
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 3 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 6 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 15 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 10 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 41 sockpuppet investigations
• 14 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 3 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 6 requests for RD1 redaction
• 104 elapsed requested moves
• 1 Pages at move review
• 21 requested closures
• 20 requests for unblock
• 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 13 Copyright problems

Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

NO CONSENSUS This has been open for more than a month, much longer than most ban appeals, and it is basically deadlocked, both in numbers and valid arguments. This is therefore closed as not having consensus, which defaults to the block remaining in place. Beeblebrox 21:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Support unbanning and unblocking per WP:SO. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• Quoting my SPI comment in 2022:

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

  That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock, which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ECR violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support per above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  Endorse one account proviso. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive#18 April 2024. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would Support with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of WP:LOUTSOCK. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they seem to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. The Kip 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. X (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. This has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, this has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. Fram (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support User seems to have recognized what he did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. JayCubby 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Support, the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @Moscow Connection: Your comments are as valid as anyone else's, if you explain your reasoning, but please note that this is a discussion, not a straight vote, so just saying "support" doesn't tell us much. Beeblebrox 21:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Conditional support unblock (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use WP:AFC for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support I can't repeat what Beaniefan11 say enough: "Come on – it's been nearly seven years since the ban – why can't we give another chance? And he admits that he was too focused on quantity, rather than quality, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on mass-creating non-notable stubs." This should assuage any doubt in the mind of the reviewing administrator. Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Claims of "It's been seven years!" fall on deaf ears when you find out he's been socking all along and as recently as a year ago. Fram and PMC have good points as well. Show some restraint and understanding of your block and WP:SO is yours. Buffs (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support with a little WP:ROPE and conditions suggested by Joseph2302. Yeah, given the timeframe, I'd say having to submit their creations to AFC for the time being is a sufficient middle way for the yes and no camps. ミラP@Miraclepine 00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - Large-scale sockpuppetry is very harmful, and was continuing for years after the ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Topic ban appeal

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

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

---

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

I'll kick off by asking the standard two questions: (1) please explain in your own words why you were topic banned; (2) do you have anything to say to convince everyone those same issues won't occur again? WaggersTALK 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. DesertInfo (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. Liz 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Found it. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#Desertambition's hostile edit history. Tarlby 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. That is helpful to have. Liz 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• I support lifting the ban. DI's talk page makes for interesting reading, it shows quite a remarkable change in attitude over a period of a few years, and I believe that's genuine. WaggersTALK 08:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting the topic ban I think being warned for making edits that violating a topic ban, then being almost completely inactive for six months, and then coming back and asking for it to be lifted and that passing sets a horrible example. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  It seemed like a good idea to step away from the site for a time. I was receptive to the warning, even though it was not from an admin, and stopped editing in that area entirely. These are the edits in question: I just forgot that I had to appeal the topic ban here first and haven't gotten around to it until now. It should be noted that the first edit merely restored a previous RFC that had been ignored and the last two were minor changes to articles that have since been restored.

  I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you WP:AGF and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. DesertInfo (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. CMD (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. DesertInfo (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --Yamla (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  I have made plenty of edits to articles like Caribbean Basin, List of current detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Venezuelan Caribbean, and List of archipelagos in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. DesertInfo (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting the topic ban. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see User_talk:DesertInfo#Topic_ban for example). --Yamla (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. Beeblebrox 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects.

  I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did:

  This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. DesertInfo (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? CMD (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  I would like to participate in move and deletion discussions. I contributed a lot to List of renamed places in South Africa and I would like to update some place names through move requests. I haven't had issues in that area since 2022. DesertInfo (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd say "racial issues broadly construed" is actually pretty broad given how much of history/geography is touched by it. I'd also say they do appear to have made an effort to improve, though I'd still like to see more. FOARP (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I want to see some real world effort working collaboratively somewhere else on wp, not just a six month gap waiting it, off wikipedia. There is no evidence here that there has been a change. scope_creep 08:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Andra Febrian report

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

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

---

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

First: the notice at the top of the page clearly says to place new sections at the bottom of the page, which I have now done for you. Second: you need to provide diffs for the edits you are complaining about. Third, you were supposed to notify Andra Febrian per the instructions at the top of the page. Another user has done so for you. - Donald Albury 00:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@HiLux duck: please sign your comments using ~~~~, which will add a timestamp. Additionally, I reverted your edits to Peugeot 3008 and to Exeed because you are changing information in articles without citing reliable sources. You must cite sources when you add or change information in articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

HiLux duck just filed a new complaint at ANEW and made the exact same mistakes as they did here. I advised them to stop posting complaints on noticeboards until they can follow the instructions. Liz 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, I have a feeling that HiLux Duck is a sockpuppet of MrDavr, but I am holding back until they give themselves enough rope to hang. Same obsession with defining overall lengths for various car classifications and edit warring at length over them.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm always impressed when editors can recall editing habits of editors that were blocked years ago. I guess I lack the longterm memory to keep track of sockpuppet habits. Liz 04:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: MrDavr actually got under my skin at one point; otherwise I probably wouldn't have noticed. Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Looking into this  Looks like a duck to me (a HiLux WP:Duck?) because yeah, this is exactly the same editing pattern. Same username pattern as a number of MrDavr socks too (car names/variations thereof - Toyota Hilux). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger - Quack quack? Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Most likely yes, I knew that the his editing patterns matched an old blocked user but didn't remember the name. Alawadhi3000 (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It's also interesting to note that HiLux duck's user page claims they've been on Misplaced Pages since 2019, and having compared edits more extensively I've seen enough and gone ahead and blocked per WP:DUCK. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Mr.Choppers warning request

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

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

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

Missed this because it was at the top. Very unlikely to have merit and is moot now, given the block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

---

repost from archive:

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

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

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

• 11:10 (UTC), 25 December 2024: Uwappa replaces {{Body roundness index}} with a substantially changed new version
• 13:39, 25 December 2024: JMF (me) reverts to the previous version, with edit summary "sorry but this version is not ready for release. I will explain at talk page."
• 13:55, 25 December 2024: JMF opens Template talk:Body roundness index#Proposed version 4 is a step too far, reverted for further discussion at template talk page (and leaves notifications at the talk pages of the articles that invoke the template).
• 14:08, 25 December 2024: Uwappa responds minimally at template talk page.
• 14:27, 25 December 2024: Uwappa counter-reverts to their new version of the template, no edit summary.
• 14:39, 25 December 2024 JMF reverts the counter reversion with edit summary "see WP:BRD: when BRD is invoked, the status quo ante must persist until consensus is reached"
• 14:45, 25 December 2024: Uwappa counter-reverts the template again, no edit summary.
• 14:45, 25 December 2024: at User talk:Uwappa#Bold, revert, discuss, JMF advises Uwappa of the BRD convention.
• 17:38, 25 December 2024: Zefr contributes to BRD debate.
• 17:53, 25 December 2024: At Uwappa's talk page, JMF notifies Uwappa of edit-warring using {{uw-editwar}} with edit summary "I advise strongly that you self-revert immediately, otherwise I shall have no choice but to escalate."
• 19:50, 25 December 2024 At Waist-to-height ratio, JMF comments out invocation of the template, with edit summary "use of template suspended pending dispute resolution . See talk page."
  • (a series of reverts and counter reverts follow, in which Uwappa alleges vandalism by JMF. Neither party breaks 3RR.)
• 20:23, 25 December 2024 At their talk page, Uwappa rejects the request to self-revert and invites escalation. Edit summary: "go for it".

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

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

---

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

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

Well, Uwappa hasn't edited on the project in 12 hours so it's pretty sage to assume they haven't seen this complaint yet. I'd like to hear their response and whether or not they are willing to collaborate before passing any judgment. Very through presentation of the dispute, easy to follow, so thank you for that. Liz 20:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I felt it important to make clear that our time zones are very widely spaced, which makes collaboration difficult in the best of circumstances. When they do see it, I would expect they will take some time offline to polish their response before posting it – and consequently it is likely to be as long again before I respond. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

You escaped sanction because there were too many more egregious cases in the pipeline and it is a first offence. ANI does not adjudicate on content disputes, only on behaviour and compliance with fundamental principles. The evidence against you was really unarguable; I have seen quite a few cases and I know how they play out: if it had reached a conclusion, you would have been blocked until you acknowledged that you had gotten carried away in the heat of the moment, that you understand and accept WP:EPTALK, WP:EW, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN, and that from now on you commit to respecting them. I strongly advise that you take the message anyway. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Mate, sorry I was late for the escalation party. End of the year was a madhouse here, both in business and with social activities.

I was very happy you did escalate and will be happy to reply now that I have spare time available for WP. My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.

Would you like me to repost your escalation? Uwappa (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I strongly advise that you read Misplaced Pages:No legal threats before you write another line. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

It was not clear on your talk page, and it's even less clear here since you did not repost your response to JMF's last line there. You do explicitly retract the apparent legal threat that was made? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I did not make a legal threat. Uwappa (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Uwappa: your reference to your "business legal team" could certainly be construed as a veiled one, at the very least. You are being asked to clarify by either confirming or retracting this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations. is either a legal threat or indistinguishable from one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

No it is not a legal threat. It is about "WP rules and regulations", not about law.

• To who would this be a threat?
• Which law?
• In which country?

Uwappa (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Why would a legal department be involved? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It certainly looks like a legal threat. M.Bitton (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Uwappa. Why would a legal department be involved? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Wow, I am glad you asked.

• to have a bit of fun, take a break from the normal, pretty serious work. It will be like kids in a candy store.
• It will be fun for me too. I can't wait to get going with this once the pandemonium calms down.
• The accusation "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage" is utterly wrong.

Uwappa (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not at all experienced in the legal world, but I don't think any professional legal team that you're paying money towards would ever be excited to save you from a website "like kids in a candy store". Tarlby 22:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Why would a legal department be excited about you being reported on Misplaced Pages unless you're planning to use them in some way? Tarlby 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I suspect, from context, that Uwappa was trying to suggest they would have assistance of a professional team in interrogating rules and regulations. But "I have the spend to wikilawyer this more than you can" isn't really all that much better than an outright legal threat. Between that and this edit what surprises me is that they're not blocked yet frankly. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

and just to throw some more fuel on the bushfire, you have just accused me twice more of vandalism.03:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC), 08:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• I would say that for Uwappa to read this AN filing, reply to it (including something which could well be taken as a legal threat), and then immediately go back and revert the template for the fifth time (with an edit-summary of "Revert vandalism again", no less) shows a serious lack of self-awareness of the situation. Black Kite (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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

  It’s hard to see a paid or COI element to the behaviour at {{Body roundness index}}. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  It is fairly weird, but I can't see any reason a business legal department would have any interest unless the editor's activity relates to their business activity. Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  I expect it’s just empty talk to get an upper hand in the dispute. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed. It is night where Uwappa is now, but my inclination is to see what reaction there is when they restart editing. If it is another revert or a lack of discussion, a block (or at least a prtial block) is indicated. Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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

  • Anybody in the room who can answer my 3 questions?
  • Reverted vandalism 3rd time in 24 hours. Anybody curious about what the vandalism is?
  • Anybody in the room that wonders why I had to do the repost? Isn't that odd in combination with "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process"? Did anybody read my reasons for being late to this party?
  • Did anybody read User_talk:Uwappa#Bold,_revert,_discuss and User_talk:Uwappa#Notice_of_reference_to_ANI?
  • Did anybody spot any incompleteness in the accusations?
  • Anybody interested in my to answers to the accusations?

  Uwappa (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

• Yes, I noticed. I have pblocked them indefinitely from the template, and reverted that edit myself so that no-one else is required to violate 3RR. Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous.

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

  — WP:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule

  .
• Suggestion: Add the following calculator to WP:3RR:

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

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

• From WP:EW; Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring. Which this quite obviously does, especially as you've reverted twice whilst this report was ongoing. Frankly, you're quite fortunate it was only a partial block. Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

To admins, please WP:ABAN Uwappa from further work on the calculator template for the body roundness index and waist-to-height ratio, and from further editing and talk page input on those articles. Uwappa has done admirable extensive work, but the simple calculator is finished and sufficient as it is. Uwappa has created voluminous WP:TLDR/WP:WALLOFTEXT talk page discussions for articles with under 50 watchers and few talk page discussants; few editors would read through those long posts, and few are engaged.

In recent edits on templates, Uwappa reverts changes to the basic template as "vandalism". No, what we're saying is "leave it alone, take a rest, and come back in a few years when more clinical research is completed." Zefr (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Kansascitt1225 ban appeal

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

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

---

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

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

References

1. https://slate.com/business/2015/05/urban-density-nearly-half-of-america-s-biggest-cities-look-like-giant-suburbs.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• (mildly involved) Support. I gave feedback on an earlier version of their ban appeal. This is five years since the initial block. Five years and many, many socks, and many, many arguments. But with no recent ban evasion and a commitment to communicate better, I think it's time to give a second chance. -- asilvering (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per asilvering and WP:SO. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Five years is a long time. Willing to trust for a second chance.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Ideally I'd want to see some indication that they don't intend to right great wrongs as the issue seems to be rather ideological in nature and I don't see that addressed in the appeal. I also don't love the failure to understand a lot of issues around their block/conduct and their inability to effectively communicate on their talk page and on their unblock request from November. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Would a topic ban from Kansas-related topics help? This was floated as a bare minimum two or so years ago. -- asilvering (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not that concerned by the RGW issue. Their communication on this appeal has been clear, they responded to my feedback regarding their unblock request, and they've indicated they'll not edit war and seek consensus for their edits. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five? In any event it's been a long time since they tried to evade. I'm leaning toward giving a second chance but I'd really like them to understand that walls of text are not a good way to communicate, that they need to post in paragraphs, and that Misplaced Pages is not a place for righting great wrongs. FOARP (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five? ssssshhh. -- asilvering (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Response from KC:

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

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

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

  voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support Six years is a long time, and they have shown growth. I do not think what is actually happening here is righting great wrongs, instead they assumed bad faith and things went downhill from there. I think their concerns of Jackson county being THE central county of the metropolitan area (which Misplaced Pages deems urban) when you can see in the census reference here there are actually 6 central counties (which Misplaced Pages deems suburban) is reasonable. I researched it, but found the concerns are inconsistent with urban area page which provides the definition that An urban area is a human settlement with a high population density and an infrastructure of built environment. This is the core of a metropolitan statistical area in the United States, if it contains a population of more than 50,000. An urban area is the most urban area compared to its surroundings, even though its surroundings are quite dense. I hope this helps. Kenneth Kho (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  I add that their concerns that suburban designation misleads people seem to have merit. It is not the suburban designation that misleads people though, but the definition of suburban itself on the suburban article seems to be misleading. I know this is not a place to discuss content, but discuss conduct. But some insight into content can help resolve problems. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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

ftools is back!

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

Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: DreamRimmer is now also a maintainer. JJP_Master (she/they) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

My congratulations/condolences. Buffs (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

So, will ftools be renamed or not? Congratulations. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Import request

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

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

---

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

I suppose you mean this page, which you didn't create at all though, and which is completely unsuitable for enwiki as it stands, being unsourced and lacking all indication of notability. Fram (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, they did create the page. JJP_Master (she/they) 15:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Fram, oh, okay — Cactus🌵 09:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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

IPBE for AWB account

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

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

---

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

Done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. ''']''' (talk • contribs) 02:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Content removal, POV pushing, edit warring

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

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

---

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

This looks like the same complaint as Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Report on Disputed Edits and Insults. Let's centralise discussion there. I note that Talk:Mohammed Ridha al-Sistani is also empty. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Tulsi (unblock request)

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

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

---

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

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

Dear Sysops,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abner Louima

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

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

---

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

Anybody can close an AfD as SNOW keep. That's the whole point of SNOW. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Snowed by me. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!!! Bearian (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Request for Administrator Review of Repeatedly Declined Draft: Ario Nahavandi

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

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

---

Dear Administrators,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time and consideration xx

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

Administrators cannot override draft declines, and in fact the administrator toolset cannot be used to force content decisions. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 23:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

So who can I turn to for help? If administrators cannot assist in overriding the draft declines, to whom can I escalate this issue? I am deeply concerned that my article has been repeatedly declined without proper consideration of the sources I’ve provided. These sources are reliable, published, and fully comply with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines, yet they continue to be dismissed without even being properly reviewed.

It’s becoming clear that the rejection process isn’t being carried out fairly. I can’t help but feel that my article is being judged based on factors other than content quality, especially when I see articles approved with far less solid references.

I understand that the review process is based on policy, but when it seems clear that my draft isn’t being given the attention it deserves, I need to know where I can seek help to ensure fairness.

I kindly ask for your guidance—if administrators cannot intervene, who can I turn to for proper support in getting this article reviewed fairly?

Thank you for your time. Lanak20 (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:TEA. This is where you appeal problems with submissions of drafts. You should read the WP:NPEOPLE and WP:BLP carefully. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Lanak20: I actually just went over your sources. They're all malformed at best and unusable at worst. What is your connexion to Nahavandi? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 00:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• I've blocked the OP as a spam-advertising-only account. I should add that it's pretty obvious they've used other accounts to promote this person, I believe most recently as of last October.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist Edit Restriction Appeal

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Support. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Based on YFNS's activity since the original tban, I don't see any reason to believe that restrictions are necessary going forward. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Welcome back comrade. Ahri Boy (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Support based on their editing activity between TBAN and last year, as well as between the sanctions and now. Good work, and a great example of how this restorative process is supposed to work. May you inspire other misguided people to a path of restoration. TiggerJay (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Snow Support Kenneth Kho (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Strong support. To me YNFS comes across as a very responsible editor and I believe these restrictions are no longer warranted. HenrikHolen (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Support I remember the original ban happening due in large part to canvassing on twitter, the fact that any restrictions remained in place thereafter strikes me as a deep miscarriage of justice. Snokalok (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Enthusiastic support YFNS is a perfect model of an editor who is an asset to Misplaced Pages. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Support A well worded appeal, worth giving another chance. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Copyvio Problem

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

1 2 3

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

To be clear, I don't think that @YatesTucker00090 is really at any fault here.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kingsmasher678 please see {{copyvio-revdel}} on how to tag copyvios for attention. Nthep (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Lardlegwarmers block appeal

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

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

---

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

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

Statement from Lardlegwarmers

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

References

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

Statement from Tamzin

Excerpting my comment on their talkpage:

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

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

Discussion among uninvolved editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from involved editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Reporting Administrator Abuse

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

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

---

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

So there's two things here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ban appeal from Rathfelder

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

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

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

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

• Conditional support - If there's been no socking during the ban. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  In response to this, I ran some basic checks. There's no evidence of socking that I can see in the currently available data. RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  Are you permitted to say what time range the available data covers? The default is only 90 days isn't it? Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, the data available to me was for the past 90 days. RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

  To opposers: Would a TBAN from BLPs solve the issues you mention? I understand why some may be hesitant to unban, but they have been a very productive contributor on other wikis. I think that they would be a productive contributor if we simply give them a second chance. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose as disingenuous. The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur: obviously it's reassuring to hear this, but there is no acceptance of personal responsibility. "The circumstances made me do it" is not a defence, or explanation. Likewise, I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that does not do the facts justice. Rathfelder literally socked in order to be able to call a real life opponent a "swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist", in wikivoice with a misattributed op-ed quote. Difficult to imagine an editor of >half a million edits not knowing attribution requirements for BLPs. In fact, on investigation, they obviously do, as the adding of a {{BLP sources}} template indicates. If there's a Holy Trinity of wrong doing of things that damage the project the most, it's socking,vote stacking and deliberate BlP violations. These things are most dangerous to the project: they erode the trust between editors and the integrity of the consensus-driven decision making process and put WP at risk of at least public embarrassment if not a lawsuit. All of which Rathfelder did. All of which this appeal seems to attempt to explain away by "circumstances". I'm the first to offer rope when deserved, but such a glossing ban appeal, combined with it all happening only a couple of years ago, sets off more alarm bells than the Great Fire of London. There's no need for groveling, just an indication of self-knowledge and actual change. Serial (speculates here) 12:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  I haven't yet looked into this enough to express an opinion, but I would point out that the "swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist" quote was attributed in text to The Times, so was not in wikivoice. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for drawing my attention; I've clarified my comment. Serial (speculates here) 16:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose insufficient contrition and reflection on their frankly very serious misconduct. As Serial has said, they created an a attack page with very serious BLP vios using sockpuppets, you can't just handwave that away. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - My opinion is that editing pages to attack one's real life opponents isn't something you can just come back from, especially when you abusively socked and votestacked in addition. Please stick to editing other Wikis. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 15:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support I don't often choose to comment on unblock requests but every day I come across past productive work done by Rathfelder when I'm working with categories which is how I'm familiar with their immense contributions to this project. They are responsible for a sizeable percentage of our category creation and have over a half million edits credited to this account. If it has been over a year since their last appeal (check), they haven't been socking (check), they have been productive on other Wikimedia projects (check) and they acknowledge their mistakes (check), then I believe they should be given another chance. It sounds like this was a specific incident in their life that happened several years ago that is unlikely to be repeated. Remember, indefinite is not infinite. And if you reject this appeal, I'm just wondering what exactly are you expecting to see in a future request that would lead you to accept it? Or is this indefinite block actually a forever block? Liz 18:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Serial Number 54129 points to the quote from the piece by Sarah Baxter as the most damning part of his evidence, but Baxter was deputy editor of The Times when she wrote the article, so it was reasonable to say that that newspaper said that. It may, of course, not be the best way to word things but we don't ban people for that. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  No, I point to far more tahn just that: I point to a refusal to adhere to neutrality in preference for an entire section reading like a hit piece; there were no redeeming features presented, or alternative interpretations suggested. Instead, a Jewish guy was literally called an antisemite, on Misplaced Pages, for Rathfelder's own ends. The quote from Baxter was merely an example, but the whole section was of that ilk. Correct, we don't ban people for poor expression. We do ban people for deliberately flaunting fundamental policy and attacking living people. It is also insufficient that they have done good work in the past, per Liz; it's not mitigating. Ironically their is a current arbcom case in which some of the most knowledgeable editors in the field are getting topic banned due to behavioral issues. The same principal applies here. Serial (speculates here) 20:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - The attack page, undisclosed COI, and sockpuppetry were serious offenses. Sometimes it takes a long time to regain trust. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting info

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please Help Me!

Hi there, I'm Arav200 and I'm not a new at english Misplaced Pages, Previously I'm editing from Bhairava7 but due to my old account (Bhairava7) and it's attached gmail are protected from 2 Factor Authication, so, I'm unable to access my account,Please help me and If administrator transfer userright from my old account to Arav200 then It 'll be helpful for me otherwise after my old account permission will be removed due to after Inactive and I create this account through WP:ACC due to Skipcptcha restrictions.Happy editing Aarav200 (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

 Confirmed to Bhairava7. --Yamla (talk) 12:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm. I was a bit surprised about the English, but it is similar to previous edits from the old account ( ). I have noted the connection on the two accounts' user pages, but I'd like to try requesting 2FA removal before giving up and transferring the permissions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Bhairava7 / Aarav200, please contact cawikimedia.org from the e-mail address you have used for the Bhairava7 account. Please describe the problem and request the removal of two-factor authentication from your account. See meta:Help:Two-factor_authentication#Recovering_from_a_lost_or_broken_authentication_device for details. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn't able to access my also gmail (who attached from old account) due to 2:FA protection,then I was created new account with new gmail for re-contribution on Misplaced Pages. :(Happy editing Aarav200 (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Please try the following steps to regain access to your Gmail account: https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7299973 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if it is much useful but I can verify that he is indeed Bhairava7 as I contacted him over at discord personally. The AP (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I was emailed about this. Given Yamla's CheckUser result, I don't think that there is any reasonable doubt that it is the same person operating both accounts. While they may be able to recover the account from T&S, I feel like it is a bit unnecessary to force them to go through that route as it is ultimately their choice whether they want to recover the account or create another one (even if I personally have a bias for recovering). I was going to transfer the permissions over, but saw this thread, so didn't follow through with it. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@ToBeFree and Sdrqaz:,I also tried as per the link given by ToBeFree but I am not able to recover or access my Gmail... It would be better if I give up the desire to contribute to Misplaced Pages... I am also trying my best... If both are recovered then it will be good... Please forgive me but I will take full care that such mistake does not happen again in future... If possible, please transfer the rights of my old mentioned account to my new account because I've feel more stress at this time.Happy editing Aarav200 (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I will transfer them over, given that it has been unsuccessful. I also think that this route is kinder. If T&S disables 2FA on your old account and you would like to go back to using it, please let me know. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

BAG nomination

Hi! I have nominated myself for BAG membership. Your comments would be appreciated on the nomination page. Thanks! – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I need help from an admin - Urgent

I'm not sure about oranges from Jaffa, but there's a pack of blocks from Misplaced Pages here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

Dear Misplaced Pages Team,

I need an urgent help concerning a page and information about my project, I'd appreciate if a wikipedia admin can contact me to help.

Many thanks, Mohammed Mohamugha1 (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

There's not enough information here for anyone to do anything. Please tell us what the problem is and what help you need. You probably want to read WP:COI prior to doing anything further, though, just in case you've been violating our guidelines around conflicts of interest. --Yamla (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

What's the issue? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

This account probably needs blocking. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 17:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Relevant article:

• An Orange from Jaffa (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

OP possibly using multiple accounts:

• Mohamugha1 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• MohammedAlmughanni (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

DMacks (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

MohammedAlmughanni blocked as a sock. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Khabib Nurmagomedov French page modified by 92.184.106.82 to edit origin as Algerian

fr.wiki is thataway. → - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

Modifications history shows the following IP 92.184.106.82 made numerous edits to Khabib Nurmagomedov's French wikipedia page to include false information around his nationality, background and place of birth among other edits.This IP needs to be blocked and banned from editing. Lebronzejames999 (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

You need to contact the French Misplaced Pages. This is en.wikipedia.org and we only have say over what happens here on the English WIkipedia. --Yamla (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

EncycloDeterminate unblocked

The Arbitration Committee has resolved that:

Following an appeal, the Arbitration Committee repeals the Oversight block of EncycloDeterminate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as it is no longer necessary.

For the Arbitration Committee, theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § EncycloDeterminate unblocked

Permission request

WP:LTA. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I am User:CFA's legitimate alt account for WP:AWB editing at high volume. Please add extended confirmed to my account. Thank you CFA (AWB) (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC) Looks like we’ve got another @CFA impersonator here. If by some unlikely chance you are actually CFA, then you can make a request while logged in as CFA. Otherwise you will be blocked as before… nice try… TiggerJay (talk) 04:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC) @Liz here is another CFA imposter for you. Cheers! TiggerJay (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC) I indeffed CFA (AWB) (talk · contribs). Johnuniq (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC) I can't believe they are so dumb they tried doing the same scam two nights in a row. The previous attempt was removed from this noticeboard but it had a link listing about 20 CFA-related imposter accounts. Liz 05:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed community ban of Marginataen

Marginataen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been indefblocked twice for various issues over the years (and is subject to a long-term block on the wiki of their native language), and two days after their last unblock, they were blocked for a week for mass-changes to date formats without consensus, as discussed at ANI. Well they've gone back to more unwarranted mass-date format changes like this; their last hundred edits at the time of writing are a good sampler. Despite being explicitly told that English variety/date formats are set per article, not per topic, they have continued to use topic similarity as a justification for their mass-editing; I was going to send them my own warning about this but the discovery of this message tipped me over into submitting a ban request.

They clearly have extreme "I didn't hear that" problems with their editing pattern; also the idea of a non-native speaker of English trying to police/standardise the use of English variety templates on Misplaced Pages does not sit well with me. I have undone many of their most recent edits, some of which introduced Manual of Style violations oftheir own. Furthermore, in the light of this AN discussion (that wasn't actionable) about their interest in right-wing topics, perhaps their creation of the spin-off article Post-2012 legal history of Anders Breivik might need to be looked into. In short, I'm not sure what benefit is being gained by this user's continued presence on this project. Graham87 (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

(Will abstain as I hope no one will require sanctions and I am pretty clearly involved again despite hoping I wouldn't have to be, but just wanted to make clear on my own edits that if I made any errors on the sweep-up, please let me know and I'll fix them. Thanks.) Remsense ‥ 论 06:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Doing the exact thing that get that them blocked after being unblocked. I’ll also add that they unilaterally changed articles into British spellings with no explanation or discussion given either. Northern Moonlight 06:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Support pretty clear repeat violations of previous block reasons. Doing enough of this to be disruptive and unproductive, not listening to feedback or starting appropriate discussions. seefooddiet (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Might considering a RFC on Meta to globally ban Marginataen in the future. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Repeatedly making disruptive edits even after having been blocked several times and promising to mend their ways. Økonom (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards