| Revision as of 19:45, 16 May 2014 editTParis (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators30,360 edits →First nominee: I'm not going to set an expiration← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:48, 19 January 2025 edit undoChrisahn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers7,842 edits →Proposed community ban of Marginataen: HopelessTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| {{pp-sock|expiry=5 May 2014|small=yes}} | |||
| |algo = old(7d) | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}} __NEWSECTIONLINK__{{Template:Active editnotice}}<!-- | |||
| |counter = 368 | |||
| template:User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| | |
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 700K | |maxarchivesize = 700K | ||
| |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |||
| |counter = 255 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |||
| |algo = old(2d) | |||
| | |
}}{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude><!--S | ||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | |||
| |header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | ||
| |archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive | |archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive | ||
| Line 17: | Line 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> | |||
| -->{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure}}</noinclude> | |||
| ==Open tasks== | |||
| == Move request moratorium at ] == | |||
| <noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}} | |||
| {{archivetop|Involved NAC: Consensus clearly endorses BHG's moratorium, and this is not the place to discuss content disputes. Please take it to the talk page. ] (]) 22:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{Administrators' noticeboard archives}} | |||
| I have just a requested move discussion at ]. It was the 12th move discussion on this page since January 2010 (which may be some sort of a record), and the second move discussion in 3 months. I have therefore imposed a 12-month moratorium on further move requests. | |||
| {{Clear}} | |||
| {{Admin tasks}} | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| </noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove--> | |||
| == Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request == | |||
| I don't recall doing this before, so I am unsure if I should log this somewhere ... which is why I have left a note here. --] <small>] • (])</small> 00:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{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)}} | |||
| :You did well IMO. ] (]) 01:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}: | |||
| ::Good call. I don't think there's a log for this, but am not positive. ]] 01:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{tqb|I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: ] and ] (note that the two other accounts –- ] and ] -- at ] was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me. | |||
| * Endorse. Right or wrong, the clear fact is that there is no consensus to move, and there probably never will be. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 01:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::When administrator rights are granted like this by administrators to other administrators, could you guys at least indicate that somewhere? I don't see any place where it says that administrators are allowed to impose a moratorium on conversations on talkpages. This is a wholly new right for the sainted class. | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| ::Alternatively, you could have done this as a part of discretionary sanctions, but what are the discretionary sanctions? I have no doubt that administrators like to give themselves new rights to control the community like this, but as long as it's not in ], I think you guys shouldn't be doing this sort of thing. | |||
| 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 ].}} | |||
| ::If this becomes a thing you guys feel empowered to do, it's invariably going to end up in arbitration. The whole point of Misplaced Pages's ] model is to encourage discussion. So if discussion is now to be discouraged, then what is there to be done? Note that the discussion was closed "no consensus" which necessarily defaults to ]. You are basically declaring winners by default whether you like it or not. In contrast, ] protections for one whole year are extremely rare things. Why should a move moratorium be so cavalierly entered? | |||
| ] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support unbanning and unblocking''' per ]. ] (]/]) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Quoting my SPI comment ]: {{tq2|I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of ''block'' evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as ] of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-] unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is ''banned'', and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like ].) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here. ... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an ] unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.}}That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at ], which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ] violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per above.] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Endorse one account proviso. ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: ]. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would '''Support''' with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of ]. — ] ] 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they ''seem'' to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. ] (]) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. ] (]) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' User seems to have recognized what he <!-- before someone complains about my use of the gender-neutral he, this user is male per what they've configured settings to be --> did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. ''']]''' 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Weak Support''', the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. ] (]) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :*'''Oppose''', I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. ] (]) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support'''. Completely support an unblock; see my comment ] when his IP was blocked in April. ] (]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see ''clear'' evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like may well be on notable competitions, but with content like {{tq|On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.}}, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. ] (]) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Currently '''oppose'''; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. ] (]) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{yo|Ahri Boy }} Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. ] (]) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. ] (]) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "]"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. ] (]) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. ] (]) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::See . ] (]) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. ♠]♠ ] 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). ] (]) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. ] (]) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:: I think saying that {{tq|I will never use multiple accounts anymore}} and that he wants to {{tq|make constructive content}} would indicate that {{tq|the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.}} ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. ] (]) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... ] (]) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:: And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}. ] (]) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to ]. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''] ]'''</span> 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. ] (]) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Fram and PMC. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question''': Is SvG the same person as {{U|Slowking4}}? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by ]. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">]</span> (]) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **No. ] (]) 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' basically per ], particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get ] without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). ] (]) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since ] was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.<br />'''Support'''. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --] (]) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{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}} | |||
| == user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation of ] violation, unfounded vandalism allegation == | |||
| ::] (]) 07:43, 3 May 2014 (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)}} | |||
| ::: No new powers are involved. All we would be doing is clarifying a behaviour that will be judged to be disruptive, namely a request for a move of this article. I don't agree with the title any more than you do (and probably for similar reasons), this has absolutely nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of the title, and everything to do with the futility of the debate that has raged for a very long time and in the process demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that no consensus exists for a move. It's not going to happen and nobody wants to police the warring parties any longer. Enough already. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| repost from archive: | |||
| ::To be clear, I don't think this conversation has ended as I don't think a coherent voice has been heard yet and that's why I'm not convinced that closing the discussion makes any sense. Keep it open for one year, if you like, and then have someone evaluate what happens. But by closing like this, you are just asking for people to stop until May 2, 2014 when they will just pick up where they left off. Why not let the conversation continue. What's the ] harm? I think you admins may not like reading such conversations to try to figure out who is right and who is wrong, but that's not a good reason to stop a conversation. It's just not. ] (]) 07:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| The content disagreement behind this report is trivial in the overall scope of Misplaced Pages (although the articles affected are subject to ]), but the editor behaviour is not. My reason to bring this case to ANI is that ] rejects some basic principles of the project: ] means that a bold edit may be reverted to the '']'' and goes on to say {{tq|don't restore your bold edit, don't ] to this part of the page, don't engage in ], and don't start any of the larger ] processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.}} Despite having been reminded about BRD after their first immediate counter-revert, they responded to the reversion to the ''sqa'' with another counter-revert and, after another editor reinstated the ''sqa'', counter-reverted again. At no stage did they attempt to engage in BRD discussion. Both I and the other editor attempted to engage with them at their talk page: Uwappa characterises my explanation as a personal attack. On another page, Uwappa reverted an edit where I suppressed the questioned <s>material</s> template, declaring it "vandalism" in the edit summary. I recognise the rubric at BRD that says {{tq|BRD is optional, but complying with ''']''' and ''']''' is mandatory}} but Uwappa has done neither. | |||
| :::Yes, those who have a view different from the status quo will see the close and moratorium as a "win" granted to the other side, when clearly there was no consensus. That's not "no consensus to change". There was very strong argument in favour of change. It's just "no consensus". It's an unfortunate quirk of our policies that will now allow those who have "won" to say "You tried to change this and failed", implying that they are right. And that's not at all what has been demonstrated. A brave administrator would not just count votes, but would consider quality of argument and make a ruling. ] (]) 08:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The ruling would be that there is no consensus to change. The current title does not provably violate policy. Sure, it's asserted to violate policy, but that's just an opinion and it's not held by people like Jimbo, according to his stated opinion on the matter, so arguing that it is, is futile. I say this as one who strongly prefers the "myth" title. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] It's a bit tedious to spend time weighing a discussion in accordance with ], and then be told that "a brave administrator would not just count votes, but would consider quality of argument". AGF, please. I am quite willing to go against the numbers where the circumstances justify it. (See for example , , and ). | |||
| ::::I ''did'' weigh the arguments, discarded those which were not founded in policy, and was left with a set of good policy-based arguments on ''both'' sides. Having judged that ''both'' sides had well-founded arguments, the job of a closing admin is explicitly ''not'' to make a ] and decide which set of arguments she prefers. The admin's job is to weigh strength of policy-based argument and strength of support for them. In a case such as this, where there are broadly similar levels of support for well-founded policy-based arguments, it would be entirely wrong for an admin to impose their own choice between the two sides, and closures such as that are rightly and properly overturned at move review. | |||
| ::::Where there is no consensus, policy is maintain the status quo. In situations such as this, where there is a persistent failure to reach consensus on a choice between two sides, that confers a first-mover advantage. The community may want to consider the notion that in cases such as this of long-term lack of consensus between 2 options, pages could be cycled between the two alternatives; but no such policy exists for now, and ] prioritises stability. | |||
| ::::I think that a better way forward would be for the two sides to prepare for the end of the moratorium by planning a structured decision-making process, such as has been used for pending changes (e.g. ]). Breaking the question down and separately assessing consensus on various propositions would be much more informative for all involved, and it is more likely to produce a clear outcome than yet another round of free-form discussion. --] <small>] • (])</small> 12:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I understand your motivation, but there is no indication that drive-by closure and a rude "work it out yourselves, but don't bother me for a year" is the right direction here. I'm happy to start a structured conversation that would not have an outcome, but I'll note that I tried to do just this without a ] and instead others took it upon themselves to claim a ]. So if I wanted to start a discussion about how to start a structured discussion, am I banned from doing that on the talkpage? ] (]) 14:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::], a little more AGF please. This wasn't a "drive-by-closure", and I didn't say "don't bother me for a year". My concern is not for myself, but for the editors who have been dragged into rehashing the same round-in-circles freeform discussion a dozen times in 4 years. | |||
| ::::::There isn't going to be another discussion for 12 months, so best to leave it for a while. But as you get towards the end of the moratorium, you could start seeking out the editors with whom you most strongly disagree, and start a discussion with them about identifying the issues at stake on both and starting a discussion on how to address those questions, separately. --] <small>] • (])</small> 20:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}], you didn't address my question. Am I banned from discussing how to start a structured discussion on the talkpage? ] (]) 21:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :] Hmm, "best to leave it for a while" was my attempt to answer your question, but you seem to want it spelled out in very precise terms, so I will try to make it as clear as I can be. | |||
| :You are banned from starting a substantive discussion for another 12 months. There is no point in dragging editors into a 12-month meta-discussion about what to do next year, so don't start the talks-about-talks now. I was trying not to be too prescriptive about when it might be appropriate to start talks about talks, but if you want a precise time ... I'd say that 1 months before the expiry of the moratorium would be quite enough. That's 2nd April 2015. Is that clear enough? --] <small>] • (])</small> 21:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, thank you, that's quite clear. Just so I am 100% understanding, no one is allowed to discuss moving or renaming that particular article until 2 May 2015 or have meta-discussions about moving or renaming that particular article until 2 April 2015. And how is this to be enforced? Should we come to you every time we see an infraction or report it to this noticeboard? Or should we simply remove the talkpage comment? Or should we archive it with a collapse box? What are the parameters by which the enforcement will occur? ] (]) 21:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::], please relax a little. Honestly, all this is about is simply that repeated discussions are going nowhere and wasting editorial time and effort ... so please everybody, just drop the issue for a while and get on with other stuff. | |||
| :::If anyone starts down that path in the meantime, any other editor can close the discussion by noting the moratorium and hatting it with {{tlxs|archive top}}/{{tlxs|archive bottom}} ... and if anyone wants to contest that, ask for assistance at ]. There is no need for any enforcement to involve me rather than any other admin. | |||
| :::Hope this helps!--] <small>] • (])</small> 21:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *In practice such moratoriums - 3 months, 6 months, 12 months (most usually 6 months) - are not uncommon in RM closers' instructions. However they are not always of the high quality of BrownHairedGirl's moratorium here. An informal log somewhere would be helpful. ] (]) 11:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::] Can you identify any other RM moratoria in place? ] (]) 14:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'd have to have a hunt, a quick request at ] would probably yield up to a dozen examples. ] (]) 18:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not seeing the need for a centralized log - what would it be used for? In each case the RM moratorium is noted on the article talk page, where any admin about to make a change, or user about to request a change, can see it. Why would someone need to see it elsewise? I think ] applies here. ] (]) 15:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Logging is a good idea because it guarantees transparency in what are often contentious decisions. It encourages a kind of institutional memory which is important when looking at longterm development of a situation. That's why it is done for discretionary sanctions, for example. ] (]) 16:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I consider my escalating this to ANI to be a failure of negotiating skill on my part but, while Uwappa refuses to engage, I am left with no choice. Allowing a few days for logic to intervene has not been fruitful. With great reluctance, because Uwappa has made valuable contributions, I have to ask that they be blocked until they acknowledge and commit to respect the principles that underlie BRD, ] and ]. | |||
| :I wonder if Misplaced Pages can ever find a solution to problems like this where a decision that there is no consensus to change, plus a moratorium on future attempts to change, delivers precisely the result sought by those wanting no change, and is seen by both sides as a win for them? ] (]) 22:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| '''Diffs:''' ''(all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 ) '' | |||
| I also endorse BrownHairedGirl's handling of this issue. Cutting down the pointless move discussions (which are doomed to end as "no consensus," since it always seems to be the '''same''' alternate title that's suggested) to once a year is a good idea. May I also add that this talk of "winning" and "losing" has an unfortunate taste of ] about it. -- ] (]) 04:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC) {{SPA|101.117.2.111}} | |||
| * : Uwappa replaces {{tl|Body roundness index}} with a substantially changed new version | |||
| :Perhaps, but that's just dismissing a real view obviously held by many. Labelling it doesn't change that view. And maybe that repeated alternative is a bloody good one. That it's the same each time probably points to that, rather than it being wrong. Any objective observer would have to admit that those seeking change aren't a bunch of irrational bigots. Dismissing their request because it's the same each time is not helpful. The arguments against are also the same each time. Will you similarly dismiss them? ] (]) 18:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * : 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." | |||
| ::As closer, I do not see either side of the discussion is irrational or bigoted. Nor do I see any such suggestion from the IP above. Sure, there was some ILIKEIT/IDONTLKEIT commentary on both sides, but there were also a lot of well-reasoned, policy-based arguments. However, endlessly discussing the same thing without ever reaching a consensus is not a productive use of anyone's time. --] <small>] • (])</small> 20:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * : JMF opens ] at template talk page (and leaves notifications at the talk pages of the articles that invoke the template). | |||
| :::Agreed, hence my post beginning "I wonder..." above. Even if arguments are evenly balanced on both sides, what we get from this is a status quo result. That might sound fair, but in fact it's simply one that reflects the thoughts of the side that got in first, and is diametrically opposed to that preferred by a lot of editors with well reasoned arguments. We ARE declaring an absolute winner, when in fact it's been a pretty even fight. The well regraded views of half our editors are now being suppressed by the other half. I wish there was a more even solution. ] (]) 21:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * : Uwappa responds minimally at template talk page. {{midsize|] ]}} | |||
| ::::@] When there is a lack of consensus (as is repeatedly the case here), any choice of title will be unfair on half the editors who expressed a view. | |||
| * : Uwappa counter-reverts to their new version of the template, no edit summary. | |||
| ::::The question of what to do has been answered in policy. See ]: ''If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.'' In this case we have an unusual situation, where the title has been broadly stable, but only due to a lack of consensus. There is a case for arguing that this extraordinarily oft-repeated evidence of a lack of consensus is a form of instability, but that has not been how I have seen the policy interpreted before. If you wanted to make the case that this long-term-no-consensus amounts to instability and therefore justfies a move to "the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub" ... then feel free to open a ]. --] <small>] • (])</small> 21:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * 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" | |||
| :::::No BHG, your close certainly fits with policy. It cannot be criticised on that front. But I'd say that the multiple move requests clearly do demonstrate instability. Especially since there is so much drama every time a discussion arises. And it's virtually impossible to see any form of compromise that ever would please both sides. The positions seem so diametrically opposed. I just wish there was a way of demonstrating to our readers at article level that, while the current article title is the one reached according to our policies, a very significant number of editors think it's a very poor title. ] (]) 22:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * : Uwappa counter-reverts the template again, no edit summary. | |||
| ::::::So far, there have been very few attempts at an actual compromise, in the form of something that was not perfect but maybe acceptable to both sides. Trying compromise language—language that is neither ''narrative'' nor ''myth''—would work better than repeating exactly the same proposal six times (so far). Perhaps something like ] (I'm sure someone could do better) would be a more acceptable alternative than the oft-misunderstood "myth" language. You have a whole year in which to think up a compromise. Good luck, ] (]) 23:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * : at ], JMF advises Uwappa of the BRD convention. | |||
| ::::::::What we need is a discussion committee with nominees from all sides. I know exactly who I would nominate to be on it, but Misplaced Pages doesn't like such things. ] (]) 00:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * : {{u|Zefr}} contributes to BRD debate. | |||
| :::::::::@] Thanks for confirming that my close fits policy, tho I wasn't actually fishing for that support! | |||
| * : 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." | |||
| :::::::::My suggestion related to the narrower question of what to with this persistent lack of consensus. The reason I suggested move review was purely that within the context of persistent no-consensus, I think there is a case for treating it as unstable title and threrefore reverting to the title of the first non-stub. I don't want to set to create any precedent myself, but I think that a move review on that narrow point could be interesting. Or maybe it would be better approached as an RFC on the principle? --] <small>] • (])</small> 02:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * At ], JMF comments out invocation of the template, with edit summary "use of template suspended pending dispute resolution . See talk page." | |||
| ::::::::::? ]] (]) 02:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ** (a series of reverts and counter reverts follow, in which Uwappa alleges vandalism by JMF. Neither party breaks 3RR.) | |||
| :::::::::::No. I think now that attempts at compromise are misguided. A primary argument of many of those seeking change is that all religions should be treated the same. That such stories should all be called myths. (Even if that's not the case now.) That position will never be satisfied by a solution that doesn't treat the Christian story the same as other religions. It's pretty hard to compromise on that front. ] (]) 08:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * At their talk page, Uwappa rejects the request to self-revert and invites escalation. Edit summary: "go for it". | |||
| ::::::::::::Thank you for clarifying that you're not interested in compromise. That goes a long why to explaining '''why''' we get all these pointless repeated move requests, and shows the necessity for the moratorium. And you seem to be labouring under a misapprehension -- in fact, where other religions have a written creation narrative, the Misplaced Pages article typically uses the title of the narrative, without the word "myth." For example: ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. It seems that what you really want is to treat Christianity '''differently''' from other religions. If the moratorium doesn't calm things down, it may be necessary to take this to ArbCom, since ArbCom is empowered to determine facts, which discussion-closers are not. -- ] (]) 00:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::ArbCom is ''not'' empowered to determine facts, although it can create its own ones. ] (]) 22:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::I have been writing in the third person, and not mentioning the thoughts of specific editors. I have been trying to describe the broader problems with this debate. You wrote about me, rudely. Fuck off. ] (]) 00:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Anonymous user, your examples imply that equal treatment for the Christian creation myth would be to name it after a myth's title. However, that would not work since ] already exists (] alone is a disambig), with this particular article referring specially to the creation myth in its first couple chapters. Creation myths without titles have names like ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and so on from ] to ]. Those are the articles which proponents of ''Genesis creation myth'' wish to be consistent with. Though since their form specifically is ''<nowiki></nowiki> creation myth'', an argument might be made that ''Judeochristian creation myth'' or ''Abrahamic creation myth'' is more in line with them. ~ ] (]) 08:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::<small>Let's not start debating the title again here. This discussion is just about the moratorium. ]] (]) 08:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)</small> | |||
| Let me get this straight...brown haired girl 'impossed' a moratorium? She can't do that. Seriously, this is bull(self edited).--] (]) 00:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : I have imposed moratoriums in move request closes on occasion, most famously after the first major Chelsea Manning move discussion. I was asked at that time how much authority I had to do so, and I replied then (as I would contend now) that any administrator has as much authority to take such an action as the community is willing to recognize. This is informed by the reasoning behind the decision to impose one. I'm sure that an administrator who imposed, for example, a ten year moratorium on future discussion of a proposal would not be taken very seriously. A year-long moratorium is probably on the outside of what is feasible, but is entirely understandable given exceptional circumstances. I would imagine that such an imposition, like any other part of the close, is subject to consideration in a move review. I would definitely support having a single centralized page listing all move moratoriums in place at any given time. ] ] 01:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::If any editor wants to open a move review, then the moratorium would of course be up for review too. If the community chooses to overturn it or alter it's length or whatever, that's fine by me. | |||
| ::My concern was simply to break the extraordinarily cycle of rapidly-repeated inconclusive discussions which rehash the same arguments at enormous length. If the community wants that cycle to continue, so be it; or if it wants to find some completely different way of resolving this dispute, that's even better. --] <small>] • (])</small> 01:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Had I known you imposed a moratorium with the Manning case I would never have accepted/supported you to be a part of the Clinton closure. This isn't an abuse of tools since you didn't use any, but no one has to recognize anything just because..."you say so". And I do not. This is not a consensus discussion. Any such discussion would take place on the article talk page. Unless arbcom has decided to make such a moratorium as part of official sanctions this is little more than bullying others and using your position as an admin to take advantage of a situation. there is no policy or guideline that allows this. Seriously.--] (]) 03:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: @], I think you have misunderstood me. BrownHairedGirl did not impose a moratorium at Chelsea Manning; I did. She was not involved in that closure (and I was not involved in this one, or in the HRC closure). ] ] 13:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Wow...that was really hard to find this post after opening the editing window. Thanks for explaining that and sorry for the mix up. keeping who said what straight is becoming something of a headache now.--] (]) 19:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| '''Endorse''' BrownHairedGirl's action per DISRUPT - always the same apples-to-oranges argument, nothing new the last several go's. We need to put apples (significantly widely held beliefs with extensive cited controversy about the genre) into the same labeling with oranges (nearly extinct beliefs with hardly any cited controversy about the genre), all for the sake of "consistency" - a slippery slope. ] /]/ 01:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * ] reverts the counter-reversion of the template to re-establish ''sqa'' | |||
| *'''comment''' if we are considering some sort of moratorium, then the debate should have been more structured and the close some more detailed discussion of numbers and policy rather than just "close as no consensus", which the last two do - this just emphasises a first move advantage in these type of situations. I'd suggest a more detailed rationale and structured discussion with broader input like some other closes - 12 Requested Moves suggests it is a topic which deserves a more detailed and structured close and ''then'' a moratorium. ] (] '''·''' ]) 01:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think I agree. Like: ''All such discussions on this page are temporarily suspended until further notice. Interested parties are to repair to ] to in good faith explore compromises or the basis and wording (with respect to background of the dispute, counterpoints, policy and sources) for a fully laid out community wide RfC to be held on a neutral page and widely advertised." Or something like that. ] (]) 02:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm also concerned with the simple "close as no consensus" and the first move advantage. In something like this we need a much more detailed analysis. "No consensus" often seems like an easy out to me and can allow a minority to always have their way. ] (]) 11:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template. | |||
| *'''Endorse.''' This is a huge waste of time for the community to debate these things over and over. The Arbcom does similar, see for example the Infobox case. This used to be a standard type of closing comment for repetitious RMs, I don't know why BrownHairedGirl is suddenly get so much flack for it. If someone has a burning desire to discuss this yet again, or has new reasons to request a move, they can always bring their reasons to the talk page or ]. —] (]) 03:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also ] for escalation in progress.". | |||
| *'''Comment''': A separate discussion of the validity of the moratorium is being held at ] It doesn't seem to be helpful to have two discussions at the same time, especially if they are surveys gauging community support. ]] (]) 03:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * JMF reverts to ''sqa'' again, with edit summary " rv to consensus version, pending BRD discussion. That is now also a WP:3RR violation." {{midsize|My 3RR challenge was not valid as reversion was outside the 24-hour window.}} | |||
| ::That is a discussion specific to that article. What I'd like to see here is someone pointing to a policy or discussion that gives any single user (with the ''possible'' exception of Jimbo) the right to unilaterally declare ''any'' discussion closed for 12 months. ] (]) 04:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing. | |||
| :::FWIW, this discussion is also specific to that article. ] (]) 04:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * At their talk page, Uwappa alleges ] violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit. | |||
| *'''Strong endorse'''. Regardless of anyone's personal feelings, this issue has not been settled and we're ], not ]. These discussions that have been closed for a year have not been resolved in the previous 4 years and previous 12 discussions; it's time to move on. ] (]) 04:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I can't actually endorse, as I clearly object to anyone imposing sanctions on their own, but now that the discussion on the article talk page has been closed by an uninvolved admin and this is now the centralized discussion (if this is actually where all these moratorium discussions take place we may need to move the Hillary discussion if it is still open) I would certainly !vote (as I did in the other discussion) to '''Support a moratorium'''. This is not about beliefs, at least it shouldn't be. It is about whether or not the community feels that there is enough consensus to ask that no further move requests be made for a period of time. I generally feel 6 months is a good period, but if 6 months...why not a year. I do, however hope this will be added as a dislaimer on the talk page so that other users not seeing this discussion or not around at this time will have the proper notifications to not start another move discussion.--] (]) 08:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Endorse the actions by BHG and the moratorium itself. I strongly support a move to creation myth, but that's not the issue here. The issue is disruption of Misplaced Pages with continual going-in-circles move request which we can do without. The question whether an admin can/may unilaterally impose a moratorium are understandable, but in the end just rule-wonkery. If there were significant dispute over the moratorium itself (but there isn't) we would be in a different situation, but we aren't, which renders the meta-issue moot. Spare the discussion for when there is actually something to discuss. ] (]) 13:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse'''. I noted on Jimbo's talk page that perhaps things like an RM moratorium should be discussed and allowed to gain consensus prior to implementation, but putting the cart before the horse in this case won't change the end result. The RMs have obviously long since stopped being productive, and it is time that the involved editors spend some time on other things. They can always reconvene in a year for another round of "all talk, no action". ]] 14:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' At some point, enough is enough. BHG did the right thing. Reopening the same move proposal just 3 months after it had failed for the 11th time fits under the broad definition of disruptive editing, and fashioning a reasonable remedy for disruption should be within an uninvolved admins discretion. Maybe people could constructively spend the next 12 months trying to find a process that could lead to a compromise.--] (]) 23:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' It seems seriously odd that an admin can impose a moratorium on the justification of "enough already" and '''then''' get community consensus. Not to mention that this basically kills off all chance of compromise for twelve months, since it can't even be discussed in any way until that time.] (]) 23:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Apparently quite a few people would agree with you. One could look at it that way, or perhaps the alternative is to view it as a ] issue, especially in light of the overwhelming consensus we have here to create a moratorium. Perhaps outcomes so severe (don't even ''talk'' about it for a year) ought to be discussed first in any case, but at that point the only question is should that have happened first. I see very few people questioning if it (the moratorium) should have happened at all. ] (]) 23:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::It sets a strange precedent. Could an administrator shut down this discussion on the basis that they felt it had gone on long enough and preclude all discussion of the topic for a year? I should hope not. ] (]) 23:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Of course I should hope not as well -- the first time. But we're not talking about the first time. We're talking about an argument that has gone on a dozen times, each time lasting weeks or months, over the course of the last 4 years. "No consensus" has been reached, nor is consensus likely to be reached in the near future without some form of structure being imposed on the discussion other than the freeform course that it always takes. | |||
| ::::The same people who are voting "Oppose" for the moratorium would be the first people to vote to shutter a discussion per SNOW were someone to restart it, mere days after its unresolved closure. All the moratorium does is saves a step in that process: any such discussion has been preemptively SNOWed until it expires. ] (]) 00:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I would just add that BHG promptly brought her moratorium here for review. Since, as you say, it would be completely inappropriate to restart the discussion this soon, were the moratorium to be rejected, no one would be inconvenienced in the slightest.--02:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I have previously seen admins who included such moratoriums in their closes say that they were advisory, rather than binding. That seems to me the correct understanding. There is nothing in the policy on Requested Moves or elsewhere, as far as I can see, that gives admins the power to unilaterally ban RMs for a specified. I would agree that people should take a break here before recurring to the issue, but a year seems an unreasonably long time to me - six months might be a reasonable suggestion. ] (]) 00:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' Regardless of the merits of the arguments to be made on either side, the ''behavior'' of repeatedly nominating something for a move request over and over becomes problematic. Such a moratorium frees up editors to use their skills improving other articles rather than rehashing the exact same stale arguments with the exact same group of combatants over and over again. This moratorium is a good idea. --]''''']''''' 00:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' While I don't disagree with the moratorium itself, the principles behind it and the precedents set by it are seriously flawed. ] (]) 00:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' 12 move requests since 2010 is far too many. After reading the discussions, it seems to me that editors involved have better places to devote their time. So in place of topic bans, blocks or whatever for being disruptive, a moratorium is probably the best course. Moratoriums are placed by closers in various circumstances, and this one clearly fits the criteria. Thanks. ] (]) 00:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse'''. A dozen move requests since 2010 is ], as is making the exact same request just three months after the previous one failed. BHG was correct in placing the moratorium and made the correct call to seek approval here. '''] <sup><span style="color:#FFD700; font-family:serif">Go Bruins!</span></sup>''' 03:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' By bringing the matter here BHG is making it clear that the moratorium is community supported (if this discussion so chooses; otherwise there is no moratorium). Accordingly, objections based on the horror of an admin imposing a solution do not apply. Time spent debating whether BHG filled in the correct forms is time wasted—what counts is whether it would be desirable for move requests to be debated every few weeks until eternity (''no'', it wouldn't—any decision would be better than that). ] (]) 10:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Perpetual debate''' tries one's patience. It drags people into a debate almost unwillingly. This becomes a matter of endurance. I agree that someone should put the brakes on the reopening of this debate with a frequency that seems unreasonable to me. I guess I '''endorse'''. Disclosure: I am one who opposes the proposed move. ] (]) 11:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' I recently closed one RfC endorsing a moratorium because it was clear that the same old arguments had been repeated ''ad infinitum'', & nothing would be accomplished by hashing them over & again except to exhaust one or the other party & achieve a change as if the discussion were a ]. (I set it indefinite on the basis that if someone had a point or argument that hadn't been expressed, then the discussion could be reopened; so the moratorium could be permanent -- or a few days.) Yes, consensus does change -- sometimes for the better, sometimes the worse -- but repeated restating of the same points only serves to harden opposing viewpoints, not to create a new consensus. People need to remember that silence & reflection are also part of the process. -- ] (]) 15:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' - It may be uncertain whether individual admins can impose moratoria but a decision at WP:AN certainly can do so and that's where we are at now. A dozen move requests since 2010 certainly passes the barrier on whether a moratorium is reasonable. Would it seriously be beneficial to the encyclopedia to look forward to a new move proposal every three months from now on? There is some history of moratoria being imposed at ] in contentious article naming disputes, for instance though that was under Arbcom authority which is different from a community decision. ] (]) 18:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' - No point in debating this over and over. Moratorium might be a good idea at ] as an alternative to arbitration. ] (]) 18:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' - too much time is wasted on repeating the same request over and over. ] (]) 21:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' - This does not set a precedent. Admins have often laid down conditions on articles. And there are a small number of articles that seem to have endless and unproductive move discussions. I support a 12-month ban on moves on this article, and a more general (but shorter) one on initiating repeated requests on all articles. ] (]) 22:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong endorse''' - Neither editors nor admins on this project are robots, and I thoroughly appreciate it when an admin takes what could be a controversial action in order to do the right thing and quell the problem. Sure, they take a risk when they do so, and since we're quick to jump on them when their judgment seems wrong, we should be equally quick to stand behind them and thank them when they are right. ] (]) 01:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| --- | |||
| *'''Question''' This will sweep a difficult issue under the carpet nicely, for a while, and please those who support the status quo. But what will be different next time, whenever it happens? ] (]) 03:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI. | |||
| **A convincing new argument, which gains community consensus should do it. A massive infusion of Non-involved input would be good. Both sides need time and space to muster new sources and approaches to argue this to a decisive conclusion. This is just attrition at the moment. A moratorium system would dovetail into this method. I do see a way through. Just not every 3 months or so. Its just groundhog day. ] (]) 04:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Uwappa replies to refuse de-escalation. | |||
| ***How about coming up with a different proposed name the next time a move is requested? Perhaps begin with a discussion of possible alternatives?--] (]) 11:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ****I can't see how that can be a solution. One of the arguments of those who want change is that all religious creation stories should be treated the same. (I know some will want to argue against that, but this isn't the place to do it. I am not presenting the argument. I am describing it.) There's no point asking someone who thinks that it should be called a myth, because other articles are, to propose a different name. That's not asking them to compromise. that's asking them to drop their case completely. ] (]) 11:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *****I have no doubt that many who support the move are so uncompromising, but perhaps some supporters might accept a different approach, and thereby build more of a consensus, rather than the present standoff. If it really is all or nothing, then perhaps a one year moratorium isn't long enough.--] (]) 22:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ******This is not the place to discuss the content dispute. ] (]) 22:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| == RFPP is once more flooded, mops to hand == | |||
| :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) | |||
| Another week, another "oh right, RFPP is a thing" reminder. Currently we're at 52 requests pending so we're in need of a little attention over there and probably something else so we don't have to post something at AN every few weeks it happens. ] (]) 17:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, that is why I felt it important to make clear that our time zones are very widely spaced, which makes collaboration difficult in the best of circumstances. When they do see it, I would expect they will take some time offline to polish their response before posting it{{snd}} and consequently it is likely to be as long again before I respond. ] (]) 20:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Reposted above from archive, see ] | |||
| :I took care of a bunch of them. FYI, admins being in short supply is hardly a problem unique to RFPP. --] (]) 23:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The rest have also been taken care of so thanks to those mucking in. I know admins being in short supply isn't unique to RFPP but would be nice if we could get some admins who'd have a regular look see every 24 hours or so to prevent backlogs of requests for something I see as fairly crucial to the wiki. ] (]) 08:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::It finals week for most university students. I would expect some delay in admin tasks until mid-may. --] | ] 19:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Done some - more to do. Gotta do stuff elsewhere so anyone wanna do a few..is good. ] (] '''·''' ]) 05:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page: | |||
| == Askahrc == | |||
| ::::You escaped sanction because there were too many more egregious cases in the pipeline and it is a first offence. ANI does not adjudicate on content disputes, only on behaviour and compliance with fundamental principles. The evidence against you was really unarguable; I have seen quite a few cases and I know how they play out: if it had reached a conclusion, you would have been blocked until you acknowledged that you had gotten carried away in the heat of the moment, that you understand and accept ], ], ] and ], and that from now on you commit to respecting them. I strongly advise that you take the message anyway. --] (]) 12:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I would like an uninvolved admin to notify {{userlinks|Askahrc}} per ]. The user was minimallty active for some time then returned in 2013, since when they have been showing obsessive support of the agendas of ] and his supporter/apologist ]. The views of both are ]. This user now purports to ''mediate'' in the "dispute" between {{userlinks|SAS81}} (an openly declared media representative for Chopra) and world+dog. ] is interesting too. This user appears to have lost interest in Misplaced Pages then returned after a hiatus to ]. | |||
| :::::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. | |||
| SAS81 has engaged in ] because he does not like the sound of the word "no". This is expected and normal under the circumstances. Several users in good standing are counselling him on the Misplaced Pages way of doing things, and this is ongoing. I mention this user only for completeness: I do not, at this time, advocate sanctions against him. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Would you like me to repost your escalation? ] (]) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I strongly advise that you read ] before you write another line. ] (]) 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Askahrc has already been notified of discretionary sanctions, and indeed has already been sanctioned for harassing users from behind a sockpuppet and for wasting the community's time. | |||
| :There is a ] on him at AE, with "a low bar for reporting newer disruption". ], AE is likely a better place for this. I have evidence to submit about the recent continuation of his attacks against me (I was the one who exposed his sockpuppeting/harassing activities). ] 01:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not sure I understand the cause of this notification. I've been intermittently active (including long hiatuses during the discussion over Sheldrake) for many years and have always tried to keep a neutral, reasonable tone to my contributions. I've never shown support for the agenda of Rupert Sheldrake (I was arguing against the ], ''not'' for Sheldrake's views) or Deepak Chopra. If you disagree, please show a diff. | |||
| ::I have edited numerous other pages besides Sheldrake (which I haven't touched in months) and Chopra, and was introduced to the Chopra issue independently via the BLP board, where the exact same referencing help as I did for ]. On Chopra I've been to establish to determine which sources would be most valid and applicable, namely focusing on independent secondary sources. Far from endorsing his agenda, I have over existing secondaries. I have been from very different view points and we've been making . All of my suggestions have been for a ''stronger'' emphasis on reliable sources, ''not'' a relaxing of ]. | |||
| ::I know we've had in the past, ], but I honestly don't see the issue here. Also, what do the SPI's Vzaak keeps pushing against me have to do with this? He got me warned once, then tried it again and ]. It's frustrating to try to contribute in good faith and be called "obsessed" over something I've never once spoken in favor of, let alone have bring up this SPI issue. ] (]) 01:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::@], see above about bringing up the SPI (over and over again), but otherwise what "continuing attacks" are you referring to? I've done nothing against you since bringing up my issues about you continually bringing cases against me (], ], ) at AR. I honestly would like nothing more than to leave you alone and vice-versa. Voluntary IBAN? | |||
| :::And yet again, '''''what disruption?''''' I'm mediating a discussion on citing secondary sources, how is that disruptive in any way? Let it go, Vzaak, I don't want to fight with you. ] (]) 01:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} I'm a little unclear about what is happening here. What is the problem actually? All I can add is that the Capn came into help on the BLP noticeboard and chimed in on my COI noticeboard and offered to help mediate. I also do not agree with Guy's assesment that I have a hard time being told 'no'. I was not aware he was in charge I was under the impression that Misplaced Pages is collaborative and Capn appears like a collaborative editor while Guy seems very angry that I am here. Capn has been very helpful in a very difficult situation, I wish there were a few more like him. ] (]) 02:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :@Askahrc responded to a request on the BLP notice board and has attempted to <strike>mediate</strike> what had become a contentious article. His actions and behaviour have been appropriate and neutral, and he has provided a somewhat even tone to a sometimes less than pleasant environment. I see no reason to have brought him here. (] (]) 02:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)) | |||
| :: @Vzaak: I agree, but I am involved so someone else needs to do it. | |||
| :: @Littleolive oil: No they have not, because he is not "uninvolved" and he also has a significant history of POV-pushing, including sanctions in this exact area. Whoever should mediate (and actually mediation is not necessary, the iussue is just that the Chjopra media machine is trying to buff up the article), it should not and cannot be Askahrc. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I do not think that {{user|Askahrc}} has the basic level of ] required to mediate. This may be due to the ]. Either way, a bizarre and ineffective mediation attempt that will inevitably follow unless he is stopped is just going to create ] for the sake of it. ] (]) 11:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|JzG}} Like anyone, you can submit a case to AE if there is sufficient disruption, with the "low bar" in mind. I haven't followed the recent Chopra events enough to address that. I was alarmed, however, to see Askahrc casting an aspersion on the Chopra talk page. If someone submits an AE I will add to it, otherwise we give ]. | |||
| ::::However the issue with ] is it is already getting long. Askahrc uses a sockpuppet to bully users, then brings an arbcom case about bullying. Askahrc promulgates battleground polemics on-wiki and off-wiki, then brings an arbcom case about battleground behavior. After being sanctioned for wasting the community's time with the first arbcom request, Askahrc submits a second time-wasting arbcom request. After arbitrators tell him to use AE in the first arbcom request, Askahrc brings another arbcom request without using AE (perhaps because there is a tabled AE request on him with a "low bar" for reporting future disruptions). After being caught harassing users with a sockpuppet, Askahrc uses AE and a formal arbcom request as a platform to cast evidence-free ] against the person who caught him, and now after a hiatus Askahrc resumes it on the Chopra talk page. ] 14:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@Guy. Askahrc had edited the Deepak Chopra article before he responded at the BLP NB? I don't believe so. I have no comment on what is happening on the Chopra article at this time but, I think we can agree to disagree. | |||
| :::::I am differentiating between an editor who comes into an article as either an informal mediator or formal mediator per our DR system and one who is attempting to steer to a neutral ground, (Askharc) maintains civility and so far is not pushing an agenda on to the other editors. As an aside, I am always put off and become suspicious when an editor's past is dragged up in a dispute as is happening here as a means to support an attack on that editor. Such an action intended or not dirties the water so we can't see what if any the real issues are at this point in time, on this article. Whether the editor is successful at mediating a situation is not the issue. Mediation with even the most experienced mediators is often unsuccessful in my experience. What is at issue are the allegations made which I believe are unfounded.(] (]) 14:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)) | |||
| :Thank you, ], I appreciate you weighing in. I've shown numerous diffs documenting what we're working on in Chopra, while I still haven't seen any showing supposed disruption. A few rejoinders: | |||
| *'''@]''' I cast no aspersions on Chopra, I clarified an editors incongruous mention of SPI, and have backed it up with diffs. Speaking of aspersions, you are repeatedly misrepresenting events to suit your audience (and I think you could fit in your failed AE's "low bar for future disruptions" quote a few dozen more times, but be careful not to bring up ]). You contradict yourself by saying that when the first arbreq was tabled I never sought the requested AE, ''then'' mention me harassing people with an an evidence-free AE. The truth is that I ''did'' ], it was filled with diffs of evidence and the admins agreed that the people it was brought against were acting inappropriately and needed to be sanctioned. Finally, you admit that you haven't actually read the progress on the Chopra page, but are apparently just endorsing this AN out of an assumption that ''anything'' I'm working on must be disruptive. You got me with one SPI and have been gunning for me since, even arguing with an admin when your ]. Please back off, Vzaak, this is inappropriate behavior. | |||
| *'''@]''', claiming that I have a mental disorder that is typified by gross incompetence, extreme ignorance and even brain damage is a clear violation of ], something you've been ]. Again, you claim that mediation will inevitably become "bizarre and ineffective" unless I am stopped, without showing any diffs, examples or evidence of my supposedly outlandish behavior, nor of being familiar with the Chopra talk page. | |||
| *'''@]''', you said ''"because he is not "uninvolved" and he also has a significant history of POV-pushing, including sanctions in this exact area,"'' which is factually incorrect. I've never worked on the Chopra page before the BLP, I've never been sanctioned for POV-pushing and despite people like Barney (]) asserting otherwise, I have never seen a single diff showing any POV-pushing on my part. I chimed in briefly on the Sheldrake page, but pretty much all of my effort there was insisting editors needed to be more civil and stop issuing AN's, AE's and SPI's against the people who disagreed with them. The result was that I've been since hit with AN's, AE's and SPI's. Take what you will from that, but my participation on WP has always been to increase neutrality and sourcing, NOT to push a POV that I don't even agree with. | |||
| :Basically, I feel like I'm being presented as the boogeyman, but no one has actually presented any evidence of these grave disruptions I'm supposedly involved in. Instead I'm looking at assertions, personal attacks and more assertions. I'm getting really tired of logging in to pursue a hobby and dealing with senseless hostility from the same exact people over and over again. With all due respect to those involved, spend your time making WP better instead of following people around and trying to get them banned. ] (]) 17:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The only drama I see being caused is by a number of the editors commenting here who keep on pushing this battleground mentality and don't want to drop it. In my COIN, an uninvolved admin even weighed in on the activity of 'skeptics' on the page and mentioning directly that it makes the community look Capn agreed to help mediate in that COI because this admin was asking if there was any uninvolved editors who could help bring a balance. Capn offered. Other editors have PM'd me telling me they don't want to get too involved because of this harassment. In the meantime I'm still getting pinged and one of the editors here (vzaak) who is not even involved in editing the article is bringing up some conspiracy plot they believe either I or capn is involved ]. I'd like to offer a solution to this rather bizarre environment. Let's just focus on content. If we do that then problem is solved. ] (]) 17:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I simply asked why you brought me into it, and the answer you proffered didn't make sense. I had a right to ask. I didn't say you were part of a conspiracy. | |||
| :::Regarding your concern about "skeptics" looking bad, the issue is that Askahrc had previously been sockpuppeting in the role of a "skeptic" harassing users and issuing threats in an effort to make "skeptics" look bad. On the Deepak Chopra page, he has continued his effort to discredit me as retribution for catching him sockpuppeting. This behavior is not acceptable. | |||
| :::Incidentally, I have never called myself a "skeptic" and I don't associate with any such groups. The primary problem I see with the "Guerrilla Skeptics" is their stupid name. If a group of regular, non-misbehaving Misplaced Pages editors call themselves "The Misbehaving Misplaced Pages Editors", and then they roll their eyes when people accuse them of misbehaving, that is stupid. ] 18:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Barney's statement suggesting Askhahrc is suffering from a mental disorder is unacceptable and unconscionable and most especially in the context of this discussion.(] (]) 18:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)) | |||
| :::: {{user|Littleolive oil}} has apparently taken {{user|askahrc}}'s bizarre accusations at face value without clearly reading what I originally wrote. To clarify, I have not, never have, and never will accuse anyone, especially {{user|askahrc}}, of being mentally ill. I do not really care what illnesses {{user|askahrc}} has. What I do accuse {{user|askahrc}} of is rank incompetence, contrary to ], and lacking even the basic competence to understand that he's not competent. This is what ] says - ]). This is with great justification as outlined by {{user|Vzaak}}. | |||
| :::: Actually, I believe I was being extremely generous in accusing {{user|askahrc}}, and assuming good faith that he's not just a thoroughbred troll, just completely incompetent. | |||
| :::: I believe this is the worst case I have ever seen of a user falsely whining "personal attacks" when confronted with basic damning evidence against his anti-consensus behaviour. In this I assume that in good faith {{user|Askahrc}} is not deliberately lying, but just not competent enough to distinguish fair commentary on his capabilities from personal attacks. ] (]) 18:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Yes. I'm familiar with both the condition and what you wrote. You suggested here an editor may be suffering from what is a mental illness, "This may be due to the ]." | |||
| I assume now you did not mean to suggest mental illness. You might consider retracting the comment. I might add that suggesting another Misplaced Pages editor is completely incompetent is a lot to take on oneself. (] (]) 19:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)) | |||
| Since no uninvolved admins have weighed in and this has become yet another tit-for-tat squabble among the , I suggest this be closed. If there is evidence of misconduct, present the diffs at AN/I, I'm not sure why this dispute was brought to AN. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 21:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : @{{user|Little olive oil}} - the ] is not a mental illness. Please stop displaying your ignorance by claiming that it is or might be construed as such. | |||
| : It is also usually considered best if a "mediator" in a dispute has the confidence of all parties involved. Since {{user|Askahrc}} clearly doesn't have the confidence of those broadly as "sceptics", it is clear that he can't and shouldn't be getting involved. ] (]) 21:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Barney: Dunning-Kruger can overlap in some with or as anosognosia which can in turn overlap with psychosis. At any rate although I guess its better not to comment on the editor but stick to the edits. Askahrc has the right to be involved as any of us do. As I said above. I did not see him as a mediator (and I have struck the word since it was causing confusion) per our DR but simply as a neutral-toned editor. (] (]) 22:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)) | |||
| Apparently Askahrc claims to be "uninvolved" because he has not edited the Chopra article. He has, however, been involved with the parallel article on Rupert Sheldrake: Sheldrake has been prominently supported by Chopra and the two reference each other, Chopra holding up Sheldrake as an example of trying to "bridge the gap between science and religion" (a little like trying to bridge the gap between Sakatchewan and sasquatch: a futile and meaningless exercise). The two are inextricably linked, and the common thread is extremely relevant in that in both cases the problem is the rejection of the subject's conjectures by the reality-based community. That plus a prior ArbCom sanction indicate that Askahrc is absolutely not a proper person to even offer to mediate, and definitely will not be accepted by a number of those with whom the purported mediation is required. In fact, no mediation is required, only patient explanation of why Misplaced Pages will never portray Chopra as a medical visionary until credible scientific evidence is produced to support his beliefs. It's taken medical science a century to slay the ghost of superstition, vitalism and magical thinking, Chopra basically represents the undead corpse of this unlamented triumvirate. That's not our problem to fix. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah, beautifully written, but an opinion. While we can respect the opinion we don't have to base an article on it. You are right though in that Saskatchewan and Sasguatch are not related although there may be Sasquatch in Saskatchewan. They'd have to fight off the grizzlies, though.(] (]) 22:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)) | |||
| :::Correction, ], I don't have ''your'' confidence, the discussion on Chopra (of which I'm just one member) is progressing nicely toward a reasoned consensus. There have been no problems there, but you wouldn't know since you haven't been involved in the discussion. Do you have anything productive to add besides insults and calling users ignorant and incompetent? | |||
| :::And ], I've never tried to assert that Sheldrake or Chopra (btw, one mention of Sheldrake by Chopra does not make the two inextricably linked) are medical visionaries, medically mainstream or anything related to the unlamented ghosts of superstition you brought up in your ] speech. Also, the ArbCom you reference sanctioned me on the first round of SPI's vzaak brought against me, ''not'' on POV issues (he brought that too, but it was tabled for a complete lack of evidence). | |||
| :::I'm so tired of this nonsensical-talking-in-circles, I don't come on here to fight. ''You keep claiming I'm POV-pushing, then I ask for POV diffs, and then you bring up something completely unrelated, then I ask for POV diffs, then you go on about the grand scheme of things, then I ask for POV diffs, then your associates pop in with PA's, then I ask for POV diffs, then you claiming I'm POV-pushing again...'' For crying out loud, take a breath and look around! I've been working civilly and productively with editors who share our perspective (yes, '''ours''', if you'd take a second to read my posts) to find consensus in organizing secondary sources by reliability in an objective method. It's preposterous that this is contentious! ] (]) 23:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Thanks {{user|Askahrc}} - I don't present myself as some kind of spokesman, but I'm confident that most of the ]-fighters from ] basically agree with me that you shouldn't get involved in this. I don't want to name drop, it's terribly unbecoming. ] (]) 23:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} PLEASE STOP! This is so juvenile and childish and disappointing to see Misplaced Pages operate this way. It's not hard to see what is going on here. If I never came to Dr. Chopra's article, I don't think anyone would be going after the capn. Considering that Guy, Barney the Barney and Vzaak all seem to want him to go once he started to help. Yet neither Guy, Barney or Vzaak are making any contributions in the discussion other than accusations, soapbox speeches and aspersions, they are simply NOT HERE to contribute! | |||
| ] why you're involving yourself here when you claim to be so uninvolved is rather unscrupulous. No one mentioned anything about any skeptical groups, and I find the claim that you do not consider yourself a sceptic to be a very dubious considering your contribution history. At least Guy and Barney are upfront, I know where they stand. And I also don't appreciate you misrepresenting our discussion, you did accuse me on my talk page of withholding information which by definition would make me apart of this conspiracy your so convinced and excited about. Also, since you decided to single yourself out and bring your own actions to my attention, ''this conspiracy theory trip your on about Dr Chopra is over the top and bordering on something I would rather not mention.'' I noticed that you recently accused the capn somehow of being in cahoots with Dr Chopra regarding the Ralph Abrams issue???? are you serious? And I see you have a hard time letting that conspiracy theory go as well, plastering Misplaced Pages with this gibberish.], ] ]. | |||
| PLEASE STOP THIS ALL OF YOU! I am here to help diffuse a , I'm not naive to the environment here. When I see editors gang up on the one or two editors from the outside that are trying to help and the levels of effort they make to harm them sends chills up my spine and makes me question how Misplaced Pages could ever operate this way. Very sad to see this! ] (]) 00:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Uninvolved admin(s), please either weigh in or close this case. Otherwise, the bickering will continue which is not a profitable use of this space or your time. Accusations without evidence are just that, accusations. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 00:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|SAS81}} This is off the rails. Stop accusing me of this "conspiracy" stuff. You have seemingly misinterpreted effectively all of what I have said recently and in the past. You are linking to things that are manifestly not conspiracies, like the WMF server cache bug issue. It is not some "wild idea" that Askahrc engaged in deception by using a sockpuppet to harass editors. That is a formal finding logged at the arbcom page on pseudoscience. ] 01:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] I appreciate your support, but I'd recommend you keep your distance from this debacle. I'm happy to help you (or anyone who asks) with sourcing, but as a COI you're probably going to be held to a different standard and I'd feel bad if you got roped in and started getting slammed with vague accusations like I've been recently. They've repeatedly gotten hostile against ] and all she did was comment that they were being uncivil. | |||
| ::I urge you to not give up on WP policies and continue operating openly and honestly. Be careful of getting involved in third party disputes like this as it will ''not'' help your case, even if what you read is outlandish. As a COI, it may not be helpful to ''my'' case, either. I have faith in WP procedures; this trio have no evidence, argument or position other than their personal dislike of me and I trust any given admin (aside from Guy, of course) to see that. | |||
| ::@] you aren't addressing the fact that after the SPI (which concluded with just "Fairly Convincing") you kept accusing me of socking, ] until an admin told you to stop. Nor that your associate ] for ] and ]. | |||
| ::I'm through contributing to this meaningless wall of back & forth. I've tried to answer questions, be civil and explain the situation, but it appears useless. If someone has a question, please ask me, otherwise I'll spend my time doing something useful. ] (]) 01:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Askahrc, it is not right for you to continue to cast evidence-free ]. If you wish to disentangle yourself, stop casting aspersions. I never simply "accuse" anyone of socking, as you suggest. Rather, when there is ''evidence'' of socking, I file an SPI. Two administrators concluded that you were socking because of the ''evidence'' showing that you were socking. Regarding the second SPI, there was ample ''evidence'' for a checkuser request, and indeed a checkuser was run. You now claim that an admin told me to "stop". No administrator said any such thing (stop what?). You have been given many warnings: cease casting evidence-free aspersions. By contrast, the SPIs I have filed are backed up by solid ''evidence''. If you have ''evidence'' of misconduct on my part, take it to ] immediately. ] 02:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * I don't know if it would be considered relevant, but a note on my talk page indicates that Askahrc is collaborating with Tunmbleman and suggest that this campaign is intentionally disruptive. Make of it what you will. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::''Reluctantly poking my head back in...'' @], that note was left by an editor who was ] for misrepresentation, incivility and PA's about the very issue they're bringing up again. ] (]) 08:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: That conversation on ] called "Cap’n McDouche" is disturbing as editor ] is seeking collaborators and ideas for ways to get ] kicked off Misplaced Pages and s/he also badmouths Olive and myself. Publicly conspiring to drive editors one has differences with off Misplaced Pages is hounding and disruptive and should be discouraged. It also confirms what The Cap'n has been saying about a small group of editors persistently seeking ways to get him blocked for no other reason than they disagree with him. @76 has already received one block for his behavior towards The Cap'n but admins should be aware of this plotting. They admittedly want to get The Cap'n blocked, they are just looking for a reason...they have tried several times but have not succeeded. I don't think any editor should have to put up with this. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 16:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I agree, but there is also an external problem related to Tumbleman and Askahrc's rather openly stated agenda to achieve more sympathetic coverage of Sheldrake (which of course relates directly to Chopra). I think we are seen on-wiki facets of an off-wiki dispute, which is further complicated by the existence of a long-term on-wiki dispute, use of sockpuppets (including by Askahrc) and meatpuppetry. In short, the whole thing is a hideous mess. Normally I'd just have nuked the anon comment but it does set the spidey-sense tingling. That siad, you are right, it is blatant trolling and I have now removed it. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Per ], ] received a two week block and there is now a two month interaction ban between ] and ]. I realize that it doesn't look like this post will lead to any admin action against any editor but I thought it should be updated to reflect the result of the related ARE case. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 21:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Admin needed at ] == | |||
| {{Done}} | |||
| The article is supposed to be about MS Windows, but the whole thing is currently reading (at least on my machine) as a thing related to WP:HATNOTE. Not sure what happened there, but it definitely needs a looksee, and one form an admin because the page is protected at the moment. ] (]) 02:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Everything looks normal to me. Please try refreshing your cache or purging the page. -- ] (]) 02:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::That was because of an edit to ], now fixed. As Diannaa says, ] should fix any articles that are still using the broken version. — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 04:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| {{archive top|Hoax article deleted, hoaxer has not returned. ] (]) 10:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| Hello. This article has been speedy delete in and , as encyclopedic irrelevant and hoax. I notice that here was placed a , but instead an . In my home wiki it´s not allowed to do that, but I'm not familiar with the processes in the english wiki, so I prefer to inform about here. Regards, <span style="background: #EECCFF;">] <small>(])</small></span> 06:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC) '''PS''': Looking more close at the , the page has already been propose and every time the template has been change or eliminated by the user who created the article or an IP. Please, an admin need to look at the article. | |||
| :It is permitted to remove a BLP-prod template if a reference is provided that verifies what the article says. The reference added here does not. Rather than simply replace the BLP-prod, I will nominate this at ]. ] (]) 07:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Done, see ]. Thank you, {{u|Frei sein}}. ] (]) 08:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I said there, this is borderline CSD#G3. Not sure what that says about the editor. ] | ] | ] 13:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I reckon, let sleeping hoaxers lie, unless he makes a nuisance of himself by removing the AfD template or vandalising the discussion; then block as ]. His Spanish block is a username block: ''Viola la política de nombres de usuario.'' His first name may be related to ''pedo'' = a fart, ''pedorrero'' = one given to farting, which my dictionary marks as ''tabu'', but I can't make anything of his second. My wife thinks it may mean something rude in Basque. ] (]) 17:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Skookum1 again again == | |||
| I've reverted the collapse at ]; closure may be appropriate, as we weren't getting anywhere, but the closure header is not a possible interpretation of what needs to be done, even by {{u|Skookum1}}, himself. — ] ] 17:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :It's not often I find myself agreeing with Arthur Rubin. I have stricken the last part of the NAC closure. The admins in question were acting in their admin capacity and on the request of other users. They are to be commended for attempting to take on this messy and thankless chore. —] (]) 03:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Point of Order: It is undesirable to alter the archived version of the discussion. Best practices would suggest unarchiving the discussion with a new subsection at the bottom of it disputing the closure. But if the thread is to remain in the archives, it is best to leave it in an unaltered state. Rgrds. --] (]) 04:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is undesirable for such an absurd comment close a discussion, indicating there may be some support for it. If '''you''' want to reopen it, that's fine, although the probable consequence would be for Skookum1 to be banned, which I do not want. — ] ] 05:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Forgeten vandalism == | |||
| {{archive top|the "vandal" was admin {{u|Feezo}} and the OP has been blocked as the latest in a string of sockpuppets who have targetted this article. ] (]) 21:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| *I found forgeten vandalism on article. Some vandal with username Feezo removed category, links to other articles and he deleted part of article with informations about new series. I cannot edit this page because it protected.--] (]) 18:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Vandal? You're sure? ] -] 19:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Anjaan333 == | |||
| Hi, I'm reporting this user to ANI because they continue to be disruptive. I previously reported {{u|Anjaan333}} for edit warring . User kept trying to edit ] to his/her preferred vision, failed to participate in discussions, failed to respond to warnings, failed to properly explain their edits, and was ultimately blocked for long-term edit warring. I also opened an ] after noting a suspicious new account {{U|Sajay the future of india}}, which was created 2 hours after Anjaan received his 48 block, making the same fundamental edits. Anjaan's block expired, and he's again submitted disputed content at ]. In the user again submits their version of the article, which they had submitted multiple times before their block.. From what I can tell, the user is randomly reordering names, changing references, making assertions about box office gross that isn't supported by the source (User asserts 50 crore total, source says "close to 49", and the community apparently disputes the reliability of the sources used), Anjaan333 fails to actually DISCUSS the edits per ] (see I placed on his talk page asking him to do just that) and his edit summaries are insufficient, tending to comprise confusing statements like "if you are a mohanlal fan then saw his films not distroy wiki", "Ok sir", "Sir", "Sock", "Socker", "Sorry", "Where is unsourced". Since there seems to be no getting through to this editor, I think this goes beyond edit-warring, and is just straight-up disruptive editing. User also didn't respond when he was notified of the edit warring report I filed, so I doubt he's going to let us reason with him. Thanks, ] (]) 06:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The user's unwillingness or inability to use talk pages is troublesome and either a symptom of ] or ]. -- ] 17:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Or perhaps it's a sign that we really do need ]. ] (]) 18:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Amen. The instructions on how to use talk pages sent out by OTRS result in a response of utter bafflement about half the time. And they are pretty clear. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::# Go to the article in question | |||
| :::::# Click "talk" at the top | |||
| :::::# Click "New section" | |||
| :::::# Enter a heading in the first box,and your message in the second. Put ~~<nowiki />~~ at the end to sign your message. | |||
| :::::# Click the "save page" button at the bottom. | |||
| :::::All the best: ''] ]'', <small>20:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| ::::::This is a good proof of the problem: You have provided instructions on how to start a new discussion section, and the complaint is that the user is not replying to existing comments. ] (]) 19:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Contested renaming of Đeneral Janković == | |||
| ] article is renamed, contrary to the outcome of the last RM discussion. Will somebody restore its name prior to contested renaming. Thanks.--] (]) 07:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I've moved it back with a note that, as a controversial (to say the least) subject area, any renaming must be done through the ] process. I'm about to drop a note on the mover's talk page pointing out the same thing. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 07:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you.--] (]) 08:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == WP:SPI == | |||
| ] has an enormous backlog with at least one case listed 9 days ago awaiting action. --] (]) 12:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The people that you should speak to about that are at ]. ] ] 18:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Scratching my head == | |||
| Ive come across a page that Im really not sure whats happening. ] has ~17+ editors editing it, most of these users its their only activity. Im not sure exactly what is going on. Is this some kind of sock issue or what? ] (]) 15:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :School project? ]] 15:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::That was my first guess, too. Note that Djgriffin7 previously did a lot of work on ] (formerly a page in Djgriffin7's userspace), who like Frank is a communications professor. Also, a lot of the usernames editing this page end in "93" or "94", which would suggest a class of college students who are 20 or 21 years old. ] (]) 15:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ec}} A bunch of students working on their professor's article would be my random guess, but surely the easiest way to find out is probably to ask one of them on their talk page? ] (]) 15:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::...or to be more efficient ask {{ping|Djgriffin7}} as he is likely the co-ordinator. ]] 15:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Based on the IPs that have edited the page, I would say it is a project from State University of New York at Buffalo. ] ] 15:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's definitely a class project at ]. See . Re ], see ]. It would also be helpful to put him in touch with ]. ] (]) 15:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Hello - yes - these two pages are class projects for students who are enrolled in Communication Theory courses. Out of the approximately 75 students across two classes at two schools not one of them had ever edited Misplaced Pages in any fashion (until now). I hope that our activity was not too troublesome and was not so erratic or error filled as to cause any problems. I of course am a new Misplaced Pages editor and am open and welcome any tips or advice. Graciously. ] (]) 18:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : ], we have a ] area that you would usually contact ''in advance'' of the project in order to help alleviate concerns like this, and coordinate the types of learning that are conducive to Misplaced Pages. This will help you to ensure your student success! <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for guiding me in this direction. I am dying to know what a "sock issue" is as referenced by User:Werieth above. I couldn't find it on Google or via Misplaced Pages. Can someone explain? ] (]) 17:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::See ]. And for similar policy, see ]. ] (]) 07:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Offensive rhetoric== | |||
| IP ] comment, labeled ''Misplaced Pages all-time low'', at ], labels unspecified WP contributors as "neo-nazis." We don't need such invective in connection with such a potentially fraught topic. ] (]) 21:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : You can place a warning on their talk page. That's a start. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 22:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Someone (not I) already removed it. ] (]) 15:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Template:Ds/sanction move request == | |||
| I have initiated a move request to move ] to ]. The template has been deprecated with use for Arbitration Committee sanctions, and turned into a redirect to Template:Ds/alert, however the template is still being used for Community Sanctions, with modification, since there is no documented sanctioning template for Community Sanctions. The move request is at ]. —] (]) 11:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Quality of article creations == | |||
| As most of you are probably aware, I have a long-standing history with ]. Some of you feel that I should leave him alone, either because my complaints are meritless (which is contradicted by the results of these discussions), or because there is no need in a wiki-environment for one person to follow the edits of another, no matter how many times they have found problems in them; the theory is that if it is bad enough, someone else will notice it. In reality, this make take quite a while though; once editors are established, their edits get very little scrutiny, as evidenced by the below. | |||
| In an effort to reduce the number of complaints and errors, Rich Farmbrough has received three ], basically an attempt to improve the quality of his editing by reducing the quantity and repetitiveness of them. While the restrictions seem to be followed now, the wanted results are lacking. I have focused on the articles he created since his return, the ones listed between ] and ], i.e. (not counting the disambiguation pages) some 43 articles. I have not focused on his many redirect creations, although they have some of the same characteristics, like the self-referencing ] or the dubious value of ], which seems to be a novel invention, not something really ever used by Picasso or in any serious work about him. | |||
| Not mentioning simply unsourced articles or articles with serious typos, and skipping those I was not able to quickly research (e.g. biographies of Japanese military personnel), I noticed among these 43 new, often very short articles the following problems (in reverse chronological order): | |||
| *] | |||
| **Wrong year of birth and death (article gives (1815-1874), correct would be either 1845 (10 December) or 1846 as year of birth, and 1886 as year of death, e.g. | |||
| **Wrong business (politician? Can't find any evidence for it) | |||
| **Lanigan or Lannigan? Article was moved, but lead not corrected | |||
| **No references | |||
| *] | |||
| **Merged an existing article with the right name to his newly created one with the wrong name (original was ], note the extra "R" in borne) | |||
| *] | |||
| **Only claim to fame is a book he wrote, ''Giovanni Sbogarro: A Venetian Tale''. In reality, he didn’t write that book, but translated it from the French (original by ], ''Jean Sbogar, Histoire d’un Bandit Illyrien''), which leaves us with a distinct lack of any notability in the article. | |||
| **Originally claimed that the book was written in 1920 instead of 1820, corrected by someone else | |||
| *] | |||
| **Title and first line don’t match; title is wrong, should be at Rantzau, not Rantzou | |||
| **Unsourced | |||
| *] | |||
| **1838-1956: really? That’s quite a feat | |||
| **We already had the article ] on the same person… | |||
| **Image is probably still copyrighted (uploaded to Commons as PD by Rich Farmbrough, but artist died in 1945, so not dead for 70 years yet) | |||
| *] | |||
| **Born in 1842? No, born in 1840 (some sources give 1848, but none seem to give 1842) | |||
| **Better known as Olga Novikoff or Olga Novikova, or especially Olga Alekseevna Novikova, but very rarely, if ever, as Olga de Kireef Novikoff (no Google books or regular google hits outside Misplaced Pages and its mirrors) | |||
| *] | |||
| **Her real name is not "Louis Dwight Cole" but "Lois Dwight Cole", much better known than the rarely used pseudonym Anne Lattin. Important for playing a crucial role in publishing ''Gone with the wind'' as an editor, not for her few books, but that can't be learned from the article | |||
| **Born c. 1910? Well, actually, born 1903, died 20 July 1979 | |||
| *] | |||
| **Almirante de Melo was a sailor? Well, yes, "almirante" is the Portuguese for "admiral", so he was an admiral, as someone else helpfully added as a category afterwards… Perhaps technically not wrong, but not helpful for our readers at all. | |||
| *] | |||
| **Taking three days to die? No, some Sergeant-Major, the only one to survive the massacre and reach camp, survived for three days: the Governor was probably instantly dead. This can be seen , the source used by Rich Farmbrough. | |||
| So, of these 43 articles, at least 9 have serious problems (certainly when taking into account the stubbiness of many of them), some more major than others of course. Many of the others are probably factually correct, and some errors undoubtedly escaped me, but is it really acceptable that an experienced editor (not some clueless newbie) is filling Misplaced Pages with this amount (or percentage) of really incorrect information? Creating duplicate articles, merging a correctly titled one to an incorrect title, getting dates of birth and death wrong, missing the important facts of someone's live completely, ... | |||
| All advice on how this can be prevented is welcome. Sofixit is a short term solution, but hardly something that one can expectr to be a continuous state for any editor. While we need prolific and enthusiastic editors in general, we don't need them no matter what, and at some point one has to consider whether many contributions outweigh this many errors. ] (]) 14:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : It sounds like you and Rich Farmbrough make a great team - he tees up rough and stubby articles and you do the detail work. A tremendous amount of Misplaced Pages content is created through exactly such steps. ] ] 15:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't mind rough and stubby, I mind wrong (and unsourced as well, since that makes it much harder to check everything). I don't mind correcting someones errors, if it is a rare occurrence or if there is improvement. But neither applies here, and at some point enough is enough. The very least is requesting that all his articles (and major edits) are properly sourced, so that we don't get edit summaries like ). ] (]) 15:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::*...An edit in which he ''removed'' the reference to being a politician. He was fixing ''what you found him at fault for'' and you still find him at fault while fixing it. By the way, there was in fact a George T. Lanigan who served on a council in Boston, just not THIS Lanigan. Rich's edit summary is a mea culpa, nothing more, nothing less. --] (]) 17:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::*I am not complaining about the edit, I am remarking on the edit summary, which is not a "mea culpa" at all, no matter how you read it. A mea culpa is "my mistake" (e.g. the copyright status I questioned above was my mistake), not "I'll remove it even though I think I was right". Your years-long defense of Rich's edits is admirable, but it would ne helpful if it was a bit more realistic sometimes. ] (]) 07:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Sofixit is how Misplaced Pages works. Every single one of us makes errors. It's the body as a whole that works. ] (which states that perfection is ''not'' required) is policy. --] (]) 15:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **Sofoxit is nice, but that doesn't mean that substandard editors are allowed free rein. ] is the guideline that applies here (e.g. ] #2, but also ]: "If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed.". ] (]) 15:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *** Fram, really, most of these are not "serious problems". They are minor, and easily rectified. Just a cursory review of the 9 you selected shows errors on your part. Examples; Peter Irving was a member of the New York State Assembly. It took me just a few seconds in a Google search to find that. Sufficient for notability (see ]). You claim that ] is "probably still copyrighted". You are wrong. The work was published in 1912 (which is noted in the article), making it clear of copyright as it was published prior to 1923 (See ). You claim Ms. Cole is famous for her role in "in publishing Gone with the wind as an editor". Well, since you attack Rich for copyediting errors, you should have typed "Gone with the Wind". Yes, almirantes are sailors, and the article was in need of improvement, a fact that Rich noted himself on the article. I also note that several of the issues that you raise have already been corrected by Rich. Perhaps you should have raised this at his talk page first? "Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Misplaced Pages's venues of higher dispute resolution" (]). Since you are making so many errors in posting to WP:AN, should we disallow such "substandard editors" the "free rein" to post here? You're focusing on 21% of the articles he created, finding problems that do not exist, and failing to recognize the 79% where you didn't find error. You failed to raise these issues to Rich to give him an opportunity to fix them (which he is now doing). This is agitating. Go back to Rich's talk page and work it out. --] (]) 16:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ****None of the issues that I raised were corrected by Rich Farmbrough ''before I raised them''. None of these were minor either (three of the nine articles are or were at the wrong title, one is a duplicate of an existing article, and so on). Easily rectified? Yes, of course, once someone points out the problem and the solution, they are easily rectified. Until then, they remain for months or years. The problem is not that he didn't have an opportunity to fix them, the problem is that he created these errors, even though they were apparently "easily rectified". I don't blame him for copyediting errors (like writing Gorges for Georges, or itialicizing a title instead of bolding it in the first line of an article), that's the kind of thing that always happens and is indeed easily rectified by passing contributors; but I blame him for basic factual errors. The difference should be quite obvious. As for "go back to his talk page and work it out", earlier problems took years to work out and were only resolved by ArbCom. He is not some newbie who needs some initial guidance, these are basic errors that no experienced editor should be making with such a frequency. ] (]) 07:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***** So instead just ramp it up and bring it here for sanctions against him? Much (all?) of this has been corrected since you started this thread. Had you given him the opportunity on his talk page, it's obvious he would have corrected it. Next time, don't ]. Give the man the benefit of a ''chance'' to fix it. So what's your end game here Fram? What's your ultimate goal with regards to Rich? --] (]) 13:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ******Much remains uncorrected, as can be easily seen by comparing the above comments with the actual articles. It's obvious he would have corrected it? That's not what happened some of the previous times, when I listed the problems and he halfheartedly corrected some of them, disregarding the others for no obvious reasons. Furthermore, like I said already a few times, the problem here is not "will he correct them or not", the problem is someone creating this many factual errors. Of course, some people will never agree that X is many (apparently more than 20% is not "many" for some). There is no ABF involved, he created these errors, I didn't assume he did. My end game? To have an editor with a basic sense of quality and fact checking. If you want to add facts to an encyclopedia, we should be reasonably sure that they will be correct. Not perfect, not typofree, not complete, that's not what anyone is asking; but normally, your edits should be factually correct (or at least backed up by a reliable source). ] (]) 13:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ******* But since you've already concluded that talking with him on his talk page is useless, then it would seem obvious your intention is having him banned from the project, no? --] (]) 13:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ********No. I've concluded (rightly or wrongly) that it is useless ''for me'' to talk to him on his user talk page. My intention is to seriously reduce the number of errors he introduces into the mainspace. Any method that can achieve that is fine by me. For someone so concerned about ABF, you seem to be very quick at doing the same. ] (]) 13:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Strong agreement with bd2412 here. WP does not (rightly or wrongly, but that's how it is) have a minimum quality standard. WP:CSD is as close as it gets. | |||
| : WP used to have a practice of collaborative editing, per IMPERFECT and SOFIXIT. This has been increasingly eroded recently, a development that does nothing to improve quality and even less for breadth of coverage. The deletionist logjam that nothing can be created unless perfect in all aspects from the start is one of the most harmful problems today. ] (]) 16:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :** Yes there are issues, a lot of articles have issues. Thousands and thousands of articles are blatantly wrong on some level. Rich does need to be more careful, many seem to be simple typos at really key points, but he has come back to fix them when the error was pointed out. Rich should develop some content to GA and FA standards, but that's a journey and I hope he'll make the jump to it. Rich, you should not be egging it on with edit summaries about "automation" and such. Though it seems bizarre that someone should have to worry about the Proveit citation template maker or something... ] (]) 16:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :***The argument from ] is incorrect. Yes, Misplaced Pages does indeed grow and get better by editors fixing other editors' mistakes, but that does not negate the obvious, that an editor who creates articles with many mistakes in them is a '''''problem'''''. When we fix problems in an article, we AGF that the problems got there accidentally, but if an editor is having a lot of accidents, it points to a lack of care, and that hurts Misplaced Pages. For the time before a mistake is fixed, our accuracy is less than it should be, and out credibility (such as it is) is reduced. For these reasons, an editor who habitually makes content mistake needs to be dealt with. Fram is right to bring this to our attention - although Fram should also have '''''fixed the problems they found''''' and not left them in the articles. ] (]) 17:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :****Normally, I would have fixed them. But in this case, I prefer to stay away from his articles, as fixing all his problems may be seen as harassment by some as well (and would be a nearly full-time job anyway). And the claims (not by BMK, by others here) that the problems are fixed after they have been pointed out is not really correct as well, many of the issues raised above still remain. The case remains that no experienced editor should be needing a nanny. ] (]) 07:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :****Note that I have corrected hundreds of errors he created in the past. I have little interest in repeating that experience, or in delegating it to someone else. My aim is to prevent more problems. ] (]) 07:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :***** The only way you're going to prevent him from making errors is to ban him from the project. Is that your goal? You made several errors in bringing this complaint here. Should we ban you? --] (]) 13:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :******Several errors? I said that a picture was probably still copyrighted, your link seems to indicate that it isn't. Fine, that's one worry less, talk page used like it should be. I believe that when people make ''too many'' factual errors in their article editing (not just typos and the like, but getting basic facts wrong), action should be taken. Mentoring, restrictions, whatever, up to and including bans when necessary. For most editors here, this will never be a problem, since their error rate is considerably lower. But some editors, who continue to be problematic in their main space editing (like Rich Farmbrough, but there are other examples like LauraHale and so on), will need to change if they want to stay around. ] (]) 13:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :******* Yes, several errors were made by you. That was just in a cursory review. If that many came out in a cursory review, I'm sure you've committed many more errors. So what should we do about all the errors you are committing? --] (]) 13:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :******** Feel free to list the other factual errors I made. Then again, if they are of the same level as your "oh, you wrote ''Gone with the wind'' instead of ''Gone with the Wind''" example, don't bother. Either you can't see the difference between the kind of errors I listed (and the namespace they were made) and the things you are complaining about, or you are deliberately trying to disrupt the discussion, but neither is helpful. If you don't produce anything new or more substantial, then I'll let you have the final word if you want it, and am done replying to you here. ] (]) 13:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| The initial creation of ] seems to have been copied from ] without attribution, which is also potentially a problem. ] (]) 21:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Which is easily fixed using the "copied" template and putting on the talk page of both articles. ] (]) 02:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: According to ], the edit summary link is required, and {{tl|Copied}}s are optional. ] mentions using ]s. ] (]) 04:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Fram found 9 of 43 articles created by Rich to have "serious problems" (debatable; some of them are simply copyedit issues). I.e, 21%. I took at look at Fram's 10 most recent article creations. Of those, I found 4 with various issues: | |||
| #] was created by Fram with various categories commented out, thus no categorization. | |||
| #]; created with part of edit summary reading "Create short article", yet Fram failed to add stub templates {{tl|Scotland-sport-club-stub}} and {{tl|curling-stub}}, which are present on 2 of 6 of the articles in the category he placed this article in. Also failed to use {{tl|Infobox curling club}}, which is recommended by ]. | |||
| #] created by Fram with commonscat and section title issues that had to be fixed by another editor . | |||
| #] was created by Fram with one of the categories being ] (). Fram knew the animal was fictional, but placed it in this category anyway. The category was later removed by another editor. | |||
| Granted, a small sample, but it appears 40% of Fram's article creations have issues. This is about twice as bad as Rich. Fram has been editing since 2005. He is a very experienced editor. He should know better, right? Should be invoke sanctions on Fram? Of course not. The point here is nobody is perfect, and ]. --] (]) 14:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Hammersoft, you are comparing formatting issues with factual errors. I could have listed many formatting issues from Rich Farmbroughs creations, if I wanted to get a higher percentage, but then you would have (correctly) complained about me including all kinds of minor issues which have no impact on the correctness of the encyclopedia. Not using stub categories, infoboxes, and so on has no impact on the correctness of the article. The Gruuthusemuseum diff you give is one typo ("Links" instead of "links") and then some AWB replacements where the original is also accepted, these aren't errors. If you ''can't'' see the difference between those and e.g. having the wrong name, wrong dates of birth and death, and so on, then you have no business in this discussion. If you ''do'' see the difference, but choose to ignore it for the sake of making a ridiculous ], then you have no business here at all, as you are simply being disruptive. ] (]) 07:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| '''FWIW''', it appears that {{u|Rich Farmbrough}} has been informed about this thread. He appears to be staying out this discussion, which -- from what I've read up to this point -- appears to be the wisest thing to do. -- ] (]) 15:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * I have history with both editors, and it should be noted that Rich's alleged errors are mostly errors of '''fact''' or of copyright violation, while Fram's are errors of formatting. Not at all similar. And I would say that someone who makes errors of fact in even 5% of article creations would be a problem. (I say that as someone who has not created articles, because I ''know'' I would make too many errors.) Still, I don't see ''quite'' enough here for Rich to be censured for it. If Fram finds more errors in the future, now that Rich has been informed, this is the place. — ] ] 20:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*Arthur Rubin's point about the '''''quality''''' of the errors seen being just as important -- if not more so -- than the '''''quantity''''' is an important one. Factual errors and copyright violations are serious problems that need to be eliminated as much as possible, and do not compare with errors of formatting or other picayune mistakes.<p>I believe that Fram's point is that RF's history is rife with making errors. Previously, his use of automation frequently resulted in formatting errors, and he is now banned from using automation. Now, the point is being made that his non-automated work may have errors as well, and of a wholly different and more serious kind. I'm not quite sure that the evidence here is conclusive, but it '''''is''''' worrisome, nonetheless, and should serve as a wake-up call to RF to be more careful in the future, or to have other editors vet his work whenever possible. ] (]) 01:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I doubt much has changed though. He hasn't created more articles, but yesterday, i.e. after this discussion had been going on for a while, he made his first edit to , but the information he added was wrong (and unsourced). I reverted and explained why on his talk page, after which he added the probably correct but still unsourced information. Similarly, he moved ] to ], but then changed her full name in the article to . When challenged about this on his talk page, he pointed to a Spanish (or Portuguese?) translation of an old book on Madame Blavatsky; the original book did not contain the supposed full name (it mentioned once "Olga Novikoff, ''née'' Kiréef"), but somehow the web-only translation of this book changed this to Olga Kireef de Novikoff, and ''that'' lonely and utterly unreliable source is the basis for Rich Farmbrough to determine the full name of this Russian lady in England, for whom there are plenty of fully reliable English language sources. It doesn't look like this thread has (so far) made any difference in his approach to fact checking. ] (]) 07:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == An informal RfC at Talk:Celibacy needs attention == | |||
| * ] | |||
| Would like someone like to take a look at the discussion above and see what should be done. This originated at ] which closed a few months ago as a merge to ], but what does one do when editors at the target do not want it? There seems to be a rough consensus to not include said material, but as it was never a formally-posted/templated RfC, not sure if we advertise for a wider audience or just run with what's there. ] (]) 15:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : {{done}} --]] 16:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Requesting review of ] block of ] == | |||
| {{archive top|result= I haven't commented on the block, so I guess I'm uninvolved enough. DP blocked, Ed unblocked, lots of people disagree with the block or some other aspect, both sides present opinions, stalemate. Put another way: we all lose. Other venues exist, including Arb and RFC/U, although there wasn't any demonstration of actual abuse, nor substantiated claims of a long term pattern. It's a ugly discussion and it is doubtful anything good came from it, and perhaps it just needs to be put out of its misery. As Yunshui has so accurately stated, there is more heat than light here. ] | ] | ] 15:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| I would like the community's input on two matters: | |||
| # Specifically, ] block of ] | |||
| # Generally, what are admins obligated to consider when blocking for edit-warring when two or three reverts have been made. | |||
| The article in question is ] . Diffs supplied upon request but I don't think anyone is disputing the actual edits. | |||
| Flyer22 reverted twice in the span of five minutes this morning. After the second revert, she was warned by the other editor for edit warring. No more reverts occurred on her part and talk was ongoing . After about forty minutes after her last revert, EatsShootsAndLeaves blocked her and the other editor (who had three reverts) for edit warring. There is some history between Flyer22 and EatsShootsAndLeaves as ] will attest to . Other editors including myself got involved on both talk pages , . Rather than discussing lifting the block, EatsShootsAndLeaves chose to characterize my comments as "atrocious and incendiary" | |||
| Whether he agrees or not, EatsShootsAndLeaves' actions '''gives the appearance''' he will impose ] as he sees fit. As I said on Alison's page, I'm just flabbergasted that an editor in good standing can be blocked for two reverts with no warning. Looking over the edit histories of the 20,000+ articles I have watchlisted, hundreds of veteran editors would have lengthy block records if this was applied across the board. There needs to be some other justification for blocking other than "two reverts". --] <sup>'']''</sup> 17:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : This is the most disgusting show of ABF I've seen in ages. I'm currently in discussion with Writ Keeper on my talkpage regarding this issue, and have already advised that I would review. NeilN's incendiary and non-AGF comments so far today have been unfortunate, just like this filing - it's phrased as a question, but is instead an accusation. I will, however, make nomore comments here - and will continue the discussion on my talkpage where it's already underway <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I would say that the word "incendiary" applies to both ESL and NeilN here. Rage and accusations aren't going to help outsiders understand what happened here, or decide what should happen going forward.<p>It appears that ESL he's going to re-review the basis for the block; how about we give him a little time to do that and ''then'' see what might or might not need doing? ] (]) 18:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *As far as I am aware, there are no discretionary sanctions on 'Human Sexuality' although there are on some specific areas that fall under it, so there is no real reason for any admin to start imposing a 1rr restriction without some form of discussion. While edit warring can be done with less than 3rr, if someone makes 2 reverts, is warned about edit warring, and starts discussing on the talk page. ''That is how editing is supposed to work.'' Any block at that point is just punitive and petty. So since EatsShootsAndLeaves wants a question, here is one - "What about your block was preventative?" ] (]) 18:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| This is very premature. I do see that ] is discussing with ESL, as we like to see, but while that discussion may not become a case study for how disputes ought to be discussed, it looks to me like it was abandoned a bit early. I'm sympathetic to the point that the block appears a bit hasty, but talk about it and come back here if that fails.(in other words agreeing with the sandwich)]] 18:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :If a veteran editor labels your point of view "atrocious and incendiary" then that's a sign for me to break off and get other opinions. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 18:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *For convenience, I've assembled a list of the relevant diffs, sorted by time made: ] ] ]] 19:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: ], as you know, topics surrounding human sexuality are the primary areas where Flyer22 tends to edit. They do a lot of good work there, across a swath of topics I wouldn't even begin to touch. However, human sexuality topics are also those that have gotten many editors in a lot of trouble - having just search ANI for both "Flyer22" and "human sexuality", you can see a lot of issues raised across the board - including a rather nasty situation between Flyer and a transgender editor that I believe ended horribly. It's an often poisonous set of topics where ] has often been accused, and tempers have flared...often with very little provocation. | |||
| :: Flyer22 is a long-time editor, and while they have been knee-deep in some of these situations, have been provoked, and have also done some of the provoking. As a long-term editor, they also understand EW, its difference from 3RR, and the ''appearances''. They know ] like the back of their hand. | |||
| :: From what I see of your list, it was almost 30 minutes between Flyer22's last revert on ] and when I blocked ''both'' editors. This delay is not at all questionable - after all, ] reports often go hours without being touched, and blocks that come from those delayed reviews are ''not'' considered punitive. | |||
| :: Also, if one considered ''only'' those edits from today, then you're right, my actions might appear odd. Taking the poisonous history of that article into account, it does place the entire situation into a much wider context - a context that '''cannot''' be ignored - those 4 reverts ''cannot be taken'' in isolation. | |||
| :: Discussing on the article talkpage is also not a vaccination against being blocked for edit-warring or 3RR - discussion is ''vital'' to the project moving forward, after all, it's how we gain ]. | |||
| :: The edits being made by the other blocked party were perhaps inappropriate, but did not violate ], ], nor any of the common exceptions to edit-warring. Following ], or at least letting the discussion on the article talkpage continue instead of immediately reverting would have done no harm to the project or the subject. | |||
| :: As has already been said elsewhere and many many times, nobody is guaranteed 3 reverts - that's merely a bright line. | |||
| :: Flyer22 themself has admitted to having performed the second revert, and IIRC they acknowledged that it could be perceived as problematic. From what I recall from their talkpage this morning, they have not doubted the ''technicality'' of this block, but have merely expressed that I should not have been the one to perform it. I have not been to their talkpage in hours, and have already advised that I will not return - not even to re-read. | |||
| :: Based on the potential for escalation as per history on this article and with other editors on this and related articles, I perceived an extremely short edit-warring block as an immediate resolution to what I viewed as a rapidly-going-to-hell situation. Both parties were ''equally'' at fault, and as such, I issued 12hr blocks to ''both'' parties (even though Flyer22's past block history might have called for something longer, it was my clear desire to prevent what I perceived to be immediate issues, and most certainly not to punish anyone). | |||
| :: What was I to do instead? | |||
| ::: Block neither and allow the possible escalation? No - not knowing the history of the wars on that and similar articles. | |||
| ::: Block only Flyer? Hell no - they were ''equally'' at fault with the reverts. | |||
| ::: Block only the other editor? I considered it - briefly. But then I considered the ethical dilemma with leaving one editor with the ability to keep control of the article, ''or'' to have the appearance of being favoured over the other. | |||
| :: It was a catch-22 situation, so I made the decision to make short, equal, project-protecting blocks. After all, both were warned, and both were very aware of the issues <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::You didn't even consider placing a note on the article's talk page stating any further reverts would result in a block? --] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Why would I do that - both editors were obviously aware of edit-warring; after all, ONE of the editors was throwing warnings around everywhere <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And again, Flyer22 had no more reverts after the other editor gave her a warning. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Does that mean the edit-war had stopped? Do you guarantee that? There's a reason that even ] is over ''24 hours'' - nobody watches their keyboard 24/7, and for all anyone - including you - knows is that they might have gone back to make their next revert (note also the definition of ] does not mean simply clicking UNDO) <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You've been quite loudly banging ] around my head today. Shouldn't you do the same? --] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: I'm the only one who is :-) There's a reason I chose 12hrs, isn't there. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: You'll also notice no one else has said "Good block" or "Endorse block". --] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: That's irrelevant, and in the long run untrue. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::So feedback is irrelevant and you can see into the future. Okay. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 02:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I've unblocked {{u|Flyer22}} after taking into account the relevant edit histories and {{u|EatsShootsAndLeaves}}'s ] that he blocked without <s>investigating all of the relevant facts</s> fully ascertaining the entire timeline. Block logs are permanent things, people. We should not be blocking until we are absolutely, 100% certain we need to do so. Thanks, ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 20:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: I made no such admission <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm sorry, you only stated that "I can state without a doubt that the alignment is very different from what I reviewed this morning" when presented with a ] of the edits that you blocked Flyer for. I'm not even taking any alleged previous history with the editor into account. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 20:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Right, "the alignment is very different" is obviously NOT the same as not "investigating all the facts" - as you can read above, it was extensively investigated. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You and I are reading that very differently then. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 20:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Not sure how. English might not be my first language, but there's no other possible way to have read my statement...and have you '''corrected''' your incorrect statement after having seen the truth above? There seems to be a disconnect now...oh, and now there's the matter of the ethical dilemma about the other editor '''remaining''' blocked because of a rash unblock of one of the parties <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::There is no ethical dilemma here because the situation is not symmetric. Mdthree before , which violates ]. Flyer22 did no such thing. -- ] ] ] ] ♠ 21:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::^What the king said. This wasn't a 'rash unblock' of only one party. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 22:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: So, you'll still be correcting your wording, right ]? Bizarrely stating above ''and'' elsewhere that I said that I admitted that I had not investigated is false ... and I would normally expect better of you that to leave statements like that hanging around. You're a fan of the truth. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I've given a slight correction, though I'm not sure how 'bizarre' it was. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 23:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: That one's even more false. Hell, did you even '''read''' my extensive analysis? WTF is this, "fuck the Panda over day"? I didn't get a card for that in the mail. C'mon Ed, everything I typed today is in English <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : On point 1: so even though ] was to wait until I had re-analyzed, one of my colleagues went ahead and unblocked one of the 2 editors without waiting. Of course, they did that without having read my analysis - and their unblock reasoning now doesn't stand up to my extensive statement. They have no desire to correct, and the block would have been almost over by now anyway, so meh. Oddly, there's been no useful comments ''since'' I showed the degree of analysis I went to. So, I'll consider mys statement to have been sufficient under ], and therefore this situation closed. | |||
| : On point 2, this isn't the place for philosophy, but I have shown all the things I took into account in instituting an edit-warring block before reaching 3RR, again, as per ] - there's been no statement that I missed any steps, so again, closed | |||
| : Gonna take my kids to a movie <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I agree; it is not symmetric. I have been represented unfairly. I would appreciate an unblock as well. (1)] makes the claim I made three reverts; I did not. (2) ] claims that because I know the rules about 3RR, I would have violated them. I would not, I know the rules. (3) ] said I was gaming the system; however the system advantages the first editor. The rule is structured that way and it is not gaming the system to follow the rules. As for symmetry, I think content needs to be considered. I was not asking for something inflammatory. The ] opening paragraphs make no mention of the sexes either male, female, man, or woman. Its not possible to define sexuality without referencing sex; take a biologists point of view for a moment and look at the opening paragraph. ] (]) 23:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: ], your comments about content are irrelevant. You made an edit and Flyer22 reverted it. As per ], ''you should never re-add it until you have reached consensus to do so via discussion''. However, you DID re-revert, and provoked another editor into an edit-war, while at the same time warning THEM for edit-warring. Obviously, if you knew EW/3RR well-enough to actually warn someone else about it, you knew it well-enough that you were also subject to it. Whether you hold the ] or not, you are still subject to the same article and editing rules as everyone else, and we're not going to discuss content here <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::You attempted to game the system by inappropriately slapping me with a WP:3RR warning and telling me not to revert again so that you could then revert. You hardly waited for a reply before reverting. Also read ]; never do I need such a template slapped on my talk page. ] (]) 00:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I've stated enough on this matter . With regard to a few of Bwilkins/DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves's comments about me above: No, I did not acknowledge that my two reverts could be perceived as problematic; as the aforementioned discussion on my talk page shows, I was referring to my block log; I stated, "As far as I can see, you've screwed up my block log even further than it was already screwed up, even with all of clarifications that are in it, knowing very well that many editors here look at the block log and see 'problematic editor' when it has as many blocks/block descriptions as I now have...no matter what is clarified in the blocks." As for my not having doubted the technicality of this block, I have, which is also made clear in the aforementioned talk page discussion; I did not object solely because Bwilkins/DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves was the one who blocked me. As for the transgender editor Bwilkins/DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves is referring to, anyone can look at ] for details on that; that editor was topic-banned from human sexuality articles for very good reasons; I was not topic-banned. Nor will I ever be, and that's for very good reasons. As for Bwilkins/DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves's characterization of me, it leaves much to be desired. ] (]) 00:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Recall petition=== | |||
| Based on some of the comments, not just here but over the totality of ]'s admin career, I think that it'd be fruitful to have discussion of his status, and that an RfA (a "reconfirmation RfA" or "recall RfA") would be the best venue for this, mainly because that's a place where an actual decision one way or the other may be effected. | |||
| In this, I'm not expressing an opinion one way or the other on ]'s suitability as an admin, just that it may be something that people may wish to discuss. To that end I've initiated a recall petition (six signatures would be required) here: ''']''' (because a user talk page is the specified venue for such petitions). | |||
| Questions such as "how is it legitimate, or even allowed, to post a recall position on an editor who's not a member of ] and who is not cooperating?" are best asked and answered there IMO (or here, whatever you like). | |||
| I assume that of course the following isn't necessary, but just to cover all my bases: | |||
| *If anyone feels the petition is not legitimate, please don't erase it (and please restore it someone does, thanks). The correct procedure would be to initiate a ] request on that section of my talk page. (Yes you can run an MfD on sections of pages.) I'd rather you didn't but it's your right. | |||
| *If anyone feels I'm out of line here, please don't block me (and please reinstate me if someone does, thanks). The correct procedure here would be to open an ANI thread, or an RFC:USER, or something along those lines. ] (]) 02:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*], what kind of request are you saying would be correct procedure for an opponent? ]? Our ] page is a redirect to ]. ] (]) 03:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Note: Nyttend's comment after what seemed to be by Herostratus when tweaking his wording. ] (]) 08:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh, no, heaven forbid that your opening a recall attempt should be interpreted as expressing an '''''opinion''''', no, you're just an innocent bystander here with no feelings one way or the other about the admin.<p>Yeah, I believe that.<p>Really<p>Here's what I think, innocent bystander-person: there really '''''should be''''' a community admin-recall procedure, but as of this time there isn't, which means that the only currently legitimate way to get an admin desysopped is to open a case at ArbCom, and make a case for removing the admin bit. So why don't you stop stirring unnecessary and unproductive drama at AN, and head on over to ArbCom. I'm '''''sure''''' they'll be receptive to your argument that an admin should be desysopped because he's been a bit '''''cranky''''' lately. Yeah, that'll really go over '''''really''''' well. ] (]) 05:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Wow, that seems a little uncalled for, don't you think? I mean, I can understand if you ''disagree'' with Herostratus, but does he really deserve to be castigated in such a vicious and sarcastic manner?<p>My interactions with ] have been relatively limited, and the last time we spoke was sometime in 2013. He means well and does a lot of great work, but there have been a number of longstanding concerns about his temperament and judgment going back several years. If Herostratus feels that it is enough to petition for an administrator recall, then he can go ahead and initiate one. At the very least, it will help gauge whether or not he currently enjoys the support of the community, which is unclear at this point. I've called him an "admin's admin" on one occasion; I've also openly criticized several of his decisions in the past. I'll abstain from participation and leave it to the rest of the community to decide where to go from here. ] ] 07:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Wait, what? DangerousPanda isn't even ''open'' to recall? That changes things somewhat. Recall is not a standard community process, nor is it even binding — it's a prerogative espoused by certain administrators to uphold personal accountability for themselves. I'll second what Beyond My Ken wrote regarding the proper venue being ]. ] ] 08:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::ArbCom isn't the proper venue either - ArbCom only deals with cases of <s>repeated abuse of admin tools</i> specific egregious behaviour. There is actually no proper place for a general "''Has this admin lost the confidence of the community?''" process - and that's one of the big problems with Misplaced Pages governance. To have the bit forcibly removed, an admin must commit multiple specific and egregious offences, but there is no remedy for long-term passive-aggression. (Note these are general comments - I offer no opinion on this specific case) -- ] (]) 09:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC) (<small>Corrected my "repeated abuse of admin tools" mistake -- ] (]) 12:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)</small>) | |||
| :::::::You're confusing the eventual '''''success''''' of the complaint with the proper venue for it to take place in. ArbCom is the only proper venue for desysopping DP, and that is true regardless of whether the complaint is viable or not, which this one isan't. ] (]) 10:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::No, I'm not confusing anything of the sort. I agree that currently ArbCom is the only proper venue. But my view is that that is insufficient, as it does not encompass "loss of confidence" motions - for those, there is no proper venue. -- ] (]) 10:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::And, yes, that is why you are confusing results with venues. If the proper venue is ArbCom. which you agree, then it is irrelevant whether the appeal will be successful or not. The appeal can be "insufficient" or misstated or malformed or idiotic or stupid or half-bakaed, but ArbCom is '''''still''''' the proper venue for it. ] (]) 10:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::You know, I think we actually agree on this - the proper venue is indeed ArbCom, purely because there's no other venue - but I don't see how ArbCom could (or even should) judge "loss of confidence" cases - and they won't. So yes, there is a designated venue - even if that venue won't get any results. (And in a practical sense, there's no useful venue). -- ] (]) 12:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There have been a couple of statements on this matter around and about which appear to be incorrect. As ArbCom is the only place that administrators can have their tools removed, misuse of the tools should result in cases taken to ArbCom. It's likely to be dismissed if it's a one off, but if there's a pattern which might lead to "loss of confidence", then that should be raised. There are times that an RfC/U are appropriate for an admin and times when they are not, it's certainly not a ''requirement'' to happen before an ArbCom case. At any rate, ]' petition is not the way forward. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 09:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Actually, Boing, that's not entirely accurate. Removal of tools is not necessarily conditional on their abuse. Repeated misuse has historically been deemed enough to desysop an administrator; also, considering that admins are held to higher standards of conduct, a history of questionable conduct may warrant a desysopping as well {{endash}} though this is uncharted territory, as far as I know. As said by others, if Herostatus thinks DangerousPanda's behaviour has been consistently poor, he should either open an RFC or bring a case to ArbCom. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 10:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::RfC is almost entirely useless for removal of the admin bit (When was the last time an admin had his bit removed as a result of an RfC? I'm willing to bet the answer is "never".) If Herostratus thinks that DP has abused the bit - and I don't believe for a second remonstrations that HS is just am neutral independent operator - he needs to present a case to ArbCom, which I'm willing to bet he never will, since this appears to be pure propaganda and nothing else. Put your money where your mouth is, Herostratus, and file an ArbCom case and see how quickly it's rejected. ] (]) 10:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I don't doubt your sincerity, Salvio, but history supports me. ArbCom does nothing about long-term low-level problems with admins - those who the community would not now support, but who have not committed sufficiently egregious misuse of tools. (I'd love to be proved wrong - but by actions not words). -- ] (]) 10:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I should add that I don't mean this as a criticism of ArbCom, just as a criticism of the governance structure itself. I don't think ArbCom should be expected to judge loss-of-confidence cases - the Community should be able to decide them, but currently cannot. RFC is not the venue, as it is not binding. -- ] (]) 10:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I don't disagree. There '''''should''''' be a community-based desysop procedure, but at the moment there ain't, so we've got what we've got.] (]) 10:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Yep, sad, isn't it? -- ] (]) 12:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Herostratus' page now violates ] - interesting that he made it on his takpage directly where a) all his talkpage watchers could participate simply by seeing their watchlist changes, and b) it now cannot be properly MFD'd. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Not ] again, Panda. Oh dear. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 09:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **While I oppose this recall attempt, I don't see how it violates WP:POLEMIC, as it is explicitly used in a (flawed) attempt at dispute resolution. As for the "talkpage watchers" comment; he openly announced this at WP:AN, so the influence of his talk page watchers doesn't seem to be a genuine concern. ] (]) 09:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Contrary to what is said above, it isn't necessary for an admin to abuse his tools before ArbCom can decide to desysop them. ] is a relatively recent example: Ironholds was desysopped for his comments and incivility, not for any abuse of the tools (please correct me if I'm wrong here). ] (]) 10:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Ironholds was desysopped for "conduct unbecoming an adminstrator" fot having "a history of making highly inappropriate remarks both on-wiki and off-wiki on the various IRC channels, where he has often used violent and sexual language (evidence for this has been submitted and discussed in private). Moreover, on at least two occasions, he also logged out to engage in vandalism and to make personal attacks on other editors on other Wikimedia projects." You see some sort of parallel here with DP's behavior? 10:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You're quire right, Fram. I don't know why I didn't think of that case {{Endash}} and I was one of the drafters... <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 11:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*No. DPanda can be abrasive, a bit of a bull in a china shop at times, but that is very different than what Ironholds did, by a mile. I don't see the self serving element at all. I don't question DPanda's faith in his actions, although I do have to admit wincing from time to time by his words or approach. It's no secret that I'm not a fan of RFC/U, but maybe that is the best venue as the problem appears to be one of communications and style more than anything else. Knowing when to accept community opinion even if you strongly disagree with it, that kind of stuff. He is not the only admin around here that fits that description, he is just the target of the day. Arb is the wrong venue, and won't get any results: RFC/U just might. ] | ] | ] 11:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::No. As far as I have seen, DP has done nothing as outrageous as the things Ironholds was desysopped for. I didn't claim or imply this either. My post was a reply to the discussion above, where it was basically said that ArbCom would only desysop for tools abuse, which is not correct. If someone wants to make the case that DP has a history of "conduct unbecoming an admin" which is sufficient to warrant desysoping (or admonoishing or whatever), then it would be incorrect to claim that such a casse doesn't belong at ArbCom ''a priori''. This has nothing to do with whether such a case would eventually result in any actions, or with whether there are in this case enough arguments to start such a case. Pointing out that the process allows this, and that there is precedent, doesn't mean that this case is truly comparable or would have any chance of success (with "success" defined as an action against the admin). ] (]) 11:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Assuming Arbcom agrees there is some sort of issue, there are other outcomes that a case could have, including admonishment and reminders - which would carry more weight if similar behaviour were to re-occur. That then leaves the question of "do we want to improve the situation or do we want blood". This is where RfC/U also comes in - if people genuinely have an issue and want to see change, RfC/U is a useful tool - if they just want a desysop, the question would be "why didn't you do something sooner". ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 11:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Well of course I have an opinion. I'm just not expressing it since my role here is just to facilitate the process and so that wouldn't be helpful. | |||
| Here's what going on here: I'm making a stab at seeing if the community wants make a new thing, that being "recall of admins who are not in ]". This is a test case. If you think that initiating recall of admins who are not in ] is a bad idea generally, you probably don't want to sign the petition. If you think it's a good idea ''and'' you think that this case warrants one, you might want to consider signing. (Note that signing the petition is in no way a indication that you think the person shouldn't be an admin, just that you think that community ought to consider it.) | |||
| There's no question that this a stab at an organizational reform, I'm not being coy about that. Obviously if this were to go through, it would be a new thing. Since it' be a new thing, objections in the manner of "we haven't done this before" are not very germane. And objections in the manner of "this is not allowed" are not particularly satisfying. It's a wiki and community members are allowed to do whatever the community says they can, including make new things. We are not entirely bound to past procedures I hope, and that kind of thinking makes it hard for us to change and grow going forward. | |||
| My personal opinion is that recall of admins who are not in ] might very well be a good thing (of course I don't know this for sure), some of the reasons being: | |||
| *If there is going to be admin recall all, it seems silly to limit it to admins willing to place themselves in ], since it's possible that the admins who ''don't'' are exactly the ones that we are most likely to want to recall. | |||
| *It's much simpler and easier than going to ArbCom, when all you want is to consider adminship rather than bans and topic bans and so forth. | |||
| *It'd devolve some decisions down to the community rather than an elected board. All thing equal devolvement of decision-making downward is often functional. | |||
| *It allows the format of the conversations and procedures for recalling an admin to parallel the the format of the conversations and procedures for appointing an admin, which makes sense to me. (If ArbCom is much better than RfA at concluding who should or should be an admin, then probably ArbCom should appoint as well remove admins.) | |||
| *Might make the whole RfA thing less of a fraught thing and such a big deal -- easier out, easier in. Maybe. Not sure if this is true or would be a good thing though. | |||
| *And so forth. I'll bet you can come up with other reasons. ] (]) 11:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You don't create a new process by strongarming through a "test case" - especially one which has a direct effect on another editor. You propose it, perhaps by way of an RFC at the Village Pump, you allow discussion around the topic, and you abide by the community's decision on its validity or otherwise. You don't get to unilaterally decide that Misplaced Pages now has a brand-new admin recall system of your own devising and expect to try it out on the first admin unfortunate enough to get dragged to ANI. ] ]] 11:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===So, what's really up?=== | |||
| Let's back the truck up here. Now, before I posted the analysis that led to the block above, there were some backroom discussions not only about the block, but discussions where some of my colleague admins (I won't say who) called me "a fucking prick". Some people - admins included - seemed to believe I'd gone completely off-the-rails or something over some isolated 4-edit sequence that on a normal day would lead to warnings and no more. | |||
| Oddly enough, after I posted the long thought process that went into the blocks, not a single admin has said "I disagree". In fact, it's been strangely quiet. Not a single admin has said "yeah, but...". Not a single admin has said ''anything'' about that because '''surprise, surprise''', Brad ''did'' think before clicking on a tool. Brad ''did'' end up doing what was in his judgement the protection of a dangerous corner of the project. Brad ''did'' try to balance the needs of 2 editors and the project. Indeed, Brad ''did'' ask himself a whackload of pertinent questions before clicking on that tool. Brad ''did'' do exactly what the project expects an admin to do before acting. Nobody since my post has said "Brad, that was a bad block based on your explanation". Yeah, I made a difficult judgement call based on months of watchlisting an hazardous, contentious article. People sure seemed to question the judgement without knowing the full details - someone even unblocked without knwoing them, but not a peep since - and that's because we've all been hanging on that balance at one point or another - hell, there's 1 or 2 ANI reports yesterday alone that showed ''less-complex'' thought processes that spiralled out of control. | |||
| So what's the real issue here? Me? The fact that I blocked someone who claims I know everything about them (I'm sorry, my memory doesn't work that way)? | |||
| I may be a lot of things, but the one thing that EVERYONE on this project knows about me is that '''I tell the truth, AND that when I say I'm sincere, I'm sincere'''. | |||
| Yesterday was a painful day ''not'' because of this AN, but because I did some very deep soul-searching, and then painfully bared my soul on another editor's page. What makes it worse is that due to my promise to them, I will not revisit their talkpage to see if they replied. It just so happens that the editor in question is one of the 2 editors I blocked yesterday. | |||
| Indeed, I tried to go back and find out just why Flyer22 is so damned pissed off at me, and yeah, apparently it DOES go back a long time when I personally failed to AGF - I made a statement based on '''all the available evidence presented to me at the time'''. It was the only statement supported by the available evidence at the time - although I did take it one step too far. Turns out that there was more '''unknown''' evidence that turned the tables not long after. If that evidence was available at the time, I sure would have made a different statement - but I sure should not have made the level of non-AGF statement I made anyway - that was a long time ago, and it took a lot of digging to find it. I cannot go back and right my personal great wrongs. I have apologized, more than once to Flyer22. I have sincerely stated my regret to them. And no, I didn't recognize that one of the people was blocking yesterday ''just happened'' to be the one person who I feel I had truly wronged years ago. | |||
| So what, are we complaining about the block now? Are we complaining about my thought process/judgement in yesterdays blocks? Are we complaining that I'm an emotional, rational human? Or are we just throwing random "let's play shotgun with some shit and see what sticks"? After all, I would LOVE to see where my REAL analysis failed - but in >12hrs, nobody has shown that at all - they've simply tossed shit. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Trying to avoid making personal attacks here, so let me just say that the thing everyone on this project supposedly knows about you is something I don't agree with. Apart from that, the posting of the long thought process was your 20:33, 6 May 2014 post? The one that was followed by an unblock which basically boiled down to "DP was wrong here"? A later statement by admin ] seems to agree. You then, on 23:18, 6 May 2014, posted a further "but I was right" reply, and now this. You may not agree with their analysis, but claiming that "Not a single admin has said ''anything'' about that" is rather strange and doesn't seem to match the above discussion. ] (]) 12:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::] had something to say too. And I offered you an option you could have taken after your analysis. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 12:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :* Ed and KoH's comments were ''not'' related to my analysis - they were related to my question about unblocking the other party. Neil's opinion was noted, thanks. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::My comments are not related to the block. I've not commented on it, nor do I have any desire to. I've never questioned your faith, honesty or sincerity. In fact, I've spoken out for them previously. Still, if people have a problem with your methods, the backwaters of RFC/U is the right venue, not Arb nor the drama pits of ANI/AN. If it isn't worth filing an RFC/U over, then dropping it would be the best solution. ] | ] | ] 13:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah, bad block, whatever. I don't care about rubbish like my reputation's been tarnished or "block log is permanent omg what will people think?". {{redacted}} — ] 13:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::You need to consider striking your comment, which is clearly in breach of ]. There just isn't any need for that and it isn't serving any higher purpose here. ] | ] | ] 13:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::You need to consider blocking me for it. — ] 14:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Acting childish with me isn't solving anything. Acting dickish isn't either. ] | ] | ] 14:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, I'm done here anyway. — ] 14:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| As the opener of this thread, I had two questions and none of them involved desysopping. Restated, they were if Flyer22's block was a good one and what admins should consider when the bright line of ] hasn't been breached. I think an RFC/U is premature but hope that DP keeps other alternatives to blocking in mind when faced with a similar situation in the future. Taking an extra step before blocking, however fruitless it may seem (or turn out to be), is not always a bad thing. That's all I want to say about the RFC/U matter. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 14:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: Neil, that's exactly my point: you opened a thread with 2 key questions. Of course, it would have been ridiculous for anyone to comment on the first ''prior'' to seeing what analysis I went through to got to the 2 block blocks. So, last night, I posted the thought process that went behind them. Your second question is philosophical, and AN is really not the right place for that type of question. Through my thorough analysis, I provided ''very good reason'' why alternative methods were not possible at that time, at least in my judgement. However, nobody else seems to be responding to your questions - well, one person ''did'' unblock. That was your sole response. Torches and pitchforks were optional. Welcome to the world of AN/ANI :-) <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::So we're supposed to wait around while an editor is under what seems to be a bad block for you to chime in? No, sorry. Other editors can look at the exact same situation you did and give their independent opinions. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 14:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Actually the consensus from the beginning of the thread was exactly that wait 'til Panda re-reviews. The clear point here is that what ''appeared'' on the surface to be a "possibly bad block" actually wasn't necessarily a clearly bad block once the explanation was given. Funny how the heat:light ratio could have been avoided if the conversation had merely continued on my talkpage, eh? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Funny, I read consensus as Flyer22 should not have been blocked. Something you still seem to disagree with. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 14:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Nope. Re-read the first few comments. Again, the consensus that ''you're'' talking about came before anyone knew the rationale behind the blocks. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Personally, I think this is probably not the best place to be seeking clarification of the feedback (and/or the issues or supposed issues which are apparently being raised) in relation to your adminship as it is not a single action or comment or incident which has motivated this; I'm sure you realise that. I expect a lot of useful feedback and perspective can emerge from another venue (such as a RfC if its structured properly and the requirements are complied with); it's always better to take that type of option than to wait for a time when there are a greater number of "pitchforks", but ultimately it's your call if you choose to self-initiate an RfC/U or not, or consent to an RfC/U or not. It will depend on whether or not you're ready and willing to hear others thoughts on both the good bits and the bits which you could consider handling differently or improve on. On another note, there are a number of admins who jump into contentious issues, but not all of them feel this sort of backlash. I can even point to some, if they would let me, whom after taking up an RfC or similar route, modified just a few features of their approach and encounter this sort of trouble/outrage/scrutiny on a much smaller scale despite continuing to address those problems for the Community on an ongoing basis. To me, it shows they work even more effectively now handling the worst kind of editing or problems than if they did not heed the advice given to them or if they weren't ready to even consider acting carefully with another approach. That's my suggestion, but I realise that each person is different and it might equally be be something that you're not ready to do too. ] (]) 14:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: Ding ding ding, you win! This thread is supposed to discuss the block. It's supposed to discuss my ''analysis'' that led to the block. Somebody '''else''' turned it personal. ALl attempts to steer it back on track so that I can '''potentially learn what was wrong with my analysis that led to this specific pair of blocks''' has failed miserably. My sole conclusion from that is therefore: '''nothing was actually wrong, now that we ''understand'' it'''. Which oddly enough, makes the whole "desysop" thing rather moot now...doesn't it. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}Now that a winner has been declared, perhaps an uninvolved admin wouldn't mind closing this more-heat-than-light thread... ] ]] 14:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Discussion of your analysis is '''half''' the issue. Discussion of the actions you took after your analysis is the other half. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 14:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : What actions were those? Please feel free to point them out. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::At the conclusion of your analysis the action you took was blocking. Your analysis told you there was edit-warring going on. There were a variety of actions you could have taken to stop it. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 15:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Yes, admittedly there were other possible solutions. But I made a judgement call based on the intelligence I had gathered that was well-within the realm of admin responsibility, and provided the rationale when requested untik ]. There are always multiple ways to resolve something - I chose one valid path, and other people would have taken other paths. That's both a good thing and bad thing. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] - Blocking the users was disruptive to the wikia (and not at all needed within wikia rules), as this chat and others such as on your chat page and the blocked users chat page clearly indicates and your actions continues to be disruptive due to your refusal to accept the obvious and walk away. ] (]) 15:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|Mosfetfaser}} Wikia? --] <sup>]</sup> 15:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] is apparently ] editing logged out ]. I informed {{U|Jayron32}} (the admin that blocked it last time in April), and they told me to come here. Here are some diffs: . --] <sup>]</sup> 19:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :It looks like the bot has logged back in. I unblocked the IP after realizing the block could cause misdirected XFF blocks. However, what seems concerning is how the bot is still editing after the ]. I'm not the most experienced with bots and would welcome the input of others. <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> ] • ]</span> 22:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::After a quick chat with Deskana, I've blocked the bot. <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> ] • ]</span> 22:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm confused. Is the bot making bad edits? If not then it seems churlish to block it simply because the stop button doesn't work - especially as that stops it working ''logged in'' and not ''logged out'' - precisely the reverse of what we want. All the best: ''] ]'', <small>06:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| :::: Agreed - Is the bot making bad edits ? '''Then''' it should be blocked, but if it's doing what it's supposed to do, then there's no problem (even if it's logged out ) ]'' 10:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The issue is twofold. First, the bot was performing edits while logged out. It's my understanding from the bot policy that this should not occur and that the use of extensions such as ] should be implemented. Second, the bot was performing edits logged in while the shut off was in place, which makes it noncompliant with its own emergency protocol. There's even a message on the bot's page that encourages admins to block it if it is malfunctioning. I'm not trying to be churlish or pedantic. It's simply a case of the bot not functioning as it is intended. <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> ] • ]</span> 15:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I agree that the latter (emergency shutoff not working) would justify blocking the bot; however, the first wouldn't - if the only malfunction in the bot is that it would edit when not logged in, then blocking it would do no good to stop the trouble. Even in the case of bots, blocks should only be used to prevent malfunctionm edits or unapproved tasks - and merely editing while logged out some of the time doesn't constitute either of these the rest of the time. ] ] 18:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::In short, if we can't trust that it will stop editing when told to, we can't trust that it will follow other instructions properly as well. The operators are good and reliable, so of course we're not accusing them of bad faith, but they've apparently made some mistake that temporarily makes the bot undependable. Nobody's going to object to an unblock once the operators say that the coding problems are fixed. ] (]) 22:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I take the reverse view, if anything. Editing logged out is bad, because 1. it gives the impression that we allow bot edits from IPs, 2. the edits are not accountable which bot edits should be. OK in this case we ''know'' it's CB III so we could let it slide if we thought that the downside from having it not functioning outweighs point 1. | |||
| ::::::But bots are not like HAL or te computer in the Forbin Project, they do not become "untrustworthy", if the "emergency stop" (which in many bots redirects to the admin block function anyway) doesn't work, the bot is not going to start trying to take over the encyclopaedia - it left this thread after all. (Or is it trying to lull us into a false sense of security?) The admin block is still there for a real malfunction. All the best: ''] ]'', <small>22:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| ::::::Untrustworthy in the sense that we can't trust the code. Someone accidentally removed from the bot's code the instruction (or part of the instruction) to stop editing when the shutoff is activated. Since we know that they made that mistake, we can't trust that they made no other mistakes, and we can't trust that this mistake won't have other unexpected effects. With that in mind, we can't let the bot edit until someone's confirmed that the mistake is resolved. ] (]) 22:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::When an editor is as prolific as Cluebot, its activity is meaningful not only at the level of individual edits but also statistically. Letting it edit logged out results in a distorted picture of what's happening on the entire wiki. So it should be blocked until it logs back in. ] (]) 05:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's the problem: As I understand it (which is doubtless an oversimplification), 10.68.xx.xx is the internal network, and therefore blocking ''anything'' in 10.68 risks collateral damage, possibly including break-the-whole-site network damage. It's not some IP from halfway across the globe that you're blocking from Misplaced Pages's servers; you'd be blocking the system from itself. Blocking the account is useless, because it's not using the account. | |||
| :::What we need is for people to figure out how this is happening and fix it, not to block stuff without regard for either the possible consequences of the block or the effectiveness of the block. ] (]) 15:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Is there any legitimate reason to allow anonymous editing from private IP addresses? What would be the downside to soft-blocking all of them indefinitely? Same question applies to the external IPs of toolservers. ] (]) 23:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for forgiveness == | |||
| More than a year has passed since I was blocked for stupidily threatening ]. I'm from Argentina and after an edit-war, I said the following: ''"If I were an Israeli soldier and you a Palestinian..."'' or so I said. I well-deserved to be blocked because I was beyond immature and stupid. Then, I created another account to start anew as a respected user. Well, the sock-puppetry accusations began and I couldn't ever again work on Misplaced Pages. I deny sock-puppetry since I don't, I ''can't'' use blocked accounts and I'm not interested in having more than one account. So, I'm now asking to be ''forgiven'' and allowed to create another account and start anew. Thank you indeed. --] (]) 21:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Don't even remember it, but if you're here to do good work, go do that. --]''''']''''' 23:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :From what I can see, I would support the editor coming back. ] | ] | ] 23:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you Jayron for giving me a second and last opportunity!, I've been working in the shadows and doing well with ] but I'm afraid of going ''public'' (i.e. nominating candidates for ]) and getting blocked for the alleged "sock-puppetry" that never occurred since I never used two accounts at the same time. Who can guarantee me that "Japanesehelper", my only account, will not be blocked? Thank you.--] (]) 23:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::No one can guarantee anything, but the person you attacked has given his blessing for you to be back, one other person thinks that is the best unbureaucratic way to deal with the problem (me), and assuming you just edit and stay out of trouble and not war or get into fights, I don't see a problem. Assuming others don't argue against this solution, you could just point to this discussion. ] | ] | ] 23:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Perfect. You can see my record with "Japanesehelper", it's cleaner than a brand new t-shirt. I was immature when that happened. Promise it won't happen ever again. --] (]) 23:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Doesnt sockpuppetry include using new accounts to evade blocks? ] (]) 00:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes and ]. We're not here to mete out perpetual punishment, we're here to build an encyclopedia. This isn't a game. If Japanesehelper wished to be helpful, I am not going to get in their way. --]''''']''''' 00:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is a legitimate question, but again I agree with Jayron. When someone appears to be very sincere, apologetic and sets a clear future path for their behavior, and the person who was on the receiving end last time (Jayron) gives their blessing, I think we owe it to ourselves and them to take a chance. ] | ] | ] 00:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Let's not prevent good work from being done. Probably a bad use of clean start, but ] - a productive editor need not be a perfect editor, both in content or character. ] (]) 04:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Probably worth verifying whether this is an IP sock of ], a racist ultranationalist extremist and sociopathic liar who in the spare time off wiki writes things like "fucking mohammedan apes and baby-killers", "Fuck you !! stupid Islamofascist terrorist ape dressed in rags. I hope you and all your family of monkeys shall receive what you deserve when Israel kick your coward ass. Asshole! ISRAEL WIN", "Don’t worry bitch, nobody wants your fucking Arab Keffiyeh. Nobody wants to look like an ugly terrorist monkey, except for Purim", "¡¡¡God bless Nakba!!! (Jewish victory over the war of extermination that the Arabs brought upon them 65 years ago). Never in history was a "catastrophe" so well deserved! God bless Israel. Keep strong, united, prepared and brave.", ""palestine" does not exist, never did and never will", "Yes, you are in this struggle and you will be defeated like all the enemies of my nation. I'm a Jew from Argentina who soon will make Aliya and join the IDF in order to kick, destroy and fight against bullshit scum like you. Fuck off you fucking marxist. Leave Israel with all your fucking Arab ape friends. We don't want people like you in Medinat Israel. AM ISRAEL CHAI VE KAIAM | |||
| ISRAEL WIN". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 04:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I should add that Japanesehelper does not look like AndresHerutJaim, but ] via both accounts and Argentina based IPs has been such a major problem over the past few years in the ] topic area and its suburbs that experienced editors will assume that any Buenos Aires based IP active in the ARBPIA topic area that appears to be advocating for Israel or against Palestine or Iran is a sock. Is there a diff for the comment "If I were an Israeli soldier and you a Palestinian..." ? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 05:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I have to agree some idea of who this editor actually is would be helpful, at least if we are going to give any indication they may be allowed to stick around. | |||
| :I don't know much about the editor Sean.hoyland mentions above, but ] is looking a lot like ] who abused many sockpuppets ] + ] + many which were either blocked per ] or which unblocked but had their contributions deleted). While obviously it was never confirmed by a CU, they did sometimes edit under an Argentinian IP. Particularly in their later stages, they seemed to mostly troll the Reference Desk, Help Desk and Teahouse. But they did hang around ITN at various stages. Beyond simple trolling, they did seem to have a particular interest in Nazi Germany and serial killers like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer similar to Japanesehelper. | |||
| :They also claimed to be Japanese at least once ] with a corresponding interest in Japanese related topics although I think they showed the same interest even with other identities. Kotjaps claims to be Japanese weren't particularly believable. IIRC they claimed to be living in Japan with some elaborate back story like being a 55 year old former hikikomori who's father beat them yet never showed any actual evidence of understanding Japanese. (I can't recall if they ever explicitly said they spoke Japanese but I think they did repeatedly saying they were not a native English speaker, which may be true regardless, which combined with their claims about their identity lead to an obvious conclusion. And even IIRC when Japanese editors suggested they ask their question in Japanese they never said they didn't actually speak Japanese.) Or really any evidence of knowing that much about Japan you would expect from someone who lived there. (And of course, it's very likely they were editing from an Argentinian IP.) | |||
| :As stated above, it seemed clear they were trolling. Over time, it became fairly obvious they already knew the answer to many of their 'questions' or otherwise didn't care. Furthermore, beyond the Japanese identity, they pretended to be from all over the world usually mentioning stuff in 'my country' or similar. In particular, in many of their later identities, they claimed to be from tiny island/s nations, or at least small poor places you wouldn't generally expect many wikipedians from. | |||
| :I don't know if they ever said the stuff about "If I were an Israeli soldier and you a Palestinian" to Jayron32, but I'm fairly sure it wasn't the reason why the Timothyhere round of socks was blocked. It could be that the AndresHerutJaim and Timothyhere group are the same editor and no one noticed before. I would also note that if it's either editor, their indication their disruption stopped over a year ago isn't particularly believable. (I believe there were more recent Timothyhere socks than the late June ones but I'm lazy to look for them.) | |||
| :I'm not suggesting an immediate block since I'm not seeing an obvious signs of disruption under the new account. And if it is Timothyhere they seem to have given up on pretending to be from places they clearly aren't. But if it's either or both editor/s, lying about their history and why they were blocked is not a good sign. And they should expect to be on a short leash not because of anything to do with forgiveness but because we have good reason to think they can't be trusted to continue to edit. | |||
| :Edit: The most recent probably trolling from Timothyhere I can find is ]. It's nothing particularly wrong but given the history it was hard to believe their claim they were "working for a psychology project on the case regarding Kato". Also looking a bit more, I think Timothyhere had an interest in terrorism and in particular Al Qaeda under their many identities, in particular in relation to Canada. But I don't recall much interest in the Israel-Palestinian issue or Iran. | |||
| :] (]) 06:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :This is not the correct process for requesting an unblock. The editor says their account was blocked 1 year ago and they apparently set up a sock account to continue editing shortly afterwards. They have not even told us what the original account was, or how they were blocked. Furthermore, if they continue editing, they are not normally allowed to make a clean start but must keep the old account after it has been unblocked. My suggestion is to close this discussion thread, block the IP and Japanesehelper, and ask them to make the request on their talk page or, if that is blocked, through email. At that time, a CU can be conducted. ] (]) 07:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **In a nutshell, it is easier to watch someone when they are in the open, and the liklihood of them becoming productive is higher as well. My opinion hasn't changed. I won't block and would oppose anyone else at this juncture. Wait and see, monitor, hope for the best. ] | ] | ] 11:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Redlink category adder == | |||
| I don't want to make a big deal about this, and I would take it somewhere else if I knew where that place was, but the user CmdrDan appears to believe that simply adding a category to an article creates the category, so he's added a number of redlinked categories to articles. Can someone who's more familiar with categories than I am have a talk with him? Thanks. ] (]) 05:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Left a note, HTH. All the best: ''] ]'', <small>07:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| == Arbitration motion regarding ''Falun Gong 2'' (]) == | |||
| The Arbitration Committee has superseded the topic ban imposed on {{user|Ohconfucius}} in the ] case by ]: | |||
| {{quotebox|1=The Committee resolves that remedy 2 (Ohconfucius topic-banned) in the ] is suspended for the period of one year from the date of passage of this motion. During the period of suspension, any uninvolved administrator may, as an arbitration enforcement action, reinstate the topic ban on Ohconfucius should Ohconfucius fail to follow Misplaced Pages behavior and editing standards while editing in the topic area covered by the suspended restriction. In addition, the topic ban will be reinstated should Ohconfucius be validly blocked by any uninvolved administrator for misconduct in the topic area covered by the suspended restriction. Such a reinstatement may be appealed via the normal process for appealing arbitration enforcement actions. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be repealed.}} | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 11:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : ] | |||
| == Psst, bit of a backlog at ] == | |||
| Thanks.--] (]) 19:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Hey admins, come on == | |||
| {{archive top|result=Done. Thank you all. ] (]) 22:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| ...and help a brother/sister out nextdoor, at ], section "Undue retaliation, provocation and/or vandalism on Mitsubishi Magna article by User:OSX". You need to help me figure out what to do with these two editors, one of whom was at 27R, while the other kept their count low by way of sockage. I already did the heavy lifting. ] (]) 04:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Archive.is headache == | |||
| Archive.is URLs ]. But the task was not properly done. As a result, it has become a big headache. Someone makes non-constructive edits/vandalism in an article, you try to revert it and find you can not do it, as the article contains archive.is URL. | |||
| I reported it ], where it was observed only "rollback" option is working here. But, we can not use rollback always. | |||
| This has become a big headache. I just had to just to make a reversion with an edit summary. <span style="background:orange;border:orange ridge">]</span><span style="color:blue;background:white;otit;border-bottom-style:ridge;">☸</span><span style="background:#57C738;border:green ridge">]</span> 18:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Perhaps it's time to remove them from the blacklist? The concern was that archive.is might (horror) use adverts, and might spam archive links to WP. The admin of archive.is replied that we could, if we wished, make archive.org backups of archive.is and use those. They do not appear to be out to take advantage of Misplaced Pages, and indeed are providing a valuable service. If their site became unacceptable to link to in the future we could remove the links very rapidly. All the best: ''] ]'', <small>19:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| :: I have no idea why its on the blacklist and it seems to be shooting us in the foot. One bad person should not equate to wholesale blacklisting of a valid and important archival service. It seems like a knee-jerk decision was made and the damage done is creating quite a fuss and hurting our articles. I've seen plenty of issues with Archival services not picking up or losing access to Gamespot's new robots.txt (Archive.org in this case). I also note that a while back there was some discussion about funding and acquiring such a service - but I'm a bit out of the loop on that. We can very easily control our links at will from such sites, I don't see the need to have an entire beneficial service blacklisted. ] (]) 19:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::If I remember correctly, part of the blacklisting was the archive.is folks using an unapproved bot account which was blocked (for being an unapproved bot). Then evading that block with IP addresses. <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 20:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Archive sites are akin to redirectors, though. Is there any content that is on archive.is and not archive.org? If not, we probably don't need it. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: That kind of statement reduces a valid option and Archive.org has missed many key sources to 404 that I wish I could selectively archive. Now, an unapproved bot and socking is one thing, but it seems knee-jerk reaction to a problem. Would you do the same if and blacklist all of Archive.org because someone used an authorized bot to mass add links? ] (]) 20:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: <small>Edit conflict</small> Plenty, I'm afraid. We should discourage people from removing the links without replacement, as the archice.is URL is vital to being able to determine what the original was, and therefore finding a replacement. ] (]) 20:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: There are several differences between archive.is and archive.org. Archive.org is a crawler and gets everything when it visits a page but it does follow robots.txt. Archive.is claims they only archives pages they are told to archive but ignores robots.txt. Webcite is closer in functionality to archive.is, but they do follow robots.txt. <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 20:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Archive.is is currently the best and seemingly only option for GameSpot archives at this time. They regularly 404 and are altered and now have Robots.txt which makes Archive.org not serve the page even if they HAD the archive previous. See ]. ] (]) 20:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::As I mentioned ], I haven't found any good alternatives to archive.is yet. For example, web.archive.org and webcitation.org failed to archive {{URL|beyonce.com/credits}} properly – only archive.is renders the page's content correctly. ''']''' (]) 21:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::* ], what do you suggest to do if you want to revert a non-constructive edit, and want to add an edit summary too. Please see . The editor, being a film production house member, was removing "negative reviews, reception" from the article.<br/>Either remove them from blacklist, if that is not possible, okay, I have not problem, then appoint a bot to remove all archive.is URLs from Misplaced Pages. Currently it is a big trouble.<span style="background:orange;border:orange ridge">]</span><span style="color:blue;background:white;otit;border-bottom-style:ridge;">☸</span><span style="background:#57C738;border:green ridge">]</span> 23:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{outdent|:::::::}} | |||
| *The reason archive.is was blacklisted was because the people running archive.is ''utterly destroyed'' any possible sense of good faith with their actions (spamming links, unapproved bot, block evasion, etc.) - the links were being added in a blatantly promotional fashion, ''instead'' of simply correcting broken links that were easily findable and fixable. It was indistinguishable from spam, and it was treated as such, and frankly after their display I, personally, cannot consider any archive.is link trustworthy - after the display of what they did here, who knows what they have on their site that might be lurking to infect my computer? - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 01:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Wow:. Carefully parsing the above and rewriting for provable truth, we have: Someone acting on Archive.is's behalf employed block-evasion techniques to flood-add both Archive.is and Archive.org archive links preemptive to link failures (read: many, but not all, of the edits were needed yet). Optimistically, it was a technological partial proof-of-concept. Pessimistically, it was (weakly) promotional, and (strongly) unapproved behavior per our bot consensus guidelines. I found the edits to be 100% accurate, overall helpful though sometimes unnecessary, and in every case unharmful, though technically against bot policy and procedure. There's a tendency to throw the baby (bot-added edits which are helpful-but-against-procedure) right out with the bathwater, and I strongly object to this (insert religion-based decision process epithet here) bullshit. However, and be very clear about this: Archive.is was ''blacklisted'' because a narrow majority of easily-frightened RFC participants were led witless down a banhammer garden path by a couple of admins who scaremongered and nerdraged about a couple of hundred IP edits. Tempest, meet teapot. Seriously, this wasn't as bad as {{U|The Bushranger}} and {{U|Kww}} would have you all believe. That said, I support blocking addition of archive.is links ''by new editors'', '''''but''''' I support allowing such links when added by editors with high edit counts and low deleted-edit counts in good standing (meaning: responsible, accountable additions). I have NO fear of archive.is or the site owners, anything The Bushranger says notwithstanding. --] (]) 21:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::...all I can say is "wow". (Well, I can also say I find your accusations of bad faith disturbing.) - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 21:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Oh, pshaw. That's not counterargument, that's just garbage, and ''not appropriate admin behavior.'' You exaggerated the seriousness of the situation in order to get the zero-sum "win", with the actual effect of yeah, you "won", but Misplaced Pages lost, and archive.is was totally unaffected. Great job hurting Misplaced Pages ''worse'' than any possible spam did. I think it's called "friendly fire." The only (quite narrowminded and blinkered, in my opinion) reason which remains for blacklisting is the purely petty bureaucratic-minded outcry of "It was unapproved! He didn't follow procedure! We cannot allow that to stand, even if the links are valid!" I've always disliked this bent logic, but have extremely noisily begrudged its applicability in cases of ''causing other editors extra work,'' which is not the case here. Each and every one of those archive.org and archive.is links would have been allowed to stand if added slowly by editors in good standing. --] (]) 14:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is all from memory of reading about it after the fact, so I could be mistaken: The only things I saw indicating that the WP account, ], was actually controlled by the owner of archive.is were statements made by that account on a couple of talk pages. I did not see anything that indicated there was outside confirmation of ownership, nor that there was a statement like: I'm going to make changes X to archive.is and then changes X happened. I only saw statements similar to: I have made changes (i.e. mentioning them after the fact). To me there is no indication that the accounts ] and ] were, in fact, owned by the person running archive.is. It was certain that the person controlling the account wanted it to be believed that ] was controlled by the owner of archive.is. | |||
| ::On the other hand there was no statement by owner of either archive.is denying ownership of those accounts. In addition, there was no statement by the owner of archive.is nor those accounts as to explaining the issues brought up at the ]. | |||
| ::The RfC proceeded on the assumption that the owner of archive.is was the person controlling the bot and the actions of whatever was making the similar edits from multiple IPs. | |||
| ::The owner of the account, with respect to the bot, went out of their way to perform actions which were significant violations of policy when easy alternatives were available within policy to accomplish nearly the identical goals, but with something of a delay. Specifically, the whole issue developed out of the use use of an unapproved bot which was in the approvals process and likely to be approved and its edits welcomed, if the process had been followed. | |||
| ::After the bot was blocked there was then the issue of the apparent use of a large number of IPs from multiple countries to run the unapproved and account-blocked bot. It was considered by many to very likely that the use of the IPs was not authorized by the owners of the IPs and probably illegal. — ] (]) 02:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Wow... this is a bit stunning. I see allegations thrown around left and right and a single user making very broad legal allegations without substantiating them or providing evidence. This is all heresay and the situation is completely without merit. The issue has long been "resolved". First of all, the edit filter is hidden, but why? Secondly and more important, the edit filter has long not worked on the ".today" links. If there was any valid attack or ongoing need for this filter it would have been apparent. By all means, it is time to get rid of this edit filter. We are damaging our own articles and I see absolutely no threat from the site. ] (]) 02:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't see what's "stunning" here. There's no doubt that there was an attack, and no doubt that someone was using techniques that violated both Misplaced Pages policy and actual law to insert the links. Thank you for pointing out that people have been bypassing the blocklist with an alternate id: it no longer works.—](]) 05:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I do, however, agree that we do need to run a bot that removes the links. I keep trying to find the time to do so, but the task of remaining employed keeps interfering.—](]) 05:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: But the attack has long since halted and its causing a great amount of degradation to article verifiability and not to mention thousands of articles actually being used. There seems to be a growing consensus here that this matter needs to be revisited and I frankly feel that this blacklist endangers the verifiability of thousands of articles, including ones that are already Good or Featured content. This applies greatly to the ] project and at least many other news sites. As it stands, we are actually losing verifiability and damaging Misplaced Pages just in the daily operation of this blacklist that should have been revisited months ago. I'm all for defending against malicious attacks, but it seems its outlived its usefulness and is purely punitive. You closed a hole on something that was already known, but unexploited. Since the "attack" has stopped, the blacklist's continued implementation provides no demonstrable benefit. ] (]) 05:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It stopped ''because'' it was blacklisted. ''its causing a great amount of degradation to article verifiability...I frankly feel that this blacklist endangers the verifiability of thousands of articles...As it stands, we are actually losing verifiability and damaging Misplaced Pages''. How? In what way is it causing "degration to article verifiability"? How is it "damaging Misplaced Pages"? If archive.is didn't exist, would there be any problem with following ]/]: "Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online"? So why is there a problem now? Why is there a "growing consensus" that we should reward someone who attempted to use Misplaced Pages to promote their archive service, then used a bot attack to push it when caught, by promoting the use of said service? - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 05:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::You're saying that it stopped because of the blacklist, but can you provide a timeline of when you feel the attack stopped? The blacklist rule wasn't put in place until mid-March 2014, but the "attack" seems to have stopped by December 2013. --] (<small>]</small>) 14:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The point you seem to be missing, Chris, is that having tens of thousands of links to a site operated by someone that uses botnets leaves us open to further trouble. Why link to someone that is known to be dishonest?—](]) 06:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} Perhaps it stopped back in November because it was blacklisted, but the identity of the attacker doesn't seem to have been proven. I'm sure someone can check Archive.is and see its malwarefree and that is more than I can say for some ''other'' references. I've seen many a reference be turned to hardcore pornography and/or go to a site filled with malicious scripts. Unless proven otherwise, the issue with Archive.is is non-existent. Also, a demonstrable workaround has been present for nearly two months (at least April 14, 2014) and all without "attack". The circumstances merit a revisiting and perhaps even a lifting of the blacklist, and it would be trivial to reinstate if such an attack was done. The ] was controversial and not a clear consensus, but I also think its too late to decide to remove 20,000+ valid working archival links '''now'''. ] (]) 06:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :It's interesting to note that, to date, only the English Misplaced Pages gives a damn about archive.is shenanigans. No other Misplaced Pages project blacklists archive.is, or finds any fault with it. These archives are used throughout the Chinese and Russian Wikipedias, as an alternative to WebCite and Wayback. In fact, . If other projects don't find problems with archive.is, then why are we? --]<sub>]•]•]</sub> 08:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Wow, so you're saying that Albanaian Wikimedia (with more than 10,000 articles) doesn't blacklist it, nor does Icelandic Wikpedia or Old Church Slavonic Misplaced Pages? Well, then certainly we should follow suit.<p>Despite this specious argument (we are English Misplaced Pages, and are ''sui generis''), I do think that archive.is should probably be unblacklisted, despite their earlier misbehavior. We don't want to hurt the encyclopedia just because some outsiders have acted like assholes. ] (]) 10:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You just made an ] there - nowhere did I mention any sub-10,000 Misplaced Pages projects, you made that implication on your own. I pointed out that multiple Misplaced Pages projects of significant size didn't have any qualms with archive.is, and even still to this day allow links to it - this probably suggests that here on enwiki, we think too much about morality instead of actually getting the job done. As has been mentioned above, ''"Why link to someone that is known to be dishonest?"'' - I assure you that nobody would even think about asking such a question on zhwiki; if the tool gets the job done, it doesn't matter if a murderer or a saint created the tool. At least, that's the sentiment that exists outside of enwiki.<p>Just because ] murdered his wife, that doesn't make ] a bad file system (in fact, in theory it works much better than ]), but it's often the case that people make such arguments, and this archive.is case is quite similar. Look at archive.is as a tool to get things done, and ] who did bad things in the past. --]<sub>]•]•]</sub> 11:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Do not use a bot to remove links.''' Per ]: ''the removal of Archive.is links be done with care and clear explanation''. The only way we have of replacing links is to examine the ones that are there. The title of the page and the publisher allows us to use a search engine to find if the page has moved elsewhere. The text of the page can also be used in this way. Given the original URL, it may be possible to find the site on archive using the accessdate. It is very, very difficult to repair references without the original. ] (]) 09:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::* I can not always manually clean-up archive.is links just to revert vandalism. If I see I can not revert edits because of archive.is URLs, I'll leave it, unless the article is very important to me. <span style="background:orange;border:orange ridge">]</span><span style="color:blue;background:white;otit;border-bottom-style:ridge;">☸</span><span style="background:#57C738;border:green ridge">]</span> 10:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Just a note. As closer, it wasn't my intent to prevent bots from removing the links. I did suggest that any removal should be explained--ideally including a link in the edit summary. But that can be done automatically. Also, I've certainly no objection to seeing if consensus has changed on this. ] (]) 12:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::**Nor was it my intent to say that a bot could not be used. If you had one that replaced the links with ones from another archive, that would be okay. I only meant one that removed links without replacement, which I would treat as a rogue bot. ] (]) 22:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::***I'll disagree here. The intent was to remove the links--there was no requirement that they be replaced (though I agree it would be ideal). ] (]) 05:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * I have a question about the ignoring of robots.txt files. Is this in any way equivalent to a copyvio? Perhaps not if the archiving is always in response to a specific request, but an authoritative answer here to that effect would be helpful. Perhaps ] could comment? --] (]) 13:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: I don't think there is an authoritative answer. It's the lawyer/legal-opinion problem. There are other problems. Robots.txt has no defined purpose. Oh, it has a use, and an effect when applied, but the ''reason for using it'' is not required to be stated, so the reason is never stated. Helpful stated reasons might include: "Original author-publisher contract did not include archives", "Publication rights to article content expired", "Owner wishes to monetize archives", "New domain owner does not wish his new brand to be associated with the old domain's content", "New domain-squatting owner wishes to extort money from prior domain owners to lift robots.txt". Two of these are arguably copyright related with a corresponding best-practice Misplaced Pages answer, three are definitely ''not''. --] (]) 21:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: That's right; there are many reasons why Robots.txt is used. The most common is on archive sites themselves, to prevent recursive archiving. ] (]) 22:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * I will say that all the protestations that "it must have been somebody else, you can't ''prove'' it was the site owner" are nothing but hopeful nonsense. The edits matched Rotlink's. They came from a swarm of international IPs at a speed and breadth that couldn't have been anything but a botnet of compromised computers. Lexein, an editor that was fighting desperately to keep the archive.is links, communicated with the site owner and received nothing but evasiveness: never a denial. Whatever the utility of the site may be, it's run by someone that has no qualms about invading computers that belong to other people. That's not a place to link to, because clicking the link provides a known bad actor access to the client machine. As for benlisquare's argument: no, murdering your wife doesn't make you a bad filesystem designer or compromise the quality of your filesystem. It ''does'' mean that only a foolish woman would marry you.—](]) 13:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I think that first of all, Misplaced Pages should have it's own archive like ''Archive.is''. Archive.is is much much better than ] or ] - first of all because it automatically archives all the articles the Misplaced Pages is quoting. Secondly - because it's versatile and has an easy interface. So, Archive.is should be set the standard for such an archiving website. From a previous conversation I understood that Archive.is storage capacity will be exceeded in maximum two years, and then - no more free archiving for Misplaced Pages. Verifiability of Misplaced Pages's articles is quite important for humanity, it might sound inflated to some, but I think it's a safety net against re-writing history, against becoming a ]n world. How much it costs for Misplaced Pages to have it's own archive by the way? Maybe we can raise funds, or we should start a Kickstarter project for it. I am ready to offer some support, maybe there are others like me too. Or maybe Misplaced Pages can pay to Archive.is (or to some other company) for keeping the archive, maybe it will cost less than Misplaced Pages having it's own archiving servers to take care of - in other words, to outsource the job. To this is such an important matter that, if I would be the head of Misplaced Pages, I would try to convince masons (I understand they rule the world and they are shaping the world's future) to finance such an important task - money are not a problem for them :). | |||
| I really hope Misplaced Pages will have it's own archive but until that happens, Misplaced Pages should take advantage of such a great and free offer like Archive.is. I am ready to be part of a future lobby group for solving the archiving issue on Misplaced Pages. There can't be copyright problems, since Misplaced Pages is not trying to make profit from this, but it's just trying to preserve history, I think any judge with minimum common sense would understand that. — ] (]) 14:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : Kww your argument and stance are not being dismissed, but it is unproven and condemning an entire resource because of some past circumstance. There is no threat and that past issue is resolved, but what would it take for you (personally) to allow Archive.is links again? Until Misplaced Pages has its own archival system, we should not be cutting off a key site (which is irreplaceable at this point) simply because of an unauthorized bot that "spammed" links on a bunch of open proxies. And I keep seeing that if the bot was approved, and it likely would have been, would have been a non-issue. The blacklist can be reinstated easily, but I see more users making compelling arguments to lift it and see what happens. ] (]) 15:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: Kww's argument is, however, compelling. We have been here before. I am surprised this is not blacklisted at Meta, actually. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: There is no evidence of a malicious ] and there is no evidence any illegal act has been committed, these are extremely serious allegations and the issue should have been passed immediately to the foundation's team if there was evidence otherwise. By absolutely no measurement can I attribute the word "botnet" to this action, by volume or action, and I must dismiss it as just plain alarmist. And still, that portion of the debate is irrelevant to lifting the blacklist now that the "attack" has stopped. There is no threat, so why are discussing it like it is ongoing and that it was "malicious" in nature. The claims are unsubstantiated and are a gross exaggeration of the incident. ] (]) 16:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There is no evidence of an illegal botnet? Are you serious? And no, discussion of the fact that botnets were used to push links into Misplaced Pages is not irrelevant and will never be irrelevant.—](]) 17:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Did you look at the massive list of IP's used to push these links in to Misplaced Pages after the unauthorized bot was blocked? They're from all over the place! Yeah, no evidence of a botnet. Sorry, there is absolutely no reason to trust the people behind archive.is. They don't care or respect others. There are copyright issues when they archive material blocked by a robots.txt file. <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 17:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Getting beyond the point, but the use of proxies and such are not ''"botnets"''. This alarmist stance has no concrete evidence to connect it to the owners of Archive.is, its conjecture and heresay. Secondly, you are making personal attacks on the site owners and pile on accusations of copyright infringement and such when Misplaced Pages has no control or interest in it. We gladly and willingly supply links to an ] and link to ] which is just as notorious. The issue is months old and there has been no threat or continued attack - by all means, we should consider the issue resolved and lift the blacklist. Objectively - upon what grounds would you agree to lift the blacklist? Let's try to come to some common ground to resolve this issue. ] (]) 17:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Without taking any stance on this subject, no ] discussion is going to affect current policy. Your arguments might have merit, Chris, but this is a larger discussion that has to occur elsewhere, say in an RfC or at the Village Pump, not here. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 18:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::''We gladly and willingly supply links to an illicit drug marketplace and link to 4chan which is just as notorious'' - If you believe this ] should be blacklisted, then ]. ''accusations of copyright infringement and such when Misplaced Pages has no control or interest in it.'' - We do, for the same reason we ]: contributory copyright infringement. While assuming good faith on the part of the site's operators is all well and good, ], and the behavior of the people representing the site utterly destroyed any and all good faith the community had regarding archive.is; the reason "there is no threat or continued attack" is ''because'' the site was blacklisted. We cannot, ], assume that lifing the blacklist will not result in a resumption of the spamming. It's as simple as that, I'm afraid; after the display that led to the blacklisting, I ''cannot'' trust any link to archive.is. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 21:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| The difference between using a botnet to spam links, and the use of proxies to evade blocks in order to spam links, is a difference without a distinction. The main argument for use of archive.is appears to be that it did not honour robots.txt so archived many pages that legitimate archives did not. Anyone else see the issue here? From my experience as a spam blacklist regular here and on meta in the past, much ''much'' less blatant spamming has resulted in global blacklisting before now. This is really very simple: someone came to Misplaced Pages to drive traffic to their ad-supported site, and continued to do this after it was made clear to them that it was inappropriate, including using an unapproved bot. Ideally we need a bot run to clean up their droppings, there are over 22,000 links at present. But if we have to clean them up by hand, then so be it. I just removed a couple of dozen from one article. Nuke 'em as you find 'em I reckon. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that everyone should peaceably engage in discussion and civilly discuss it without all the rhetoric. The claims over "ads" and "malware" are utterly baseless and unsubstantiated. There is surprisingly bad faith expressed here and the owner has never stated it was his own doing, but was aware that it was blocked. Above, it was stated that no mass-purging should be done. Revisiting an issue half a year later is by all means warranted, and without labeling some unknown person an international criminal. ] (]) 02:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::We have been discussing this peacfully. You have provided no plausible non-criminal explanation that would explain a network that included residential IP addresses in third-world countries. Trying to conflate that with a legitimate proxy network is simply wishful thinking, and trying to describe people's well-founded suspicions as "baseless" is (dare I say it?) rhetoric, as is your apparent claim that people have to confess to misbehaviour before people can recognize it as misbehaviour.—](]) 03:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::How can you tell that an IP is a "residential IP address" as opposed to a commercial one? I can't tell you that for this country. ] (]) 04:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Kww, I said the claims over some ads and malware were baseless and unsubstantiated. There has not been any mass-hijacking, malware or any ad issue to speak of - in the past and now. Much of your argument hinged on the site '''''possibly''''' being used to openly attack users with an active bot net and such. That's a big if. A more mundane explanation than an "illicit botnet" exists in the form of archival requests served via a proxy or script. A few of your RFC "problem IPs" even in the first post did not even make an edit either. Why did you repeatedly name many of these non-editors as "evidence" and from how did they identify with this "bot net"? Examples: 117.223.161.182 - 188.251.236.114 - 85.66.241.59 - 89.228.46.37 - 60.50.51.210 - 122.178.159.163 - 109.175.88.133 You are sticking to the vast unknowns and possibilities some 6 months later. It seems more obvious that these archival requests were being fed (albeit improperly) via some script and accessed by "people" on demand. The whole "botnet" attack thing doesn't seem plausible given the jumps in time and topic as a breaching move. Despite the whole Archive.is blacklist not working for months and the multitude of ways around it, are you still going to say that its '''''because''''' of your blacklist that the problem is resolved? Given all the information we should be able to come to a de-escalation of the blacklist or a temporary lifting and see how this goes. I don't fault you for being cautious, but I do have big concerns about the thousands of articles which are being impacted by this blacklist. ] (]) 05:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::], by examining the DNS records and routing groups associated with the IP address. ], several of the IP addresses were prevented from making the edits by filters, so the contributions do not show in the contribution history. For example | |||
| ::::*https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:AbuseLog/9321724 (India) | |||
| ::::*https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:AbuseLog/9205305 (Hungary) | |||
| ::::*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=94.155.181.118 (Bulgaria) | |||
| ::::IP addresses in multiple countries making exactly the same edit, hammering away on one article day after day. It was the repeated attempts to insert the link in ] that first drew my attention.—](]) 05:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | {{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. | |||
| * Like the others commenting above, I frequently come across changes I cannot revert because there exists links that I cannot resave, and I'm sure others may be frustrated if they came across it and could not understand why. I dealt with the one archive.is link I came across yesterday by commenting it out without the "http://" – not the best or a long-term solution, but I felt it would do the least damage. I felt that removing it outright would be to damage the project. We really ought not to get too overcome by continued paranoia and metaphysical angst. It was a very ] who said it matters not that the cat is black or white so long as it catches mice. Damage is being done to this encyclopaedia every day this blacklisting is in place, so we need to be a much stronger dose of pragmatism. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 05:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] What would you like me to do now? ] (]) 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I find it interesting that the same people who claim the blacklisting was some sort of hysterical knee-jerk are the ones saying things like "damage is being done to Misplaced Pages every day the blacklist is in place". It's not. ]. And if you're concerned about a link with a robots.txt strangling the Internet Archive's archive, there's WebCite for that. I frankly find it downright disturbing that there are so many people who are urging we reward the bad behavior of the people who ''spammed and, when caught spamming, attacked'' Misplaced Pages to push their website. Yes, "the crisis has passed and the attacks are not continuing". The reason for this is ''because the site was blacklisted''. ''IF'' someone is willing to make contact with the people who run archive.is, ''if'' they are willing to accept and apologise for their prior conduct, ''if'' they are willing to provide a good-faith assurance that they have changed so that such conduct will not occur again, and ''if'' we can be certain that their running an end-around sites' robots.txt files would not make Misplaced Pages a party to ], ''then'' we can open a RfC on removing archive.is from the blacklist (and, heck, in that case I'd support it). Otherwise, just as a blocked editor who is unrepentant stays blocked, a website that engaged in decidedly shady practices to push themselves on Misplaced Pages stays blacklisted. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 10:23, 10 May 2014 (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) | |||
| :: This can be summed up simply as: Webcite doesn't work with it - Archive.is is the only known one that properly captures pages and avoids robots.txt. And you are demanding that someone, who may not have anything to do with it, take the blame and apologize for it and act as some legal shield. We link to some of the worst sites in the internet, prominently, but the matter of Archive.is "copyright infringement" status would be for Foundation's legal team - not us. I understand that at the time there was a real and pressing need for it, given the circumstances, but that's past now and real editors are being affected. This is far from punishing one bad editor - its punishing everyone long after the problem stopped. Its easy to be a naysayer, but if everyone is so confident in their claims, surely ] would be appropriate. And that's all I ask. ] (]) 15:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I did not make a legal threat. ] (]) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::*{{ping|The Bushranger}}You say all we need to do is follow procedure to replace duff links. It's fine if it's one or two links, but it isn't always possible if the link is already dead. I'd just ask you to please be a part of the solution instead of part of the continuing problem – the easiest would be removing archive.is from the blacklist and see if the problem re-emerges. If it doesn't, we need to look no further, and are able to get on with normal life. Alternatively, someone can set up a bot to systematically replace existing archive.is urls with valid webcitation or wayback captures. Would you be prepared to undertake either?? --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 15:51, 10 May 2014 (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) | |||
| ::::So your solution would be to have hundreds of thousands of links to someone that abuses people's computers and then apologize ''afterwards'' if those connections are used illicitly? And no, ] isn't appropriate: it's reasonable to take a risk when all we have to do is clean up this site, because that's well within our power. It's irresponsible to put others at risk.—](]) 17:16, 10 May 2014 (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) | |||
| ::::: Show us proof that the Archive.is website is a malicious attack website. There is no concrete proof that the owner of the website conducted any attack against Misplaced Pages - its all conjecture. I support what was done at the time, but there has been no evidence raised to support the continuation of the blacklist. Serious allegations call for serious evidence and I am not convinced that Archive.is conducted a massive "illicit botnet" to attack Misplaced Pages with malware and trojans, especially since there has never been any malware associated with the site - or ads. I'm left to the conclusion that someone did something wrong, but that party is unknown, and the Archive.is website never has been a threat to Misplaced Pages or our users. If you can show proof that the owner was behind it few people would question the continuation of the blacklist. ] (]) 17:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No it is not a legal threat. It is about <b>"WP rules and regulations"</b>, not about law. | |||
| ::::::Very few people question the evidence or the continuance of the blacklist today, nor is concrete proof required before taking defensive steps.—](]) 17:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* To who would this be a threat? | |||
| :::::::Am I missing something? Should we not replace the (potential copyright violation) archive.is links by a link to the original (dead) web site and an archive date? Does that not preserve all the relevant information against the possibility that (1) archive.is might be unblacklisted or (2) a legitimate archive or personal copy can be found? — ] ] 19:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* Which law? | |||
| :::::::: There are over 20,000 links (in itself circumstantial evidence of systemic abuse), so I think we need to find a botmaster to strip them. Most are additive, not replacements. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* In which country? | |||
| :::::::::It is ridiculous to say that 20,000 links to an ''archiving site'' is "evidence of systemic abuse". How many links are there to WebCite, or archive.org? — ] (]) 21:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] (]) 09:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I remember this well because of the backdrop. With the perennial scary donation request at the top with donation totals that never changed, Webcite made it look like it was about to close down, and the options for similar features to it were few if you want pre-emptive archiving. Fearing its demise, I myself added probably in excess of a hundred archive links to archive.is instead of webcitation, and this was before the alleged spamming incident. The Icelandic site is well thought out, user-friendly, with a one-click tool to archive a page from the toolbar of the browser. Beats Webcite by more than a short head, because with the latter you are still wondering if it is still working 3 minutes and three archive screens later. This advanced functionality is what I believe contributed to the large number of links to that archive and not the spamming, as I believe most of those were blocked and reversed. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 06:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 12:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::{{reply to|Ohconfucius}} Just FYI: I created/modified a few bookmarklets to make archiving easier. Bookmarklets for one click archiving to WebCite and archive.org of a page you are viewing are listed at ]. | |||
| :::::It certainly looks like a legal threat. ] (]) 14:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Bookmarklets for one click ''searching'' for archives of a page which you have found to be dead are available at ] for archive.org, WebCite and Mementos. | |||
| :::::: |
:::::@]. Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::Wow, I am glad you asked. | |||
| As has been mentioned, this is not the appropriate forum to have a discussion about implementing the removal of archive.is from the blacklist. There was a ] that archive.is should be blacklisted with the knowledge that it would cause the issues which are being experienced now. Administrators are implementing that consensus. It would be inappropriate for them to decide here to go against that consensus by removing archive.is from the blacklist. If it is desired that archive.is be removed from the blacklist then a new RfC needs to be held with at least as wide participation as the last one to demonstrate a consensus for removal. — ] (]) 21:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::* to have a bit of fun, take a break from the normal, pretty serious work. It will be like kids in a candy store. | |||
| :The administrators are not bound to a flawed consensus, one resulting from an RFC that was neither promoted to the wider community nor neutrally opened. As a wide user of archive.is I didn't know about the discussion until I found I could no longer add links. ] / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review ]? 23:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::* It will be fun for me too. I can't wait to get going with this once the pandemonium calms down. | |||
| ::Seconding the above. If I had known about the RfC, I would have participated in it. Only a close circle of participants were aware of it, and got involved in it, and these people happened to be those who already had prior knowledge about the issue, and thus already had an opinion over it. The RfC was conducted without the overall community being informed, despite being an important decision which covers many, many articles. --]<sub>]•]•]</sub> 05:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::* The accusation "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage" is utterly wrong. | |||
| :::By "without the overall community being informed", do you mean "listed for on ]"? ] (]) 14:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::] (]) 22:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Heh, looks like I missed that. My mistake, carry on. --]<sub>]•]•]</sub> 21:26, 11 May 2014 (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) | |||
| === Arbitrary break === | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| * '''2 and a half possibilities and a question''': Considering those bot/accounts were manage by Archive.is owners (yes, I have read, it has not been proven still), I thought there might be three possibilities of their arhive.is link flooding, 1) Web Archive clearly states that they will not use ad unless it is absolutely necessary (ref: latest Meta discussion), but I have not seen any such claim or commercial scope details for Archive.is. Who may say, they may start adding Adsense ads in their pages. 2) the second possibility— they were unaware that wikipedia uses "nowfollow" links for external links, most probably they were trying to get thousands of "dofollow" links or they were trying to improve their page ranks. This way or that so many links from Misplaced Pages SURELY makes BIG impact on both Alexa rank and Google PR, and if they start using ads, there will be $$$$. 3) the third reason, they were actually trying to help Misplaced Pages, but I don't think it is a valid reason, so, it is a "half" reason, "'''Two and a half possibilities'''" in total.<br/>Although in the main post of this thread, I mentioned only "reversion problem" we have been facing, if I see suggestion to unblacklist Archive.is, the first thing I would like to know, "Why?" "Why were they doing so?" — it is still not clear to me. <span style="background:orange;border:orange ridge">]</span><span style="color:blue;background:white;otit;border-bottom-style:ridge;">☸</span><span style="background:#57C738;border:green ridge">]</span> 07:40, 11 May 2014 (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) | |||
| ::I also would have participated in the RfC, had I known about it. I only found out about it months later. After the fact, there appeared to be little or no information anywhere other than at the RfC itself that there was a problem with archive.is, or that archive.is was not permitted to be used on enwiki. There was nothing that I saw at any of the help pages dealing with citations and archiving until mid/late March. I know this because I added most of the brief mentions of the situation after I found out about it in ]. | |||
| ::There appears to be a significant disconnect between the level of concern that people are expressing here and how slowly action occurred after the RfC was closed. The RfC was closed at the end of October. | |||
| ::*No large scale effort has yet occurred to remove links from articles. Yes, individual editors have removed them, but nothing on the order that is needed to get 20,000 links. | |||
| ::*Until 10 February 2014 {{diff2|594810499|archive.is was listed}} as one of the services to use for preemptive archiving (although not highly recommended). | |||
| ::*Archive.is was not blacklisted until 4.5 months after the RfC was closed. | |||
| :::*As best I can tell blacklisting was sometime between 18 March 2014 and 20 March 2014. It was not blacklisted at the start of ] and I encountered the new blacklisting of archive.is with {{diff2|600417762|these two}} {{diff2|600418078|edits}}. | |||
| :::*There appears to be a bit of a problem with confused semantics here. It is not possible that it was the ''blacklisting'' of archive.is that stopped the editing by the IPs. The IPs stopped (early October) 5.5 months prior to archive.is being blacklisted (late March). It was the ''blocking'' of the IPs that stopped them from editing, not the blacklisting of archive.is. | |||
| ::I don't have a problem with there being a significant delay between the RfC closure and actions. I am not trying to take anyone to task for not moving forward. I'm just trying to say that the sky did not fall down during the 4.5 months between the close of the RfC and putting archive.is on the blacklist. It is probably not falling down now. We can remain calm and talk this out, even have another RfC, if that is warranted. | |||
| ::If I had been aware of the RfC, I honestly don't know how I would have voted at the time. I'm not certain how I would vote now, as I want more information prior to deciding. The actions that were performed were definitely ones which lead to grave concerns about continued dealings with the responsible party. The fact that it has been reported the owner of archive.is did not deny he controlled the bot nor that he was responsible for the anonymous IP edits is of great concern. However, I do believe there are questions which remain unanswered. | |||
| ::{{reply to|Titodutta}} As to why they continued to press on once the bot was initially blocked: I have no idea and I can't come up with a good reason that takes into account the response from WP (blocking/removal) which was obvious and expected in advance of the precipitating actions. With the assumption that the desire was to have more links on Misplaced Pages for a longer time, I see no good reason for acting the way the person controlling the bot did. What it appears they wanted to accomplish (having the bot add links) could have been accomplished, even then, by coming back, taking responsibility, taking some lumps and finishing the approvals process. The links would have been welcomed and in 10x larger quantities which would have stayed for years. Proceeding in the way they did was near certain to result in a much worse outcome with respect to the number and longevity of the links. The fact that this is the case, and that it was easily foreseeable, leads me to wonder about other possible motives rather than the obvious ones (adding links). | |||
| ::If adding links was the real goal, only someone very short-sighted, or self-oriented in perspective would have continued the way that it happened. Continuing at that point to add links via anonymous IPs, etc. has clear and obvious consequences that should have been able to be seen by the person doing it. Only someone who did not believe the consequences would happen to them, could not or did not see the high probability consequences, or wanted the consequences would have continued. — ] (]) 10:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Its clear the edit filter was not working, nor had it been, for quite some time, but I cannot actually view the history because it is hidden. As a result, it seems that there is far more to this blacklist issue because Kww seems to have hinted to reinstated the blacklist in February in what seems to be an apparent admission of ]. Again... I can't see it, so someone needs to look into this. Kww may not have made a neutral RFC, but there is no question that Misplaced Pages had a clear problem with this bot - but it seems that this issue will need either a community RFC or Arbitration if this is to be resolved. I well understand and appreciate the work done by those who work in this technical area, but this thread continues to bring up more questions than answers... In short, the argument that the attack was/is halted by the blacklist seems to be unsupported. ] (]) 17:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Also, ] shows that the blacklist was not in place by December - long after the supposed close and without further attack. Hobit, the non-admin closer stated, "Per the RFC, the blacklist shouldn't be implemented until most/all of those links are removed. Doing so would, as I understand it, make it nearly impossible to edit these articles. I've not been tracking bot issue, but I think User:Kww is on it." And issues with it were raised by {{ping|Wbm1058}} and {{ping|Lukeno94}}, but again the blacklist post removal was affirmed as that was not the place to fight it. However, I think its fairly clear that the blacklist was not done on schedule and that the closer's request was not followed. Surely, if the "attack" was halted by the blacklist and not the blocks, it would have been apparent. I think we need transparency - can someone please provide the history of that edit filter? ] (]) 17:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What edit filter are you talking about? I haven't been following this discussion particularly closely, but the only edit filter I've seen anyone mention is ], which is already public. You're not mistaking the ] for an ], are you? They're two different things. ] ]] 17:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Sorry for the confusion ] is referred to via ] to prevent Archive.is links, but Archive.is was said still not to be on a blacklist in this discussion: ]. According to the RFC, a blacklist was supposed to be made following the removal of the links - this was never done and I can't view the edit filter or see the "blacklisting". Why is filter 559 private anyways? ] (]) 18:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Well, several weekends later, ], the initiator of that RfC, has finally filed a ]. ] (]) 18:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::There's a really disappointing comment in that bot request. "and its alias, archive.today, which was put in place to bypass the blacklist" really drives home that archive.is doesn't give a damn about anyone else and will not work with Misplaced Pages. Until that attitude changes, archive.is (and any other alias they come up with) should not be welcomed on Misplaced Pages. <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 18:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::How do you know that the alias was put in place to bypass the blacklist? Did you confirm with the webmaster? Let's not jump to conclusions here: as of present, all archive.is URLs ''redirect'' to archive.today, they might have just had a domain name problem or something. "archive.today" is not an ''alias'', it is the actual domain where the site is hosted, since archive.is is no longer the main domain. --]<sub>]•]•]</sub> 21:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}How you know it wasn't? There is zero AGF left related to archive.is. <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 22:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : The accusation that Archive.today is to bypass the edit filter - and coincidentally without any attack or mass additions - is disgraceful and naked fearmongering. Its been redirecting for weeks all without a single attack and the edit filter is still by-passable and ineffective in the face of a minimally competent spammer. If there was any threat, it would have been apparent in the last half year. ] (]) 04:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::According to the webmaster himself (see <nowiki>http://blog.archive.today/</nowiki>): ''"ISNIC (the .is domains registry) is being attacked by social hackers so I am about to lose the domain archive.is"''. --]<sub>]•]•]</sub> 06:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: And there we have it, the owner gave a reason three weeks ago. The mundane explanation over the fanciful is usually the correct one. ] (]) 15:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :and just to throw some more fuel on the bushfire, you have just accused me twice more of vandalism., . --] (]) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Alternative === | |||
| * 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) | |||
| After seeing, and agreeing with Ark25's comment that there should be an archiving tool more closely tied to wikipedia. I created a small hack, http://archive.grok.se - anyone interested in giving it a try? Sample output: http://archive.grok.se/G-3dP4Gc-NQmeZ4JSnCzuVZkdB6pBUSKPS2Xh_lvP_M. One key point is that it should not be possible to alter the contents of an archived link without it being detectable. It's only about 24 hours old at this point, so there's bound to be a few rough edges. <strong>]<small>•]</small></strong> 10:28, 11 May 2014 (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) | |||
| * Brilliant work ], Looks like it is taking snapshot of the webpage and dividing it into pages, even if . The text is unclear as well, most probably for the snapshot image resolution.<br/>Good or bad, a work has been started at least to create an archiving system. <br/><u>I strongly recommend to take this initiative forward, "our Misplaced Pages, our archiving system"</u> Do you mean it can't be used in WP articles now? --<span style="background:orange;border:orange ridge">]</span><span style="color:blue;background:white;otit;border-bottom-style:ridge;">☸</span><span style="background:#57C738;border:green ridge">]</span> 11:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::It’s hard to see a paid or COI element to the behaviour at {{tl|Body roundness index}}. — ] (]) 14:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::It is fairly weird, but I can't see any reason a business legal department would have any interest unless the editor's activity relates to their business activity. ] (]) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I expect it’s just empty talk to get an upper hand in the dispute. — ] (]) 14:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::: Indeed. It is night where Uwappa is now, but my inclination is to see what reaction there is when they restart editing. If it is another revert or a lack of discussion, a block (or at least a prtial block) is indicated. ] 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::], how do you know where I am? Are you spying on me, disclosing personal information? | |||
| *::::::* Anybody in the room who ]? | |||
| *::::::* Reverted vandalism 3rd time in 24 hours. Anybody curious about what the vandalism is? | |||
| *::::::* Anybody in the room that wonders why I had to do the repost? Isn't that odd in combination with "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process"? Did anybody read ]? | |||
| *::::::* Did anybody read ] and ]? | |||
| *::::::* Did anybody spot any incompleteness in the accusations? | |||
| *::::::* Anybody interested in my to answers to the accusations? | |||
| *::::::] (]) 16:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::* JMF above said you were in Australia and I had no reason to disbelieve him. If you aren't, it's irrelevant really, I was just pointing out that you may not edit for a few hours. No-one here is required to answer your questions, but I will; the point was that you invoked something that could be a legal threat {{tq|My business legal department is pretty exited about it ... can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.}} You say that isn't a legal threat, well fine, but you haven't explained what it ''was''. Meanwhile, you're ''still'' edit-warring on the template and claiming that other's edits are vandalism, which they clearly aren't, which is why you can no longer edit it. Have I missed anything? ] 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::* Again, that was either a legal threat or actions indistinguishable from a legal threat in an attempt to cause a ]. When called on it you have continually ] instead of straight-up saying "no, that was not a legal threat and I am not involving any legal actions in this". So to make it very clear: you need to clearly state that or be blocked per ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| And just to add to the excitement, Uwappa has just repeated their allegation of vandalism against me and reverted to their preferred version of the template for the ''sixth'' time. (Their edit note adds ''3rd time in 24 hours'': are they boasting of a 3RR vio? {{u|Zefr}} undid their fourth attempt, I undid their fifth attempt, but possibly they misread the sequence.) --] (]) 17:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thanks! Instead of just saving the source of web pages as archive.org does, this tool pretty much prints it - hence the pages. So the output is close to what you get if you hit the print button in your browser (some good sites will have print css that help this). This has some good and some bad aspects; the good is that dynamic content is stored without any dependencies and that it, akin to the low resolution images we store under fair use, is created in such a manner that is not likely to replace the market role of the original copyrighted material. It is also why links and text selection doesn't work - it's meant to be a viewer of a snapshot and not a replacement for the original site. The same things also make it not very useful as a proxy or to browse anonymously. Most pages can be somewhat reasonably printed, even though the formatting often leaves something to be desired the contents is nearly always readable. Which I personally think is good enough for a tool such as this. | |||
| * Yes, I noticed. I have pblocked them indefinitely from the template, and reverted that edit myself so that no-one else is required to violate 3RR. ] 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :* Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous. {{Blockquote|text=An editor must not perform {{strong|more}} than three reverts on a single page whether involving the same or different material—within a {{strong|24-hour period}}.|source=]}}. | |||
| :: A hint: I think the text will be more clear if you open the pdf file (the download link under archival date) in a separate pdf viewer. It will also allow you to select/copy text. PDF.js is still a bit rough, but hopefully it will improve over time. I can always add better navigation, zoom tools and look into the text rendering if people find http://archive.grok.se interesting and start using it :) <strong>]<small>•]</small></strong> 11:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :* Suggestion: Add the following calculator to ]: | |||
| ::* Hi ] I did not try the PDF link, I just checked the webpage and that's what we'll need here. Devanagari script (Devanagari script is a kind of Indian script used for Hindi, Sanskrit etc) is not being displayed properly, if you see my link above, you'll find boxes.<br/>Has WMF given any indication that they'll start their own web page archiving service? I mean WMF's official webpage archiving service? If not, then, a user initiative will be superb.<br/>I am not sure, for a large project you may need finance, I am not much experienced, but you may keep ] in mind. <span style="background:orange;border:orange ridge">]</span><span style="color:blue;background:white;otit;border-bottom-style:ridge;">☸</span><span style="background:#57C738;border:green ridge">]</span> 11:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{calculator|id=edits|type=number|steps=1|size=3|default=3|min=0}} | |||
| :::* Ah, good of you to spot that! I didn't have very many fonts installed on the machine it runs on. I installed Devanagari fonts - tried with your example, and it appears to render correctly now: http://archive.grok.se/OhhlFC8pbJ_O-OZObkjGz5_4w_oJMBSm17H1yXPt9Vo. The latin glyphs should also be a little bit less ugly. My view is that if and when it turns out to be a large enough project that it needs funding, we'll cross that bridge then. Hopefully it can run on spare cycles and storage for a while. I've gotten help from the WMF to run my other Misplaced Pages related service, http://stats.grok.se, so it's not inconceivable they would be willing to help out with this as well. :) <strong>]<small>•]</small></strong> 12:17, 11 May 2014 (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) | |||
| I think we should start a project for promoting the idea of Misplaced Pages having it's own archive. It will take some time until it will take off, but we should provide a location for people who want to support the idea. In time, we'll find out how much it costs and other important details, and in the end, one day we'll probably make it happen. — ] (]) 13:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::* From ]; {{tq|Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring}}. Which this quite obviously does, especially as you've reverted ''twice'' whilst this report was ongoing. Frankly, you're quite fortunate it was only a partial block. ] 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :To admins, please ] Uwappa from further work on the calculator template for the body roundness index and waist-to-height ratio, and from further editing and talk page input on those articles. Uwappa has done admirable extensive work, but the simple calculator is finished and sufficient as it is. Uwappa has created voluminous ]/] talk page discussions for articles with under 50 watchers and few talk page discussants; few editors would read through those long posts, and few are engaged. | |||
| Sorry if I repeated myself in the message above. We need a page like ]. Thanks Henrik for the good job! Such works should be part of the project. — ] (]) 17:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :In recent edits on templates, Uwappa reverts changes to the basic template as "vandalism". No, what we're saying is "leave it alone, take a rest, and come back in a few years when more clinical research is completed." ] (]) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{ab}} | |||
| *This was closed, but...Uwappa's reply to their block was . Suggest revoking TPA. {{ping|Black Kite}} - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **. I've revoked TPA. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Kansascitt1225 ban appeal == | |||
| === Bulk removals without replacement === | |||
| {{atop green|result=Appeal successful. There were some murmurings requesting a topic ban from Kansas, but nothing approaching consensus. Of course, ] would be well-advised to be careful not to go back to the behaviors that led to a block in the first place. But in the meantime, welcome back. <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 19:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| See these too: ], ] ] (]) 22:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I am posting the following appeal on behalf of {{user21|Kansascitt1225}}, who is considered banned by the community per ]: | |||
| :I'm not just bulk removing, in most cases I'm replacing with either an archive.org or webcite replacement. --] (]) 23:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::On one article alone you left 20 references without an archive, just one article of the many you've changed. When this has been brought to your attention you deleted the comments and made clear you would delete any further communication. So you're not really playing by the rules and saying that you are replacing MOST of them with an alternative is like saying you're only going to stab someone a LITTLE bit. ] / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review ]? 17:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| (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) | |||
| == Proposal to ban ] from political articles == | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} ] (]/]) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] has proven not to be able to be neutral when editing political articles. He has created "Decade of Darkness" twice and "Harper Derangement Syndrome" both of which were basically attack articles against liberals. Since the deletion of decade of darkness he attempted to add it to several articles, despite being told not to. It seems to be clear that he cannot edit political articles without being bias. ] (]) 03:18, 9 May 2014 (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) | ||
| *'''Support''' per asilvering and ]. ] (]/]) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*My only other comment is that we'd also need to watch out for more ] articles like "Decade of Darkness," which was ostensibly a ''military'' article, even as it was clearly another anti-Liberal Party of Canada attack page, at least when I saw it. ] (]) 14:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Five years is a long time. Willing to trust for a second chance.] (]) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban'''. I really can't understand how any user could possibly create such a biased attack article. You don't have to be a long-time user, overly familiar with Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies, or even particularly knowledgeable about Misplaced Pages decorum. Common sense would seem to indicate that this kind of disruptive trolling would be unwelcome anywhere. It shows an inability to edit political articles and a complete disdain for NPOV. To me, his behavior with respect to the "Decade of Darkness" is secondary, but it shows how determined he is to use Misplaced Pages as a soapbox. He seems to see nothing disruptive about his behavior and quotes "]" as his justification (see the discussion at the ]). I don't think he's going to change. ] (]) 04:57, 9 May 2014 (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) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban''' - Interacting with this user and the many pro-Conservative Party of Canada and anti-Liberal Party of Canada articles he has created and then which had to be deleted, it has become very clear that ] applies. From his edit history this editor is clearly using Misplaced Pages as a ] to promote his own political agenda and in a very blatant and unsophisticated manner as well. His ] has a list of these articles. The Canadian news media has carried stories discussing how the Conservative Party of Canada pays its members to flood forums, news and discussion groups, news site comments and other user-created content websites with pro-party propaganda and the behaviour of this user is consistent with such practices. - ] (]) 12:58, 9 May 2014 (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) | |||
| ***'''Comment''' - If you actually read what I actually wrote I didn't say you were a paid political contributor. - ] (]) 14:06, 11 May 2014 (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) | |||
| *Seems reasonable to me. That is quite a blatant attack. -] (]) 13:34, 9 May 2014 (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) | |||
| **Both ] and ] have been deleted, so I could not provide links to them. ] (]) 16:34, 9 May 2014 (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) | |||
| *''' Oppose ''' I looked at Harper Deragment Syndrome and it doesn't appear to be an attack page. He's writing about what has already been written, in fact, his sources show that it's a neologism covered by more than one source and finally | |||
| *: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! == | |||
| His first link is broken to be sure , but it's easily fixed or replaced with . The article itself says what the sources themselves said, no coatrack, no syn nor any or. Now, I wasn't able to find the second article, but the first article appears to be ok and not an attack. ]'' 16:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **I disagree with you. Just because it is sourced, does not mean it's not an attack article. He wrote the article as if it was an actual mental illness. If saying that people who disagree with you are mentally ill is not an attack, then what is? ] (]) 16:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***Are you ''shitting'' me? "Harper Derangement Syndrome (HDS) is "a mental illness that affects Canadian supporters of the left-wing New Democratic Party of Canada and Liberal Party of Canada'..." ''isn't'' an attack page? It goes on and on like this, in just that tone. As I said at the Afd, yes, "foo derangement syndrome" is a widely used term. Plug in Bush, or Obama or yes, even Trudeau, and you get Ghits. But this article was written as a pure attack page. It wasn't ''about'' the term, it was using Misplaced Pages as a ] for the term, in it's most extreme POV way. ] (]) 16:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: ] I assure you I'm not. However, just so you know, I'm not a Harper hater, nor a supporter, I hadn't heard of him until this report. Howervr, a description of Harper's Derangment appears and he didn't quote it word for word. He paraphrased it. Could that description be worded better ? Sure! However, it's not an attack page. ]'' 19:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I won't badger on this point. IMO it could not be more clearly a ''textbook'' ]. ] (]) 19:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Agreed, I don't know what KV is talking about, clearly an attack page. ] (]) 00:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::When are we going to delete ] and ] as an attack pages, then?--v/r - ]] 00:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Never? The lead to the second one begins quite neutrally "War on Women is an expression in United States politics used to describe..." This is not at all what we have here. ] (]) 00:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::"...certain Republican Party policies..." All article start out neutral, at least until they get to the "..is.." or "...used to..." And the Santorum page? Misplaced Pages should not be writing articles about all the crap that gets created and spread on election years to smear others.--v/r - ]] 00:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} I have changed the lead on ] to include "perceived" to clarify that it is opinion. As for ], it's well sourced and simply documents the facts that happen. It is very significant. The article is the first result when you google Santorum. ] (]) 02:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I wouldn't neccessarily have done that. I'd just look at focusing "War on Women" to the feminist movement and remove the political coatracking. Then I'd delete Santorum altogether. Although I very much doubt it'll get deleted, my point is that all it takes is for a well known politician to bash their opponent and all of that politician's supporters to raise the banners and blog about it before the mainstream media reports on it and whatdalyahave - a fully sanctioned attack page. Our policies fully support this.--v/r - ]] 02:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. It might be useful if an admin could copy these deleted pages to a temporary space so that people can see them. ] (]) 19:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban''' - this is an editor who, alas, seems unable or unwilling to ] regarding the ] that he's been pushing. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 21:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban''' - per Bushranger et al. ] (]) 00:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban''' HDS was a clear attack on the opposition parties and their supporters. ] (]) 01:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support block or topic ban''' Misplaced Pages is not a political toy for bashing others. It's bad enough when new editors think it is, but when established editors demonstrate clear abuse of this project while knowing better, they need to be removed from areas where they can not display proper judgement.--v/r - ]] 01:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban''' ] seems to be the latest example. The user seems intent to make articles where they can put forward their bias. If you make an article on a term used only by people with your bias, you know that all the "sources" will agree with your bias, and you can pretend that you're just following the sources. This problem can't be dealt with by just AFD'ing each case. Because, the user still gets to put out their bias for as long as the article lasts, and then a new one is created after that. Editing an established article means an instant revert, but that's not possible with new articles, where all the content is bias, and there's no neutral version to revert to. At a minimum, there should be a limit imposed on creating new political articles. --] (]) 17:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban'''. Seems obvious this editor is not cut out to edit in this area. --] (]) 17:40, 10 May 2014 (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''' This is ridiculous. I have a Masters degree in political science and I love helping my community however possible. I have only ever written non-partisan articles that are well-researched and supported by ample evidence. At the same time as this individual nominated me for a topic ban, he also nominated several of my articles for deletion, clearly as a form of harassment and attempting to silence the truth. This is obviously a violation of ] and ]. ] (]) 22:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strongly oppose, qualified'''. If the material is reliably sourced, then the wording may need to be changed to make clear that it is a section or article about ideas that are held by particular individuals. The narrower the segment holding them, the narrower the media and public interest, the less space should be given, but no one should be banned from a topic because they wish to report on unsavory perspectives. Specific sets of American attitudes in the South regarding slavery were abhorrent; no one would ever suggest we should not allow coverage of them. ''If, however, other interested editors provide necessary balance, and Mr Ottawa reverts or wars, then that would change matters.'' Bottom line, if reputable sources are talking about these subject, however ludicrous or offensive we might find them, it deserves mention here, with space allocated on the basis of the importance and magnitude of the discussion. (We ''need'' people to relay—not champion, but relay—reputable reports about Lars von Trier words at Cannes in 2011.) To not allow such perspectives to be voiced, or to slay the messengers (which, at times, will agree with the message, other time not) is a frightening course for Misplaced Pages. ''Rather than'' ever ''put this forward in the affirmative, I would elevate this.'' To topic ban for an editor's for choice of material alone is very troubling. There are things that each of us might wish silenced, for unsavoriness, at WP. Don't do it. Silencing dissent is a pernicious temptation. Le Prof ] (]) 05:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **The main issue was neutrality in the articles, rather than whether they should have been written. One article for example began, "Harper Derangement Syndrome (HDS) is "a mental illness that affects Canadian supporters of the left-wing New Democratic Party of Canada and Liberal Party of Canada'..." In fact, the "disease" is not listed in the APA's '']''. We do not begin the article on Von Trier by saying he is the best director in the world, just because he said so. ] (]) 15:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **What you're proposing is that it's okay for politicians to use Misplaced Pages to gain coverage for whatever kind of foul sewage they spew as long as they can get the media to report on it. No need to worry about facts or truth, we're just going to be a gossip blog from henceforth - a reliably sourced gossip blog. The solution isn't to write "the crap stinks" in neutral words, the solution is to not allow the project to be used to bring attention to mudslinging in the first place. The BS that comes out of election years ins't at all notable. New BS will come out 2 - 4 years later that will get just as much "ooo" and "awe". ].--v/r - ]] 19:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **The problem here, Prof, is that the articles are not written as netural analyses of the subjects. They're written as attack-and-slander POV-pushing pieces, and the editor in question continues doing this, repeatedly, despite having been told in no uncertan terms that it's unacceptable. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 03:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - this is obvious and the editor will get off lightly if this is all that we do. Anyone who can create articles saying the Harper thing is a mental illness is probably shouldn't be here at all, but perhaps this will turn him into an acceptable editor. ] (]) 20:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban or site ban'''. I wasn't familiar with any of this, so I read some of the deleted articles, and was appalled. ''Harper Derangement Syndrome'' was a no-holds-barred piece of political much-spreading. The sheer dishonesty of it was staggering, claiming that HDS "is a mental illness" without any attempt to offer any evidence of any medical support for the term, let alone evidence of a clinical consensus in support of it. ''Decade of Darkness'' did it at least start by acknowledging that it "was a term coined", rather than presenting it as a fact, but it used the term as a coatrack for a highly partisan analysis of Canada's defence budget. In some ways this was worse, because it had better chance of sneaking under the radar. Some of the material might have been have usable in a broad article on military spending in Canada, but this was a blatant POV fork.<br />The reason that I support a site ban is that an editor who does sort of thing in one topic area is quite capable of doing it elsewhere, and I see no benefit to the community in simply displacing this activity to other topics. JOttawa16 claims above to have a Masters degree in political science, and if it's true that they are educated to that level, then they will know perfectly well that what they have been doing is unacceptable. This is an editor who is clearly ], and the project should take an unequivocal stand against editors who abuse Misplaced Pages's purpose in this way.<br />However, if there isn't consensus for a full site ban, I will support the proposed topic ban as a lesser but important step. --] <small>] • (])</small> 21:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *User's edit here shows that he cannot understand consensus. Six votes for deletion (two of them suggesting speedy), two weak keeps (one from an IP) and a keep from the creator. And yet, he can't see the clear consensus for deletion. ] (]) 06:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thank you ] I wasn't going to mention the Santorum article, but yes, I agree, it's an attack article and needs to be delted as such. ]'' 10:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''I wasn't going to mention the Santorum article, but yes, I agree, it's an attack article and needs to be delted as such.'' | |||
| :::Wrong. Completely wrong. Look at the list of references. The Washington Post, ABC News, Time magazine, The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. Routledge, Philadelphia Inquirer, The New York Times, ricksantorum.com, Seattle Post Intelligencer, Chicago Tribune, Fox News, PC Magazine, MSBNC, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, The New York Times, ABC News, The Wall Street Journal, .... — ] 15:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''my point is that all it takes is for a well known politician to bash their opponent and all of that politician's supporters to raise the banners and blog about it before the mainstream media reports on it and whatdalyahave - a fully sanctioned attack page.'' Yes, we know there are sources. Any politician who opens their mouth will get repeated in reliable sources. That's a weakness and loophole in our policy.--v/r - ]] 17:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Are you replying to me? That may be an issue with the media, but Misplaced Pages can't fix the media. — ] 18:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, I was replying to you, and yes I know. Which is why I don't normally bother arguing the point. But a fix in policy specifically aimed at election years would go a long way toward these 'fully sanctioned attack articles' and the editors who battle in political topics to create and bias them.--v/r - ]] 18:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::What's interesting is that even the media which '''''wants and intends''''' to be neutral (i.e. they aren't running with the story because it supports their intrinsic POV) will repeat the story because it's "out there", and failing to report it would leave them open to charges of bias from the ideological media. The end result is that there's no longer any real barrier that prevents those kinds of stories from running pretty much everywhere. '''''That''''' is a systemic flaw created by the contemporary re-introduction of ideological mass media outlets (something which had almost disappeared), the 24 hour news cycle (which creates the need to fill time) and instanteneous reporting from practically anywhere on earth (which puts a premium on delivering stories and doesn't allow time for them to be checked before airing) - and we suffer from the fallout. ] (]) 19:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Sure, there are huge problems with the contemporary mass media, and ] rightly notes some of the big ones.<br />But Misplaced Pages is not just another mass media outlet struggling for market share, nor is it like journalism the first draft of history; it is an encyclopedia, striving to document topics of long-term significance from an NPOV perspective. That means, for example, that we approach a topic from an NPOV perspective, rather than doing what JOttawa16 did, which is to take a soundbite and use it as a coatrack for a POV-fork of an encyclopedic topic. --] <small>] • (])</small> 21:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::It reminds me of a programming principle: Garbage in, garbage out. If the media is producing the crap and that is what we use the develop articles, then are we really producing a high quality encyclopedia or a one-stop-shop archival service of crappy news? We have to have some kind of editorial filter, as we do for every other topic (notability guidelines), for election/politics related neologisms and political attack platforms. ] would be a start.--v/r - ]] 22:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::] covers a lot of this already. --] <small>] • (])</small> 22:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 12 editors in favor of ban, only three editors against it, and that includes the editor in question, and the discussion has died out, so can we close this and institute the topic ban? ] (]) 04:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree, this has reached a conclusion. Please do. - ] (]) 11:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{like}} -] (]) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposed topic ban for ] == | |||
| :Note: {{no ping|DreamRimmer}} is now also a maintainer. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive top|1=Consensus for a minimum of a topic ban is pretty clear, consensus for an outright ban is not really solid right now so topic ban it is, . <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC) }} | |||
| :My congratulations/condolences. ] (]) 15:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{userlinks|LCcritic}} | |||
| :So, will ftools be renamed or not? Congratulations. ] (]) 02:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This editor has made clear that they are solely here to promote a fringe theory regarding the theory of relativity, and in over half a year they have made no edits outside of this topic area. {{u|Jason Quinn}}, among several other editors, them to stop using their talk page as a forum to promote their theories. In , LCcritic that they have no intention of stopping voluntarily. | |||
| == Import request == | |||
| Beyond their user talk page, LCcritic has attempted to promote their views ], in three different in which they argued against the mainstream answers provided, and in an extended discussion at . | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = A list without citations or an indication that it meets ] is not going to be imported here. ] (]/]) 18:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| Can you import, ] from simple Misplaced Pages. I created the page there.<span id="Cactusisme:1736493543617:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)</span> | |||
| I suggest that this editor has drawn enough community resources, and propose a one year ] from discussion related to relativity, broadly construed, including their user space. ] (]) 03:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I suppose you mean , which you ''didn't'' create at all though, and which is completely unsuitable for enwiki as it stands, being unsourced and lacking all indication of notability. ] (]) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' ] is an affirmation of ] and stuff like this ] is just wasting community energy. ] (]) 05:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, they create the page. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *(ec) Wow! That contribution list is pure unadulterated monomania! The editor is clearly ] to build an encyclopedia, but to push one very particular and specific ] theory. He or she is very clearly the type of editor the loss of which would not damage the project in the least, and would, in fact, improve things a tiny bit, so I would go farther than VQ and suggest that the correct response here is not a topic ban, but an indef block. ] (]) 05:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::], oh, okay<span id="Cactusisme:1736586978195:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 09:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</span> | |||
| **So, my first choice is '''Support indef block''', but if other members of the community are less bloodthirsty than I am (they usually are), then I also '''Support topic ban''' if that's want people want. I still feel it's a mistake to take half-measures, but something is better than nothing. ] (]) 05:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Tulsi (unblock request) == | |||
| *Allow me to play devil's advocate here. I did a little searching (forgive me if I've missed anything) and found that LCcritic has never been taken to ANI, AN, or Arb and has no previous blocks. I checked the talk page and saw someone mentioning discretionary sanctions regarding FRINGE, but no formal warning has been given. I haven't checked all the edits to articles, but I didn't even see a Twinkle warning template. I didn't check all his edits, although I noticed that a large share were on his talk page and Wiki related, where we normally give editors a lot of leeway. He has 8 article contribs and no edit warring, and he is responsive when asked questions. I'm open minded but not entirely convinced that all other options have been exhausted, as this is the first formal complaint ever filed. ] | ] | ] 11:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop green|User unblocked. ] 12:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :::I would say "devil's advocate" is a misnomer here, {{u|Dennis Brown}}. Everyone deserves due consideration when a ban has been proposed and I appreciate your open mindedness. To address your point, though - I do see a number of Twinkle warnings that are at least peripherally relevant to ] . ] (]) 19:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * {{userlinks|Tulsi}} | |||
| *: LCcritic has provided abundant evidence that there is no hope of getting any positive contribution despite having been repeatedly told that her/his behavior is inappropriate, and not just . I'm all for editor retention when there is hope, but this is an utterly ]. ] (]) 12:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Blocked (indef) on 3 April 2024 (9 months ago) by ] during an AN thread (]) for undisclosed paid editing | |||
| *::{{xt|someone mentioning discretionary sanctions regarding FRINGE, but no formal warning has been given.... I didn't even see a Twinkle warning template.}} <br> Um, hooray? We shouldn't be "warning" people about the consequences of past problems, since those past problems aren't their fault; we should just be "telling" them. We have some evidence that canned warnings are less effective at creating good editors than personalized messages. The situation you describe is a cause for rejoicing. ] (]) 15:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Subsequent unblock request was also considered at AN before being declined (]) | |||
| Tulsi has now submitted an unblock request which I am copying: | |||
| :: BTW, we are . ] (]) 12:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::That isn't an administrative board. This is the first time someone has asked for sanctions against them formally, and the sanctions they are asking for is an indef block, for all intent and purposes (as topic bans for SPAs have the same result). Before blocking someone, I need to be sure that it really is the '''only''' option. ] | ] | ] 12:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Sorry for the misunderstanding. The diff is intended to show that LCcritic already had a history of spamming this "theory" outside of Misplaced Pages: "Wherever I raise the question" "I am either called a crank (and '''banned from science forums''') or told that challenging mainstream length contraction is inappropriate" (my emphasis) ] (]) 12:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As an admin, I can't really use offwiki information as evidence, as I don't have a way to verify it, and because we hold people responsible only for what they do here, with exceptions only for when those actions affect Misplaced Pages. Just like SPhilbrick, I don't hold a lot of faith that this won't eventually end up badly, but I think this might be just a little premature. If he had a week or two of mentoring on POLICY (without debating the merits of his edits), then it would be an easier sell to just indef block him. IMHO, a topic ban is a bit passive aggressive when dealing with an SPA, and being an SPA isn't against policy. What I don't want to see is someone get indef blocked purely out of convenience, particularly when most of his edits are to his easy to avoid talk page. ] | ] | ] 13:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: "offwiki information" Those are ''LCcritic's words'', not mine or anybody else's. | |||
| :::::: "mentoring" I think I speak pretty much for everyone acquainted with LCcritic when I say that he had more than his fair share of being pointed out relevant policy. OTOH, if that is what it takes to convince you, I'm all for it. | |||
| :::::: "SPA" I have no problem with SPAs, I have a problem with disruptive editors. | |||
| :::::: "easy to avoid talk page" We're not a web host, there is tons of free webspace out there. ] (]) 14:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Seriously, talk page stuff doesn't bother me as long as it is related to articles in some way. Many admin are that way. That said, I do see the problem, and I agree '''something''' needs to be done. I just think we need at least one solid effort to rehabilitate before we banish someone. I'm not sure what that one effort should be, but under no circumstance am I recommending doing nothing. ] | ] | ] 14:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{talk quote block|Dear Sysops, | |||
| *'''Support''' (I am an involved editor, not an admin.) LCcritic keeps returning to arguments which have long since been addressed, instead of countering the points raised against them. It's like talking to a deaf brick. While I don't expect LCcritic to beat any live horses in the future, his style of debate is an argument for an indef block. If LCcritic ever feels like contributing constructively, the burden of proof should be on him/her. I don't want to see another saga like this on a psychological topic. ] (]) 12:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I sincerely apologize for my past actions, which were problematic and deceptive. I fully understand the concerns raised, and I deeply regret my involvement. On April 3, 2024, my account was blocked by Rosguill in relation to undisclosed paid editing associated with the {{section link|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive361|DIVINE and Tulsi: COI/UPE/quid-pro-quo editing, association with threats and harassment}}. However, I want to clarify that my involvement in these matters was minimal, with only minor interactions in the past. I have never written articles for payment, and I do not support paid editing. | |||
| *'''Support''' (involved editor) — User had 4 formal warnings for addition of unsourced content in articles: for on ], for on ], for on ], for on ].<br />In addition they had 3 formal warnings for article talk page abuse: for and for at ], for at ].<br />A little overview of (not already mentioned) shopped forums and user talk pages where informal warnings about reliable sources, fringe, consensus, and failing to get the point, have been given: | |||
| ::* . | |||
| ::* . | |||
| ::* ] | |||
| ::* ]. Entry was closed by as failed ] by user {{u|Mdann52}}. | |||
| ::* , dismissed as ] by 11 contributors. Finally closed as by {{u|Jayron32}} | |||
| ::* | |||
| ::* | |||
| ::* | |||
| ::* ] | |||
| ::* ] | |||
| ::* ] | |||
| ::* ] | |||
| ::* | |||
| ::* ]: and | |||
| : - ] (]) 12:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' (largely epr Dennis) I've read enough to predict that this editor will not be a productive contributor, but I see a clean block log. I see some warnings about sources, but I see active engagement on the user talk page. What I do not see is an RfC on the user. My guess is that the editor realizes that the views are not gaining traction, but where is the clear statement that editing style must change or the editor will be banned? I can easily imagine a magazine interview where LCcritic agrees there was some pushback on views, but believes the ban request came from nowhere. We can point to warnings that certain action could lead to a block, but if there is a warning that LCcritic could be banned, I do not see it.--]] 13:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * <s>'''Provisional Oppose'''</s> (uninvolved). I think this is a bit of a dilemma either way. On the one hand, I agree with ] and ], but on the other, I think doing nothing can also be taken to implicitly encourage this for as long as possible, and in the absence of seeing how the user reacts to even a shorter block, an RfC/U has a chance of killing more contributor time than anything. I think the only real option is for an administrator to attempt to engage with the user, and if that fails to produce results, go to the short block stage first. If there is some joy from that route, then RfC/U is the way to go. <s>If nothing changes, then progressive blocks. Need more evidence of dispute resolution to support a topic ban - if that is what is being sought. ] (]) 14:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC) <small>I modified my opposition to provisional, pending what he does now having received the DS alert. ] (]) 17:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)</small></s> | |||
| *:Having reviewed his responses so far ( ) to the alert and warning, and given that I also largely agree with ] below, I'm no longer formally opposing any measure which can possibly emerge from this discussion. For the same reason, I have also struck my comment about progressive/escalating blocks. That said, if he still doesn't get it when he comments next, I continue to prefer a short block of no less than 48 hours and no more than 1 week under the DS regime in the first instance, as it may lead to him disengaging or acting in a fashion which would be sufficient to shortcircuit the need for this. But if after the short block he returns without heeding what he has been told or reconsidering what he is doing here, I would be prepared to formally support a ban. ] (]) 13:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I'm also not an admin but I, too, believe in escalating blocks for editors seen as disruptive to see if a warning or short-duration block can affect their behavior and move them in a more constructive, collaborative direction. This view applies to disputes over content, if this was a conduct dispute (like socking, vandalism, outing, etc.), I can see moving swiftly but not in this case. But then, I believe that editors should only be disciplined for their behavior, not for their beliefs or ideas. As long as an editor abides by Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines (like ], ] and ]), I don't see disagreement over content as inherently destructive or damaging to the project. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 15:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: There is no content dispute. Everything proposed by LCcritic has been unanimously rejected by every single involved editor, and LCcritic has been repeatedly given the reasons and pointed to applicable policy and guidelines. There has not been a single voice in support of his edits and edit proposals, and all pertaining arguments have concluded months ago. This is about an editor who is simply ]. ] (]) 16:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| The issues in question occurred ], prior to the block. At that time, I admitted my conflict of interest (COI) and disclosed it on the relevant article talk pages. Following discussions, my global and local rights were removed, but the block was not enforced until two years later. Many of the articles in question were deleted, so I did not find it necessary to disclose anything further. Moving forward, I have no intention of creating or editing COI-related articles. However, if I am ever in a situation where I am required to contribute to such an article, I will ensure full disclosure on the article talk page and submit it for review, as I did with the article ]. | |||
| * '''Support''' topic ban. I don't see Dennis' argument as compelling – it doesn't matter if he has been at administrative boards before; he clearly has been told sufficiently often, by multiple parties, that what he's doing is disruptive; he's deliberately and systematically refused to take that on board. I also don't see the benefit of first handing out shorter blocks – his sanctions can be lifted any time if and when he changes his mind about why he thinks he's here, but there is nothing that would make me expect he'd do that specifically in, say, one week, or two weeks, or a month. Finally, as for Sphilbrick's point about bans versus warnings, I don't really see the difference. A warning would mean: "stop doing what you're doing, or else ". A topic ban would mean: "stop doing what you're doing, or else ". They boil down to the same thing, because there is only one single thing he has ever done on this project, and that is the very thing we want him to stop doing. Finally, I also don't see the benefit of a user RfC. User RfCs are for unclear or disputed situations, where community consensus about how to judge a pattern of behaviour needs to be gauged. There is no such need here. Where things are obvious, RfCs are a waste of time. ] ] 15:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Meh.''' I completely agree that any attempt to steer this user towards productive engagement, is almost certainly futile. However, there were no formal warnings (until I added a DS alert for] just now). I suggest a short leash: pointed comments on talk, and if he continues advocating this twaddle anywhere else then a block. I am undecided on the merit of topic-banning a ], per some perceptive comments made hereabouts in recent weeks. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - I have to admit being very underwhelmed by his attitude and understanding since posting my first reservations. Not sure if it is willful ignorance or what. ] | ] | ] 20:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', per original sense of Dennis Brown. Misplaced Pages is profoundly uncivil too quickly too often too pervasively to too many. --]]] 20:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: That sounds like you want to discuss it at ]. LCcritic has been given much more than due consideration. ] (]) 20:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' a topic ban, which, as noted, amounts to a ban, because the user is a single-purpose account. ] (]) 21:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| 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. | |||
| == Blocked editor's subpage == | |||
| 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. | |||
| Can they edit it? ] (]) 07:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :If they're blocked, their own user talkpage is generally the only page they can edit. I've known of clever filtering processes that have been used in the past to allow blocked users to edit other pages, but generally their userpage and subpages are out-of-bounds. ] ]] 08:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, I learned something new today. Thank you kindly, Yunshui. :) ] (]) 09:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I am requesting an unblock because I am fully committed to abiding by all the established policies moving forward, and I am eager to contribute here in a constructive manner. Please kindly allow me a second chance. | |||
| == Panel to close CFD on Category:Pseudoscientists == | |||
| Thank you for your consideration. I humbly request your reconsideration and the restoration of the editing privileges on my account on English Misplaced Pages. | |||
| The discussion at ] has now been open for more than the minimum 7 days, and is eligible for closure. | |||
| Sincerely, | |||
| The debate has been lengthy and involved, with a lot of policies at play. (Disclosure: I have taken a strong stand one side). | |||
| ] ] 14:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Having had discussions with the blocking admin, we would like to seek community comments on the unblock request. | |||
| It seems to me that this discussion would benefit from a 3-admin panel of closers, to help give confidence that the closure has been fully-weighed by non-partisans. --] <small>] • (])</small> 15:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : Seconded. There is no obvious single result, but a consensus may be teased out of the comments, and whatever the result there may well be rucktions. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **The main thing about a discussion such as this is that it shouldn't simply be closed as a count of heads. It does require an analysis of how well-founded the arguments are in policy. --] <small>] • (])</small> 16:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Sure, and there are decent policy argument for each of the three possible outcomes (delete, rename and keep), which are themselves independent of the merits of the template's use in any particular article. Also remember that BLP, one policy cited for delete, does not cover ], for example, who can be legitimately and unambiguously characterised as a pseudoscientist - but is this more or less useful than characterising him as an advocate of pseudoscience? And is that helpful at all in the first place? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree. I also think it is going to be hard for an individual to sort through this alone. ] (]) 16:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Would it help if it were procedurally closed now? I'm imagining someone closing it with the rationale of "A group of administrators will be assessing consensus; in the mean time, please don't add anything". It's complex enough now, and it will be a lot more complex if the closers have to account for things added during the closing process. ] (]) 02:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: That sounds like a good idea, ]. There are already plenty of comments to sort through. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 02:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Anyone object if I do it? I participated in it (at least twice, if I remember rightly), but it doesn't seem like a WP:INVOLVED violation, since I'm not attempting to assess consensus one bit, and everybody's equally affected (and nobody really loses) if we end discussion in order to simplify consensus-determination by people who haven't participated. ] (]) 02:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Yup, fine with that. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Go for it. Regards ] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 22:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Done; sorry for the delay, but I was on the road all day. ] (]) 05:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Well done, Nyttend. Discussion had mostly stalled anyway. --] <small>] • (])</small> 10:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Who chooses the panel? ] (]) 09:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Tulsi was blocked after UPE allegations that had been outstanding for around 2 years essentially caught up with them. They have now attested to having never edited for pay, which was the question they originally failed to answer twice (], ]), leading to the block. In the unblock request, they give a sincere undertaking not to engage in any more UPE. | |||
| I would like to suggest <s>conscripting</s>volunteering ], an uninvolved admin whose work on the closure of the first Chelsea Manning RM discussion earned a lot of respect. Any more suggestions for admins who might be volunteered? --] <small>] • (])</small> 10:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Challenge accepted. I'll be glad to help. ] ] 14:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ** Having briefly reviewed the discussion, I believe that it will take several days to write the close in collaboration with other admins. I don't want to set about suggesting other panel members, to avoid any appearance of bias in the close, but it would be helpful if two more uninvolved admins would step forward fairly quickly. Cheers! ] ] 15:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I'm sorry I don't have wikitime to unravel this myself per ] (I'm not particularly category savvy), but when ], ], and ] et. al. are listed in the Category:Pseudoscientists subcategory ] -- which makes them allegedly "Pseudoscientists," right? -- we have a some significant ] issues going on. <small>]</small> 11:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : That's more of a "WTF?" issue. There should probably be separate categories for paranormal investigators and paranormalists. Dean Radin and Joe Nickell might both call themselves paranormal investigators, but they embody two completely different fields of investigation, one seeks to describe and support claims of paranormal activity, the other seeks to test whether a more parsimonious explanation exists. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| They have created several dozen articles about Nepalese politicians but these seem to be innocuous. I have identified only a handful of articles where Tulsi could have edited for pay. Given the amount of other contributions Tulsi has made, it would be appropriate to give the benefit of the doubt. ] 15:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I will volunteer to help close the discussion, if desired. --] (]) 13:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ** {{ping|ThaddeusB}} Thanks, please ping me when we have a third closer, and please do not hesitate to recruit any admin you trust to be impartial. I have begun to assemble my thoughts at ]. ] ] 16:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **:Given that your rough count of supporters and opposers doesn't indicate that there is a numerical consensus, perhaps following the model of ] this should be ''''']'''''. Your preliminary analysis might make for good "relister's comments" that could help steer the discussion towards more of a consensus. I just became aware of this and would like the opportunity to participate in the discussion. Please also consider ], ] and ]. There was never a consensus for creation of this category, and it has remained in place over the years only because there was no consensus to delete it either. Seems that the ability to create a category without consensus has given the "creationists" the upper hand here. ] (]) 20:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***: If numbers of voters were all that mattered, these discussions could be closed by a bot. Policies also matter, particularly policies like ] and ]. ] ] 12:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ****: There is also a significant NPOV issue in that debate, particularly around ]. And for categories, ] is important, with ].<br />No bot could weigh all that! --] <small>] • (])</small> 14:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think the one point of agreement is that there were plenty of comments. I don't think relisting the CFD and soliciting more feedback would clarify matters. The closers are just going to have to weigh the merits of the arguments put forward. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 00:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sure, there have been plenty of comments, but this was held open for just 10 days, and there were still new opinions coming in from editors who had not previously commented just hours before the discussion was shut down. I think that the defenders of this category are more likely to watch it and be prompt in defending it. Note the ID of the first to comment, "QuackGuru" – that ID screams of an editor with an agenda: to label certain people as "quacks". You even said: "{{tq|1=It's like a mini-reunion of regulars at the Fringe noticeboard.}}" Having put that on my watchlist, I see how much chatter goes on at ], although I rarely bother to read it. Keeping this open might allow more time for more disinterested editors to bring some common sense to the matter. But perhaps that's not necessary. I think the preliminary closing analysis is good. ] (]) 14:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Well, the regulars at the Fringe noticeboard are united in their attitude regarding pseudoscience and there was a notice about this CfD posted there so I'm not surprised to see all of their names, coming over to CFD and supporting this category. They are openly hostile towards anything they believe is pseudoscience and they see themselves as protecting the integrity of Misplaced Pages. So, this category is useful and valid for them. | |||
| ::::: But I believe a panel of three uninvolved admins can weigh all of the arguments and come to a fair decision with the comments that have been posted. Whichever side of this discussion you are on, it's important to remember that consensus can change over time and every article, category and page can come up for review periodically. ] has been up for deletion before and, if it is retained, it can be proposed for renaming or deletion in the future. There have been categories that have been created, later deleted and then recreated. Nothing on Misplaced Pages is permanent, that's why there will always be a need for these discussions. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 15:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *{{tiny ping|BD2412}} I would like to add another point for consideration that doesn't seem to have been fully developed in the debate before it was closed. My argument is based on my experience with defending a category I created, ] from deletion. Per the {{tl|category explanation}}: {{category explanation|organizations which are ] by their use of Facebook. Note: this should not be used for organizations that just happen to have a Facebook group}} | |||
| :So this category is limited to a very small number of members by ]. Picking a member of ] at random, ] (a man I had never heard of before), and searching the article for the term "pseudoscientist", I find the only use of this word in the article is in the categorization itself. Therefore this article should be removed from the category. To be included, we should see a lead sentence such as, "] was a pseudoscientist...", and this should be backed up by a reliable source saying that Heinz Kurschildgen was a pseudoscientist. If such articles can be found, then ''perhaps'' this category could be kept, albeit with a very limited number of members. Thanks for your consideration. ] (]) 12:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Wbm1058}} That example is a straightforward ] issue. If the categorisation is not supported by a referenced assertion in the article, then the page should be removed from the category. --] <small>] • (])</small> 13:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::] was a person who fraudulently claimed to have scientific processes for turning water into gasoline, etc. His promotion of fraudulent non-science is the sole reason he is notable. He is a poster child "advocate of pseudoscience" with defining and sourced notoriety for the practice. In the lead, he is called a charlatan regarding his non-scientific, pretending-to-be-scientific, claims. The article is completely about the times he pretended to be a scientist, and the consequent legal problems from being found a scientific fraud. I don't think this is the forum to further discuss the merits of the category, but this example is so far from being borderline that I thought something could be said, as this subject matches every definition of pseudoscientist offered by any side of the debate.] 14:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Wouldn't that make him a pseudo-scientist (someone pretending to be a scientist) as opposed to a pseudoscience-ist (one who argues for pseudoscience)? I mean he was a straight-up fraud, right, not someone trying to use invalid science to argue for something... The inability to distinguish between the two was one of the minor points of discussion on the CSD. --] (]) 16:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|Elaqueate}} From my brief look at the article, you are probably right that he deserves the label. But the article doesn't use the word in body text let alone provide a ref, and per ], it needs a source. --] <small>] • (])</small> 17:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I think asking for strict letter-by-letter identical phrasing is a great ideal, but we don't insist on it in other categories, even the most sensitive ones. ] and others are in the horror show categories of {{cl|Cannibals}} without a mention of the exact word "cannibal" but with sources that say it in other words, and there are multiple subjects in criminal categories where reasonable editors know that "Embezzling" is a type of theft, "Serial killing" is a type of murder, etc. Yucky examples, (maybe we have bird articles that fail to mention the word "bird") but we don't currently enforce a strict "use the exact same word as the category name in body text" rule. Articles should still be sourced enough that a reasonable editor wouldn't contest the description even where synonyms are used. The rule shouldn't be robotic, and, in practice, it isn't. (I'm responding to your ping, but I don't think I'll comment more than this here as this isn't the forum to hash this out)] 23:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Sorry I know this isn't the forum, but I noticed the discussion too late. The problem is that ] and ] are ''not'' synonyms. I have no problem with creating ] for people like ] who have been convicted and sent to prison. They shouldn't be lumped into the same cat with people who are practicing good-faith, albeit "alternative" or non-mainstream science, and have not been convicted of anything by a court. Usually these alternative theories are incorrect, but occasionally they might actually turn out to have at least some merit. ] (]) 23:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Just a quick reminder, we need a <u>third admin</u> to volunteer for the closing panel, if we are to get this closed by a panel. Cheers! ] ] 15:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Although I am not an admin, I am willing to join the panel, or as a tiebreaker or something, if no admins step up. I am not involved in the discussion or generally in that topic area. ] (]) 15:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: Since we have two admins on the panel, I have no objection to a non-admin third panel member, particularly a longstanding editor with a significant body of contributions such as ]. Unless there is some objection to this, I'll ping {{ping|ThaddeusB}} and we can discuss the consensus in whatever forum the other closers prefer. Cheers! ] ] 15:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::No objection from me, but let's allow a day or two for the community to respond. --] (]) | |||
| ::::No disresect to ], but I think it would be better if the third party was an admin, and much better if they were not ]. Given the topic, I would hope that an editor who had been at ] would recuse themselves. --] <small>] • (])</small> 17:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I nominate {{ul|BDD}} or {{ul|BOZ}} as univolved admins that have experience closing contentious discussions. --] (]) 17:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Only ] (yikes!) so far, although I will say it was a pleasure to work with ] on that one. If no one else steps up I will volunteer. ] (]) 17:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Compared to ], this should be rather painless. ] ] 17:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am sure that either {{ul|BDD}} or {{ul|BOZ}} would do a great job. --] <small>] • (])</small> 18:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm very pleased to be thought of here, but my contributions may be sporadic until Monday. Since we probably want a decision sooner, it may be best for someone else to handle this, but if not, I'm happy to do it. --] (]) 21:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: In that case, I think we are fine with ] and ]. I'll note the panel on the discussion page. ] ] 21:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: I will be busy on and off myself for the next few days, but I will check out BD2412's summary. ] (]) 21:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *{{ul|BD2412}} Please set up a discussion page to share our thoughts. Thanks. --] (]) 23:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ** I think we can start a new section at ], unless there is a better venue. ] ] 01:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I cannot find the link for "A related meta-wiki discussion". <span>]]</span> 15:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Block review == | |||
| **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) | |||
| {{archive top|result=Editor unblocked. Not a spammer. ] (]) 00:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| *'''Support''' per ]. I will AGF that Tulsi will keep his promise not to engage in any COI editing going forward. ] (]/]) 16:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Question''': We are all volunteers here, so the applicant's comment {{tq|if I am ever in a situation where I am '''required''' to contribute to such an article}} (emphasis mine) is worrisome within the context of UPE/COI. Could they, or someone else for that matter, provide some clarification? ] (]) 19:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I just blocked {{checkuser|Adikhajuria}} for advertising. Looking closer, it looks like part of a Wikimania thing, but I'm not sure how to handle it. I'm fine with whatever the community decides, but I can't help but to think that the types of edits that this editor is doing is, well, spam. I had started reverted them but stopped after a few and decided that I needed to bring it here instead. Spam or not, this seems very inappropriate. ] | ] | ] 15:07, 9 May 2014 (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) | |||
| :This is part of an outreach effort for Wikimania. It's not spam - We're looking for people from Wikimedia Projects who are interested in trying to recruit new contributors. ] (]) 15:23, 9 May 2014 (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) | |||
| ::To absolutely remove any doubt: we are not selling anything here. We're offering to create marketing materials FOR projects, for free, so that they can be more visible at Wikimania, which has an outreach component this year. ] (]) 15:27, 9 May 2014 (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) | |||
| :: More information about creating flyers for WikiProjects for distribution at Wikimania can be found at . <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 15:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :It is notifications for something for the WMF is doing so I wouldn't call it spam at all. Notifying WikiProjects of something that may be beneficial to them isn't wrong when it is something that is part of a WMF initiative. -] (]) 15:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Probably the message should have some kind of method of opting out of future messages. –]] 15:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've unblocked. This is basically someone notifying Wikiprojects of a potentially useful free resource they can use at Wikimania, which is completely different from spam. I'm not completely sure it is the best way to approach WikiProjects but banning without warning seems a bit heavy-handed! | |||
| ::I would definitely recommend that Adikhajuria fill in their userpage and mention their connection to Wikimania in the talk page notices though, to avoid confusion. ] (]) 15:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::(And for clarity, I'm also somewhat involved in Wikimania!) ] (]) 15:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::They weren't banned, they were blocked as a preventative to what looked like spam. The name gave no indication, they were an SPA, redlink user page, the actual post looked spammy with no opt out and didn't indicate it was "official" in any way. They didn't even know to post at the bottom of the page, and were posting at the top before being told otherwise. No price for the service was given. Link was off enwp etc etc. The combination of all this looked very fishy and similar to some other spammers we have had. Anyway, glad that is cleared up, sorry about the confusion but that is why I brought it here, as I would any block where I have any doubts. ] | ] | ] 15:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No worries - I'll get him to fill out his profile a bit more and be more verbose in the offer. ] (]) 15:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah, I can understand why he looked fishy! And thanks for thinking and posting here. :) ] (]) 16:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Block, please watch == | |||
| I blocked {{userlinks|McTimoney}} for one of at least half a dozen possible reasons. This user is trying to whitewash {{la|McTimoney College of Chiropractic}}, a questionable institution that trains "straight" chiropractors in the UK. I suspect that this will not go away. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Category pages will be movable soon == | |||
| Effective May 22nd, category pages will become movable. Although members of the category will still have to be fixed manually, the revision history of the description page can be preserved when renaming categories. ] (]) 03:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Interesting. Is there more info on this? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 09:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::There's ], ], and ]. ] (]) 14:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| It would be better if the was restricted to admins; the linked page says it will be available to all users. Currently, categories are moved only through ], and the page which instructs the bots to do this (]) has been full-protected since 2007. Allowing any editor to move the category pages (without a corresponding ability to fix the category entries) risks causing havoc :( --] <small>] • (])</small> 14:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Agree - should be restricted to admins. ] (]) 15:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Keep in mind that all editors can already cut-and-pasmove category pages. All this would do is let them bring the category page's history with it. It wouldn't let them perform mass recategorizations. Because of this, I don't see a need to restrict the right, but if there's consensus to, I will prepare a configuration change request. ] (]) 17:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure, they ''can'' cut-and-paste, but not many do, because experienced editors know that cut-and-paste is deprecated. Removing that barrier will increase the number of c+p moves of categories. I do think it should be admin-only. --] <small>] • (])</small> 18:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::So at the moment only ''inexperienced'' editors get the "right" (through taboo) to move categories? Extending to experiecned editors sounds good.{{Smiley}} All the best: ''] ]'', <small>23:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| ::::(Sigh). Inexperienced editors do all sort of things they shouldn't do; that does not mean that they have a right to do them. It just means that we don't ] them too hard while they learn the ropes. --] <small>] • (])</small> 15:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Maybe a separate group for this; it wouldn't be suitable for inexperienced editors, or for all administrators, but could be useful for editors involved in categorisation but not interested in adminship, or who would fail RFA for reasons such as lack of article writing or AFD experience (similarly, "suppressredirect" could be useful for experienced editors involved in reviewing articles for creation or new page patrol). ] (]) 21:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Maybe. We'd need broad consensus for that though. ] (]) 21:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's "assigned to user and sysop by default" - will that be the default here or will it not be assigned to any group here without consensus? ] (]) 21:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It will be assigned to user and sysop here unless we get consensus to change it. (The move right is still needed as well, so you'll need to be autoconfirmed to move categories even though the "user" group has the move-categorypages right.) ] (]) 21:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] mentions a <code>category-move-redirect-override</code> option. Will it be implemented here? - ] 20:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes. It's already set up at ]. ] (]) 20:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Excellent, thanks. Would it make sense to add {{tl|R from move}} there? - ] 20:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't think so. We don't do that for category redirects now, and it's not a "real" redirect. ] (]) 20:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No reason not to - maybe display or categorise them differently with a new template "Category redirect from move" or added parameters based on namespace detection. ] (]) 21:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Maybe we could add a move=1 parameter to ]. ] (]) 21:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's probably better, if it will only be used on pages containing that template. ] (]) 21:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I agree with BHG: this needs to either be an 'Admins Only' right, or something along the lines of the 'Template Editor' special right - and if it's the latter it needs to be the former until the "broad consensus for that" is achieved. As it is, this is going to allow the sockvandtrolls to willy-nilly move categories about; we shouldn't wait until we see ] renamed to ] to acknowledge that is is otherwise going to happen. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 03:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **How is this any different than what the (autoconfirmed) sockvandtrolls can do to articles, templates, user pages, and anything except categories and files today? Also, the damage would be no worse than if they copied and pasted the description to the "new" name and replaced the old description with a redirect, which they can do anyway. ] (]) 04:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***@] different from what they can do today, because editors know that copy-paste moves are not accepted, so most are reluctant to do it. Adding a move button makes it appear legit.<br />Different from articles in several ways: a) categories pages are rarely edited, so they are on very few watchlists; b) moving an article affects that article, but moving a category page can wreck the navigation system for many articles.<br />Different from templates, because high-visibility templates are routinely protected, whereas categories are not.<br />Please, Jack, there are probably only a dozen or two editors who routinely monitor large swathes of the category system. Bushranger and I are both amongst that number, and we are both alarmed about this. --] <small>] • (])</small> 12:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've submitted ] and ]. ] (]) 14:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks, Jackmcbarn. --] <small>] • (])</small> 00:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{ping|BrownHairedGirl}} Note that it's been decided that with the new discussion here, we don't have a clear enough consensus to make the change. See the bug for more details. ] (]) 17:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| By the way, if anyone wants to play with this to see exactly how it works, it's live now at http://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/ (note that accounts aren't shared between here and there). ] (]) 04:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm not sure the new right should be admin '''''only''''' - instead it would probably make sense to be admins & trusted users. That is, admins should have it by default, and admins should then be able to turn it on for trusted users who ask for it, and take it away upon misuse or complaint. That scheme seems to work OK for other rights. If moving cats is a particularly sensitive area, then the bar for who gets it should be set fairly high. ] (]) 04:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :* Going to agree with BMK because this opens to more issues and some really difficult headaches if anyone wanted to be malicious. A minimal dose of caution until the ramifications, exploitation and countermeasures are better understood is not a bad thing. ] (]) 04:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: Going to disagree here. Moving categories is essentially bypassing ] where renaming categories is discussed. Moving categories should only occur after a CFD discussion has been closed. The reason why this step is essential is, unlike articles, categories do not stand alone, they exist in a hierarchy, with parent categories and child categories. Changing a category name might seem like a good idea but if there is already a category system where the categories are named "X of Y", it doesn't make sense to change one category's name to "Y's X". In a CFD discussion, the context of the proposed renames, mergers and deletions is looked at as no categories exist in isolation (or if they do, they shouldn't be!). | |||
| :: What I'm unclear of is how "moving" is different from "renaming", both of which change the title of a category and retain the edit history. And with a rename, it is not necessary to go and change the category names on all of the category contents. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 12:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::When CfD renames a category, they move the description page (today by cut-and-paste), and then use bots to recategorize all members of the old category into the new one. The only difference is that the move (of the description page) will be normal. The bots will still have to do the recategorization to finish the rename. ] (]) 14:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Are the bots programmed to handle this configuration? –]] 14:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Right - but if someone renames a category and neglects to kick off the bots, then hundreds or maybe thousands of articles could have redlinks and/or soft-redirects (which require an extra click) at the bottom of the page.--] (]) 14:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{ping|Xeno}} It looks like the bots will need to be updated. I've posted a link to here on their operators' talk pages. {{ping|Obiwankenobi}} The redlinks are a legitimate concern, but the soft-redirect issue could happen anyway, so I'm not as worried about it. ] (]) 15:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Jack, can you give an example of what would happen if I were to move {{cl|Living people}} to {{cl|Dying people}}? What would we see on all of the 600,000 biographies in this category immediately after it was moved? Would there be a redlink, or a bluelink towards a soft-redirected category? Also, what happens if you attempt to rename it to a category name that already exists? I love the idea of saving history of a category instead of copy/paste renames, but I'm just not sure it's a tool random editors should have - making it a permission one could apply for would make more sense.--] (]) 15:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{ping|Obiwankenobi}} On the articles, nothing would change at all. It would be a bluelink towards a soft-redirected category (which looks exactly the same from articles). The soft-redirected category would still retain all of its members, so readers would just see a confusing message in place of the description, and everything else would be normal (and a vandal could cause that even without this functionality). If you tried to move a category over an already-existing one, it would fail just like trying to move an article over an already-existing one would. ] (]) 15:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Thanks Jack. I think that's problematic - as BHG points out, there are categories that are applied to hundreds or thousands of articles, whereas the category itself may only be watched by a few editors. This provides too much opportunity for large-scale troublesome moves - or even incorrect/undiscussed moves of categories. I believe that bots regularly clean up soft-redirected categories and move articles automatically, correct - that means someone could do an incorrect category move and then a bot would actually move the articles, which editors may ignore since they usually trust bot edits more.--] (]) 15:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::In light of the way the bots (and category move system in general) are currently setup, I think it would be best if a staged approach were used to roll out this new functionality. –]] 15:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od|::::::::::}} The rollout won't break anything. The bots can be updated at any time to use the new move method, and until they are, everything will keep working as it always has. ] (]) 16:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| There is one effect of leaving soft redirects that hasn't been mentioned yet - normal users won't be able to revert category moves. If we left a normal redirect then it could be reverted by any autoconfirmed user - providing no-one else edits the page in the meantime - but moves leaving behind a soft redirect will only be revertable by admins. — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 16:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :(Of course, this won't matter if/when Jackmcbarn's patch goes through, as then only admins will be able move categories anyway.) — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 16:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I'll also agree with BHG that this should be restricted to admins. Once the tool is in place and understood, then there may be a need to review the CFD guidelines to see what if anything needs to be changed. It would also be nice to create a permission list so the bots can do the moves. This should at some point be expanded to additional users. But that would require an approval process. Not even sure where to start on that. ] (]) 17:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:It would probably be fine to include the permission with <tt>'administrator', 'bot', 'bureaucrat'.</tt> at the outset. And then expand to other userrights as necessary. –]] 17:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I'm still concerned about this, even if this tool is restricted to admins or permissions granted to a few experienced editors. Right now, we have two processes, a) ] and b) ]. If ANYONE objects to a speedy rename, the editor proposing the rename is directed to file a CFD proposal. Let's say, it's a category call "U.S. Interstate Highways in Virginia". If it goes to a CFD discussion, the creator of the category is notified, the relevant WikiProject is notified, there are notices sorted to other, interested WikiProjects so they can all participate in the discussion over whether the rename is a good idea. This might be a cumbersome process, but it allows ordinary editors who are experienced in editing in the category area to weigh in with their opinions. Some of these discussions get heated (like the one concerning ]) and the result is "no consensus". <br> | |||
| The idea that any admin could bypass this discussion process and move any category they choose, is very disruptive to the system that exists. As BHG states, there are a small number of editors who focus on categories and the chances that these moves would be seen by others is very small so there would be, in effect, no oversight. This isn't meant to be a judgment of administrators, just that the structure of categories on Misplaced Pages is quite different from other areas (like main space, talk pages, user pages, Wikipages, FAs, etc.). Editors have received blocks because of their lack of competency in creating or editing categories because bad edits to a category have a potentially greater impact than an edit to an article.<br> | |||
| The only way I can see this tool being effectively used is '''after''' the outcome of a CFD, if the decision is to rename, a move can be done instead. Otherwise, editors can simply ask an admin or editor with the permission to make the move and skip over the discussion part. The admin may be uninvolved but it is very likely that the editor requesting the move is involved and there could be even more editors who would contest the move.<br> | |||
| I really understand that this tool was created to make editors/admins lives easier, not more complicated, but I see an uptick in activity at ] unless this tool is thoughtfully and carefully rolled out. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 19:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Alternate userright proposal''' I propose renaming "templateeditor" into "trusted maintainer" and merge this userright into that bundle. Could also merge reviewer and account creator into it as well, just throwing the options out there. A trusted maintainer would be a perfect userright for gnoming work.--v/r - ]] 20:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think if it was this simple for "trusted maintainer" to move a category, they will just do so without checking to see how their move impacts related categories. I think when an editor has a right, they might be cautious using it at first, but soon are likely to trust their instinct or judgment instead of actually checking to see if the move makes sense from the category hierarchical structure that exists for that subject. It's crucial not to consider a category in isolation from other categories, they are part of a system. But I've had my say and will let others weigh in. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 20:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't like the idea of bundling, personally, especially with the userrights that don't have much process attached for requesting them. We lose any ability to differentiate between them, as far as requirements go; someone who just wants to be able to review pending changes to articles isn't going to necessarily have the skills to be a template editor, but because we've (hypothetically) bundled them, we can't just give one without the other, and so we have to deny them for no ''real'' reason.<p>As far as the actual catmover right itself goes, I don't really see any reason to restrict it; while it's certainly true that maliciously moving a cat description page can affect many articles, it will only affect them by proxy (i.e. the cleanup is still limited to just that one cat description page; you don't need to go through and fix it for each of those thousands of articles), and it only affects them in an extremely minor way; most likely, no readers would even notice. On the whole, I don't think the potential for damage is particularly higher than pagemover, which might only affect one article, but will do it in a much more visible way (and there are articles that are just as unwatched as categories, of course). ] ]] 20:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think there's also the question of norms. Pages can be moved by anyone in most cases, but it would be rather daft to move ] to ] unless you have a death wish - a norm, and indeed a set of community agreed sanctions, has made individual editors moving such pages verboten. We could do the same with category moves - unless the category was created by yourself, or the move is to correct a typographical error, no matter what your role you should not move it, but rather seek consensus for the move at CFD or speedy CFD. A log of category moves could be reviewed to ensure that people weren't abusing this. Thus, in spite of what userrights we attach, we may also create a community norm that says, in general, categories should only rarely be moved without discussion - which would be a more restrictive rule than that which covers articles currently.--] (]) 21:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I think that moving category pages will be useful for multiple reasons – keeping the category history visible, and being able to trace the new name more easily given the old one – but IMHO it should be restricted to admins. I can't think of any gain from making it available to others. (Writing as an editor who became an admin mainly to help with closing CFDs.) – ] '''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>'''] 21:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:So yet another user "right" that administrators want to keep to themselves? Soon it will only be admins who are allowed to edit anything. ] ] 21:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{Ping|Eric Corbett}} No, Eric, it's a new tools which is not initially being rolled out to non-admins. No editor is losing any ability to do anything they can do now. --] <small>] • (])</small> 00:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::{{edit conflict}} Not yet, no. But my fundamental objection is to the accretion of user rights to admins without any assessment of whether they have any idea of how to edit templates, for instance. I'm not interested in getting into a discussion about this self-evident truth here however, in the camp of the enemy. ] ] 02:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::::No, users currently do not have this right. There is already a process to move categories and that is in place for several reasons. So the comments here simply are saying we need to install this feature in a way that supports the existing guidelines. If and when that process is changed, then the rights could be extended. ] (]) 17:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Kind of misses the point. While WMF is trying ] -- as evidenced by the fact by default the right goes to users -- the admin community is trying to decide a priori, without any evidence, that it should be restricted. Meanwhile, in the thread above I pointed out about 36 hours ago that our existing categorization of Pseudoscientists / Paranormal investigators -> ] is a ], but admins here seem more interesting in haggling about this, and the Cfd and the blah blah blah whatever, than ''actually fixing the encyclopedia.'' (I've attempted to do so at ]). <small>]</small> 01:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::::{{ping|NE Ent}} Same question for you as for Green Giant below. Why do you want to give editors a tool to perform a task which they are not supposed to perform anyway?<br />How would this help anyone? --] <small>] • (])</small> 22:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Incidentally, ''this'' is why non-admins need to be on ] -- there's zero justification for admins deciding something like without getting input from the rest of the community. <small>]</small> 01:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' a wider group for this right. The best venue for this would have been the ], but seeing as the discussion is already underway there is no point moving it now. I can see two camps forming, one side would like to restrict this to a small number of trusted users, the other to keep it open to a wider group. Personally I think it is a significant new right and it will see many simmering disputes spill over, particularly real world issues like the Middle East, the former Yugoslavia, the current Russia-Ukraine problems etc. If we open this new right to a wide group of editors, it will cause chaos because people will engage in POVish edit wars just like they do with article names and content. However, it isn't beneficial to Misplaced Pages if the right is resticted to just admins, because then it will be no different to the existing mechanism at ]/] i.e. you propose a rename and if approved it gets done by an admin/bot. The above idea of merging it into template editors and renaming that group has some merit but it begs the question of "why limit it to just that group?". I think the most beneficial route will be to add it to the widest possible group of trusted users i.e. admins, autopatrolled, file mover, reviewer, rollback and template editor groups. That would help build more confidence in each others abilities compared to the snarl-match taking place here. Cheers. '''<span style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em"><font color="#0F0">]</font> (])</span>''' 16:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::While it could be a useful tool for users other than admins to have, I am opposed to adding the right to groups like Autopatrolled, file mover etc. as {{U|Green Giant}} suggested. Rollbackers (such as myself) often will have no clue about category maintenance, and it should neither be assigned to thousands of users who could misuse it (in good or bad faith) nor should category knowledge be a requirement to attain rollback. I would support a user group such as ''category mover'', to be assigned like file mover to users experienced in category maintenance who can demonstrate their need for the tool by having demonstrated understanding and activity at ]. ] (]) 16:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{U|BethNaught}}, I would support a new user group just for this right but my point was that all of these groups are effectively trusted users until they give a reason not to be trusted. It makes no sense to reserve it just for admins when really categories are a content-building activity. The obvious solution to vandalism would be protection in the same way articles can be protected. '''<span style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em"><font color="#0F0">]</font> (])</span>''' 20:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I see where you are coming from, and on further consideration I don't believe there would be any ''danger'' in assigning the right to already trusted user groups. I guess I'm just the sort of person who likes to keep unrelated things separate. Given that categories are content building, I would therefore be happy for the right to be assigned to autopatrolled users (and perhaps template editors), but the other groups you mentioned are more about maintenance, which makes them a bit distant for me. ] (]) 21:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Green Giant}} Moving categories is not a ] issue, and has never been in the 8 years I have edited Misplaced Pages. They should be moved only after a discussion at ], or (for a few speedy criteria) after listing at ]. That's not because of any technical restrictions; it's because changes to categories affect many articles, so prior consensus is required before renaming or depopulating any existing category. | |||
| ::::Giving this tool to admins will not allow them to go moving categories around without prior consensus. It will merely allow them to implement CFD decisions; but the vast majority of CFD decisions are implemented by bots, so in practice this is a tool which will be used 95% of the time by bots. | |||
| ::::Please can you explain why exactly you want a wider group of editors to be given a tool to do something which they aren't supposed to do anyway, because of its ramifications? --] <small>] • (])</small> 21:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|BrownHairedGirl}}, the essence of this debate is whether the right should be just for admins (which is unlikely to gain consensus) or should anyone else be allowed it. The sheer fact that the issue is being discussed here rather than at the village pump is perhaps a sign of the times. I disagree with just giving it to admins and template editors, because it has precious little to do with just templates and affects everything we do. You mentioned WP:BOLD as not involving moving categories but in fact it encourages caution for all non-article namespaces, not just categories. ] in particular says "''if what you're doing might be considered controversial (especially if it concerns ]), propose changes at ]''". That doesn't mean that every category change needs to go to CFD, just the controversial ones. Like you yourself say further down, what if someone creates a category with a spelling error? It has happened to me sometimes. Wouldn't it be easier to just be able to move the category in a matter of seconds, rather than listing it at Categories for discussion/Speedy, where requests sometimes take days depending on the admins workload. Certainly I agree that this right shouldn't be handed out like candy to just any auto-confirmed editor, but equally let's not restrict this solely to admins. Beth's idea of a separate user group is the best way to go. The two most trusted groups after admins would be filemovers (373) and template editors (75 excluding two bots) (although at least 23 are also file movers), so why not have a third similar group? Let it be granted by an admin at ] if an applicant meets reasonably stringent criteria. '''<span style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em"><font color="#0F0">]</font> (])</span>''' 23:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{ping|Green Giant}} I am not implacably opposed to the idea of a special group like the one you mentioned, tho I do question whether its utility for the very small number of legitimate uses outweighs the risk that it becomes a way of bypassing the consensus-forming process at CFD. I think it would be great to have a wider discussion about this.<br />But the immediate issue facing us is that the categ-move facility will be rolled out on 22 May, only 8 days. As set up, it will be available to all auto-confirmed users; as patched by Jack, it would be available to admins only. So we have a choice about what happens next: roll it out to a more limited set than you would like, and discuss extending it, or roll it out to a much wider set. The option of holding off pending consensus is not on the table.<br />Woukdn't it be much better to ''start'' with the more limited change, and then consider the wider change? --] <small>] • (])</small> 00:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I agree that initially it should be just admins because of the absurdly short notice (or lack of) by the developers. However, call me a pessimist but where would we raise the issue of extending the right to non-admins? Certainly not here and the village pump proposals board is just a talking shop where any decent idea winds up in the archives somewhere. Once the dust settles, it is highly unlikely any proposals to extend the right will be successful. As an aside, I note that apart from Jack, very little effort seems to have gone into raising the issue over at Meta, because this affects every project, not just en-wiki. Having had a quick look through several other village pumps/cafes, I don't think I've seen any discussions outside of en-wiki and commons. Additionally, is there any chance of someone archiving some of the older posts because this board is absurdly large right now (getting close to 500k). '''<span style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em"><font color="#0F0">]</font> (])</span>''' 00:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| It seems like my words of caution aren't having an impact on the discussion. So, my final comment is a straight-forward request:If you make this tool available, whether just to admins or to a wider group, please maintain a log of category moves so that there can be some record. Right now, we have CFD that acts as an archive one can refer to but if any admin can move a category, without providing any reason at all, there should at least be a log of these moves so that the community is aware of these changes. As BHG has stated, few editors have category pages on their Watchlist, there are tens of thousands of categories that exist and it is likely that category moves will go unnoticed if there isn't a log recording them. It should also record the name of the editor making the move so that any questions can be directed to them. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 17:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :They will be logged. See . ] (]) 17:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Category moves: this is looking bad === | |||
| A reply above by {{ping|Jackmcbarn}} says "". The bug link is ]. | |||
| So it seems that what is ''now'' happening is that the new feature will be rolled out on 22 May, with no restrictions on its use. For all the reasons set out above, that is very bad news, because this new tool could be used to create serious damage to the category system, which could be enormously time-consuming to repair. A moved article affects one article; but a moved category can affect hundreds of articles. If an editor moves ] to ], a soft redirect will be left behind, and the bots will then recategorise all the articles. This is wide open to exploitation, and it the vulnerability it causes should be fully assessed before such wide deployment. | |||
| I think it's a mistake to read the discussion above as no consensus for restricting this to admins only ... but there is also no consensus to roll this out without a restriction in place. | |||
| There are only 9 days until the planned rollout, which is too soon for an RFC to conclude. So it seems that the technical people are just going to impose this new tool as a fait accompli, without giving the community time to assess whether it wants it, and whether access to it should be restricted. Is that correct? | |||
| I it ''is'' correct, then the techies are about to impose a huge vulnerability, despite the warnings :( --] <small>] • (])</small> 18:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :What's to stop a vandal today from creating ] with some random text, and replacing the contents of ] with {{tlp|Category redirect|Category:Cheese-eating surrender monkeys}}? That would also cause the bots to miscategorize everything. ] (]) 18:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, note that {{u|Parent5446}} questioned including the option to restrict this functionality at all ("]") ] (]) 18:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree fully with BHG, this potentially powerful tool should be restricted to admins only. ]] 18:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, I agree with Jack: the potential destructive power of this tool doesn't actually lie in any function of the tool itself; it lies in the naivety of the bots that handle category redirects. restricting the use of the tool would be treating the symptom, not the cause, and as a general principle, we shouldn't be restricting permissions any more than is necessary. Perhaps we should think about a better way for the bots to work, instead. ] ]] 18:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Whatever the solution(s), they should be discussed '''''before''''' the tool is deployed. What we face now is its imposition before the community has fully assessed its impact, despite a significant number of experienced editors expressing concerns. That's appalling. --] <small>] • (])</small> 18:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, this definitely required more, detailed discussion before being thrust upon us. ]] 18:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Think of this, please: The editors who put their hours into ] are saying that this is a bad idea to implement without restrictions and this whole process is being rushed. This tool has not been created because those involved in category renaming ''asked for it''. Editors who know the ramifications of sloppy or whimsical category moves, made without consensus, are saying, "This will not work out well." Why is their experience being discounted? Can you imagine telling the folks who work on the main page that any admin could make an article a featured article? Or, say, let's just eliminate ] discussions and let's just let admins delete whatever articles they feel don't "fit" within Misplaced Pages? Of course, there would be objections from the editors who know these areas well and work on maintaining some standards and fairness about the process. This tool would bypass all discussion by regular editors on whether these moves are a wise idea. The impact of this on WikiProjects alone could involve a massive clean-up. | |||
| :::::: I don't mean to sound alarmist, it's just that this tool throws out a long-standing consensus process at Misplaced Pages in one swift move. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 22:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Jackmcbarn}} notes the bugzilla post ("]") That has been answered repeatedly in this thread, but it seems that some editors prefer to keep this as a technical discussion on bugzilla, rather than joining in the community discussion here. | |||
| This discussion-forking is no way to reach consensus. --] <small>] • (])</small> 18:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :That wasn't discussion-forking. That was an old post (posted February 3rd), while I was writing the code for the functionality. ] (]) 18:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for clarifying that, Jack. But we still need this functionality to held back until there is a consensus on how to deploy it. Please can you or someone else with access to bugzilla make that request? --] <small>] • (])</small> 18:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::The sysadmins definitely won't go for that. The best thing that there's chance of consensus of in time is to make it admin-only, but even that doesn't look likely. ] (]) 18:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Jack, I'm not sure what you mean there. Do you mean no chance that the sysadmins will agree to holding it back? --] <small>] • (])</small> 18:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes. ] (]) 18:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: How can this be true? How can the introduction of a new tool be forced on the Misplaced Pages community without considering the impact it will have or listening to the community's concerns? This is really crazy, ]! <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 22:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: If there were consensus here to make it admin-only, they'd be fine with that. Since we're divided, they're not going to change anything yet. ] (]) 01:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''No need to rush''' Jack, I think you make a fair point - it is possible that someone could replicate the move functionality through a copy/paste + creation of a redirect, and then the bots will stupidly comply and categorize everyone as a cheese-eating surrender monkey. However, there is a certain element of security-through-obscurity here - most rookie spammers may not know about the full mechanics of a successful category move, whereas now it will become accessible in one click. As a developer, I'm sure you know the difference between one click and three in an interface can be '''massive'''. Nothing prevents people from doing copy/paste moves in article space, but we still restrict page moves for some users and even have the ability to lock page moves, with good reason - as such moves can be disruptive. More importantly, you have to understand the context of categories - which those of us who work in this space are well familiar with - if category moves were permitted by anyone, or even by people who had demonstrated X or Y, I'm still not convinced they should be using such powers - indeed if someone did this today, and tried to rename a category from {{cl|Bill Clinton}} to {{cl|William Jefferson Clinton}} using the redirect trick, it would be rejected and reverted and that person would be told to go to CFD. We have only one case right now where a regular editor can determine the name of a category, and that is at creation time - once that category is created, any changes need to be discussed. It's a bit burdensome, but it also avoids a lot of trouble - we already have a great difficulty in managing the flood of new categories - if we also had to be worried that users were changing existing category names willy nilly in the same way they move articles around - especially given that so few people watch categories - that could cause potential chaos and massive inconsistency that may only be discovered years after the fact. At CFD we regularly come across categories that are so brain dead it is painful, and sometimes these have been laying around for years before anyone noticed them. I think if this is rolled out, even just to admins, the admins should NOT use this tool unless there is an obvious typo, or unless there is consensus at a discussion somewhere. As a different example, Brownhairedgirl as admin has the right to delete categories right now, she could go and ice {{cl|Living people}} if she felt up to it, but she *won't*, she won't even delete obviously bad categories (unless they are blatant spam or violating of BLP), instead she will bring them to discussion and let the community decide. It's just the way CFD works, and by putting this tool in the hands of everyone, you are bypassing the whole CFD process. There's a certain stability that comes with categories and a need for consistency; knowing that a given tree won't be gutted or destroyed or renamed without some oversight and more than one pair of eyes is key. Categorization is tricky and category names are quite different beasts than article names, so we shouldn't treat them the same. I'm saying this as a user, not an admin, and while I think it's reasonable to consider adding permissions for certain non-admins to do such moves, there need to be strong norms around when any such moves can be performed, and I can think of very few cases where even an admin should move a category without discussion (unlike article titles, which can be moved much more freely). If it needs to roll out right away, fine, but restrict it to admins, and let the community discuss greater permissions and attendant norms in the meantime.--] (]) 18:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **I agree with all that Obi has written. The only situation in which I as an admin move a category without discussion is when it is one that I have newly created, per ]. As an admin, I would use this new tool in only three situations: 1) to implement a speedy move of a categ I had newly created; 2) to implement a speedy move after unopposed listing at ], 3) to implement the result of a full ] discussion. In practice, I would very rarely do either of the 2 or 3, because in nearly all cases it is much easier an to let the bot do the work; the bot also makes fewer mistakes and logs its actions consistently.<br />So if it is used properly, this new tool will overwhelmingly be used by the bots. That raises the option of making it a bot-only right. I would be quite happy with that, it might allay some concerns about accretion of admin powers. --] <small>] • (])</small> 19:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I think that having a discussion proposing limiting something to admins should be on ] ''not'' in the admin secret hidey-hole club treehouse basement. All the best: ''] ]'', <small>23:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| ::these actions are already limited to admins by longstanding consensus. Editors, nor admins, are not allowed to rename a category except in a very small set of circumstances, and if someone did rename through copy/paste they would be reverted. This tool simply makes it easier. I want to address a point Liz made above, which is that no-one asked for this feature - on that I disagree, the ability to move categories and thus keep their history has long been requested and I'm very glad we'll have it as we'll be able to see the whole history of a category including renames which previously we couldn't, so thanks to the devs for making this happen - however we have existing norms that any such moves happen at CFD or CFD/S, and giving users permissions to do this while skipping those venues throws out longstanding consensus. Since there seems to be a push to roll this out we must remember en wiki is not the only one affected, and there may be other patches that need to roll at the same time so I see no reason to block the rollout, just a suggestion that permissions be limited - for now- and then we can in parallel have a deeper discussion about who else should have these permissions and when, if ever, users should be allowed to use them.--] (]) 23:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|Obiwankenobi}} What you're suggesting is basically what they said no to. ] (]) 01:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Who exactly is "they"? | |||
| ::::Why is the default assumption that a powerful new tool should be handed to everyone, without a consensus to do so? --] <small>] • (])</small> 01:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"They" are probably the sysadmins, and the default assumption was that category moving is no more powerful than page moving, so it should be distributed to the same users that pagemove is. And to be fair, they're not wrong from their perspective; it's only the bots that make it powerful here, not the tool itself. ] ]] 01:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Correct on both accounts, {{u|Writ Keeper}}. ] (]) 01:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{ping|Writ Keeper}} {{ping|Jackmcbarn}} I disagree strongly with that default assumption, because a category page has a very different function to other pages. The consequences of moving a category page are very different. | |||
| :::::::But I am even more concerned about the apparent determination to ignore the huge weight of evidence in this discussion that those who do the greatest amount of work with categories foresee huge problems arising from wide deployment of this tool. When a theoretical perspective about a tool discounts the practical effects of its deployment, we are in trouble. Did none of the developers even stop to ask why category pages had been unmoveable until now? | |||
| :::::::The bots do valuable job of fixing the minor errors in categorisation which would otherwise leave category entries pointing to redirects. This new tool turns them into a vulnerability, which will give huge power to vandals and to editors who are reckless. --] <small>] • (])</small> 09:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{ping|BrownHairedGirl}} {{tq|"a category page has a very different function to other pages. The consequences of moving a category page are very different."}} The only reason that's the case is because of our bots. From the developers' perspective, our bots aren't a reason to change the software. {{tq|Did none of the developers even stop to ask why category pages had been unmoveable until now?}} The reason category pages were immovable for a long time is because they wanted to avoid confusing users by letting them think they were moving the category when they were in fact only moving its description page. {{tq|This new tool turns them into a vulnerability, which will give huge power to vandals and to editors who are reckless.}} As I pointed out before, vandals can abuse the bots by cut-and-paste moving a category, and the bots will do just as much damage that way. ] (]) 14:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{ping|Jackmcbarn}} It's ''not'' just because of the bots. The bots add an extra layer of vulnerability, but don't let them obscure the underlying difference, which is why we have the bots.<br />If I move an article or a template or a Misplaced Pages page, a link to the old title takes me via a redirect to the page as it was; the only change is to the title, but in every other respect the page looks the same. That is not the case with a category, where we don't use hard redirects. If I have the tools and the inclination to move a category page, then when I visit the old title I do ''not'' see what I would have seen before the move. I see the same list of pages, but not the parent categories, the explanatory text, the table of contents etc. If I follow the soft redirect, I see the Toc, parent categs etc ... but not the list of pages. The bots exist to bridge that gap.<br />Once again, the consequences of this are well understood by the editors who regularly participate at CFD, and ''all'' of those CFD regulars who have posted here (including non-admins) agree that this tool should be restricted. It is frustrating to find that all expertise is being ignored :( --] <small>] • (])</small> 15:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : I think this is a great new possibility. I am not an admin, and one time I was very active on Cfd and many times wanted to be able to move categories. | |||
| : Nevertheless, I am strongly convinced it is a really bad idea to implement this feature and not restrict it to a small group of users. I foresee a big mess and serious disruption from all kinds of impetuous and/or tendentious editors, as well as vandals. I think that either this should not be implemented at this time, or restricted to admins until such time as a broader discussion establishes which other users may be allowed access to this feature. | |||
| : I strongly agree with BrownHairedGirl and disagree with Jackmcbarn: developers have no right to implement a feature while there is no consensus who should have access to it, unless it is restricted to the largest cross-section everybody agrees upon, which in this case is admins. ] (]) 08:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Debresser}} Actually, they do. Developers aren't bound by community consensus. If we establish a consensus to restrict the tool, they'll restrict it, but they don't have to do anything now. ] (]) 14:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm reminded of the scene in Raiders of the Lost ark - "our top men are on it?" "Who?" "Top... Men." The arrival of a new permission implicitly indicates to the user that this is an acceptable action to take - but we have no policy around user-led category moves. It's almost as if 'delete' were added to all editors toolboxes without the attendant training and infrastructure for its use. As has already been noted, on en.wp, no regular user has ever had the right to move a category, and now it will show up their menu as a new toy to play with. This is a bad idea, and I disagree that the sysadmin's position is reasonable since rollout of an IT system change must take account of the local technological (eg bots) and social (eg norms) context. That wasn't done here. I'm sure they are acting in good faith but I would also be surprised if this was the only wiki where regular users weren't permitted to muck about renaming categories, etc. we don't need to establish a new consensus here that only admins can move categories, this is LONG standing precedent and we have policy documentation and years of evidence to prove it, so if this must roll plz restrict to admins as that aligns with the current consensus of who can actually move categories today. The fact that a few editors here are grumbling does nothing to upend that long standing consensus.--] (]) 10:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::There's a lot of actions that are technically permitted but aren't allowed by our rules, like sticking editors on ] unilaterally. Any misuse of this tool is a social problem, not a technological one. ] (]) 14:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|Jackmcbarn}} Misplaced Pages has technical barriers to many other social problems, such as a bar on IPs creating pages, and on non-admins deleting pages, and on editors using rollback without first seeking permission. | |||
| :::There is an ''existing'' technical barrier to category moves. You are entitled to the view that the barrier shouldn't exist, but a change requires a community consensus rather than a unilateral imposition by the devs. --] <small>] • (])</small> 23:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === No consensus === | |||
| Last I recall, Devs don't implement something unless there is ] to do so. Doubt that? Go have a look at how long it took for Rollback to be implemented for anyone besides admins. (Including several discussions.) | |||
| So the standard SOP afaik, is that they add a new tool to admins (user-right group: sysop), and '''IF THERE IS CONSENSUS''', then that tool ''may'' be allowed to a broader user-group (whether to an existing group like autoconfirmed, or a new one like how rollbacker or template editor were created after a consensual discussion). | |||
| So if we follow the past model, then this ability should be given to admins if the Devs so deem, and a consensual discussion would be required before granting it to a larger userbase than that. | |||
| If someone else has a different view of wikipedia history or policy, I'm all ears, but as far as I know, that's how things have been done for some time. | |||
| And note, this is a functionality that I have been wanting to see for some time. I have never liked that we do cut-n-paste moves when implementing a category move. (I seem to recall that once-upon-a-time we could move category pages '''IF''' we removed all the category members first. But that was deprecated in some update in the long past.) | |||
| And yes, category moves ''can'' be done ], but due to the large number of page changes to the category members which is sometimes needed, ] is the typical venue for discussing a category move. | |||
| What I think is not being understood by those who are not regularly involved with categories is that the name of the category is much more important than the name of an article (for example). If you read over ], you may note that the name is often the only way to determine inclusion criteria for article membership in a category. And as well, as the main purpose for categories is navigation, category names need to be clear. | |||
| And categories do not allow for referencing, so they rely on the references of the member articles. So category names NEED to be neutral, unbiased. | |||
| And now couple this with the fact that categories tend to be the most unwatched pages, and you have a recipe for disaster here waiting to happen. | |||
| And so if you look at the discussion above, you may notice that those who are active in CFD are the ones who are most concerned about this. As they are obviously the ones who not only presumably know and understand category policy, but also are the ones who regularly deal with implementation, and further, who regularly have to deal with cleaning up the messes of well-meaning (and sometimes not-so-well-meaning) category editors. | |||
| I'm still waiting for a way to block hotcat and twinkle from malfeasant editors for these and other reasons. There are several editors whose prolific category creation continually create a lot of work and headaches for those at CFD. And if this is implemented, this will be a huge mess. | |||
| This simply should be a separate user-right, just like template editor. And the community needs to come to consensus on who should have this right and how it should be granted. | |||
| This is the way we've been doing these things, there is no reason to not do this in this case as well. - <b>]</b> 20:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Sure, I'll give you a different view of Misplaced Pages history and policy: | |||
| :Anyone can edit. The default state is that anyone can do anything, unless we specifically find that it's necessary to restrict that. For those who weren't around and haven't heard the stories, it was originally the case that anyone could delete pages. It used to be that non-autoconfirmed users could move pages. We've restricted a few processes in response to real problems, but we have generally avoided doing so merely for speculative problems. | |||
| :We don't preëmptively protect anything—much less entire namespaces!—based on some editor's speculation that there might be vandalism (vandalism, that to judge from the above comments, will simultaneously affect huge numbers of articles and also be completely invisible because nobody's watching the cat pages). The system of protecting ''after'' a concrete problem has been demonstrated seems to be working pretty well for today's featured article, so I don't really see why ] really needs to be handled any differently, and I certainly don't see why we should protect thousands and thousands of them just because there ''might'' be a problem. ] (]) 20:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|WhatamIdoing}} This is not about creating a new protection; it is about the devs imposing the removal of a protection which already exists.<br />The risk of not just of vandalism, but of good faith actions where editors don't understand the consequences, in a namespace where pages are rarely watched. With so few watchers, who is going to monitor the hundreds of thousands of category pages for any problems which might occur?<br />Unilateral bold moving of categories is something which editors should not be doing anyway. We have a well-established consensus-forming process at ], and a speedy one for uncontroversial actions at ]. Why create a tool to bypass these processes? And why on earth is being implemented with out a consensus to do so? --] <small>] • (])</small> 23:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::This discussion ''is'' about creating new protection. Previously, deficient technical design prevented people from doing what they should have been able to do from the beginning. The technical problem is being fixed. Now we should be going back to the normal default for this community: anyone can edit. | |||
| :::As for "without a consensus", there are 800+ WMF wikis, and many, many thousands of MediaWiki installations all over the world. Fixing this bug affects thousands of communities. The views of some people at just one of them should not prevent everyone else in the world from having the bug fixed. (Personally, I'm quite looking forward to this for use at a private wiki; it will enable me to clean up a minor mess left by someone else without having to agree to an admin bit there.) ] (]) 04:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This discussion is not about the other 800+ Wikis; it is about en.wikipedia, which isn any case is by far the largest wikimedia project. | |||
| ::::Whether you regard the existing setup as a bug or a feature, it is one which has defined how categories are maintained. There are a significant number of editors who do have posted here to say that the "fix" poses significant problems for em.wp procedures, which is that in the case of category moving, the normal default is ''not'' for editors to act unilaterally. --] <small>] • (])</small> 17:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I thought I'd chime in here as a non-administrator. Currently the consensus-established policy is that regular editors should not move categories (via copy-paste or any other method). I don't see the point in giving every editor access to a tool that policy forbids them to use. The burden of establishing consensus is on those changing the status quo, and without consensus the status quo should be maintained. Therefore, the rights to use this tool should either be limited to administrators and bots (who are implicitly trusted enough not to use them to circumvent policy) or not given to any user groups until consensus is established to do so. --] (<small>]</small>) 23:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :No, the current "policy" is that copy-paste "moves", no matter what the page, violate the CC-BY-SA license, and that, as a result of cat pages being developed separately, and therefore having strange limitations, no other method of moving is ''possible'' for non-admins. There is no "consensus-established policy" (I notice that you have provided no link to this alleged policy) that says that it's a bad idea for non-admins to be able to move category pages. ] (]) 19:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Another non-admin (and former CFD regular) in favour of great caution here. I'd be very happy for the right to be admin-only, & might be pursuaded for a very small group of others to be given it. But as I understand it, this will make things easier, and there is no vast backlog for CFD-agreed moves anyway, so I'd wait to see if there is a problem before trying to solve it. Agree with ] all the way. ] is completely missing several points: nobody watches the category ''pages'' mainly because they are very rarely ''edited''. But many people use the categories all the time. Anybody who has spent any time at CFD will have seen many manic/enthusiastic nuisance category creators and won't doubt for a second that if they could move categories they certainly would. The whole point about categories is that they are connected up to other categories in structures that have often been the subject of protracted and fierce discussion, which can often only be traced through "what links here" - there isn't even a record of CFD debates on the talk page. ] (]) 01:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:I favor great caution, too. I also favor not assuming that our editors can't handle this, especially once a few "hot button" categories get move-protected. <br> I've got a bunch of cat pages on my watchlist, but you're missing the practical point: if the cat gets moved ''and every single article in that cat gets an edit to place it in the new category name'', then one move could turn up on watchlists for dozens or even hundreds of pages. That means that cat moves are likely to be ''far'' more noticeable than regular page moves, even if absolutely zero people are watching the cat page itself. ] (]) 04:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. I am in general agreement with those who have written above in favour of caution: ], ], and others. Yes, I'm an admin, and yes, I close a lot of discussions at ]. Users could try to argue that I'm just trying to protect the "sphere" where I do a lot of admin work, but really that's not my concern at all. (Frankly, I would love for the load at CFD to be lightened, but I'm afraid this would NOT accomplish it. Quite the opposite, I'm guessing!) My concerns have been well set out by the others above. I do think it is telling that those who tend to be more involved in category editing and organizations are the ones pushing for caution, whether or not those editors are admins. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Only admins to move categories? Really? === | |||
| With the massive backlogs that exist at other admin-esque pages, isn't this over-kill? If users can move pages, then why not categories too? I doubt many people will even be aware they '''can''' move categories straight away. Leave it as it's planned to be, and if it all goes tits-up, round my house with your pitchforks and effigies. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 06:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Teahouse == | |||
| Hello, | |||
| There is some sort of problem at ] that is hiding recent threads. Can someone with better programming skills than mine (in other words, almost anyone) try to fix it? Thanks. ] ] 05:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :It is fixed. Thanks! ] ] 06:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == AfD needs closing == | |||
| Due to an inappropriate re-listing, and then a mistake in the un-re-listing, the is still open. Could someone take a look and close? ] (]) 06:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Done, by TParis. ] (]) 10:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Sock-plagued Afd needing close == | |||
| ] has been open for eght days now, with only delete !votes left after a whole farm full of confirmed socks have been struck. So could we please have an uninvolved admin close the AfD and delete and '''salt''' (see !votes and comment on the AfD) the article? He has been using WP as free advertising/promotion space long enough. Thanks. ] ] 12:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Indeed. One of the sockpuppets in the debacle that they were using Misplaced Pages as free advertising or some sort of means to legitimize the subject to the people of Lagos in .—] (]) 12:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, it seems like promoting Ambode on WP is part of the build-up for his election campaign, which is one of the reasons I want the purely promotional article off the air. ] ] 13:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{done}} by the panda. Thanks. ] ] 13:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Help would be useful == | |||
| * Please, is there any chance of help with about 65 bird species name decapitalization move requests which have been dumped in ]? ] (]) 05:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Some of these requests have been obeyed by someone else but not deleted by him from the list. ] (]) 05:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Now all {{done}} and deleted by someone. ] (]) 05:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Problems with a user. == | |||
| I am having some problems with ] and would like some help calming the issue down. I was editing on ] and found this users edits and reverts of my edits to be unreasonable and rude. Eventually this user became abusive in their language and refuses to apologize: . Normally I would just ignore this type of thing but I am planning to do a lot of editing on this particular page in the near future and, in my opinion, this editor is attempting to claim ownership of this page. So, I simply want to calm this situation down and know that I can edit on this page without bruising this users ego and causing a headache for myself.--] (]) 20:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Editor was working on '']'' with no <nowiki>{{inuse}} or {{underconstruction}}</nowiki> tag on it. I jumped in to fix the mistakes, and was told (in an edit summary) "Calm down, patience is a virtue dear". I don't take that kind of condescending bullshit from anyone, but I continued editing the article until I got another condescending note on my talk page: "Does somebody need a wikihug". Posted the editor's talk page, told the editor to learn how to use the proper tags, called them a "condecending asshole" and banned them from my talk page. Minutes later the editor posted to my talk page, demanding an apology. There will be no apology. Next thing I know is this (which should be on AN/I and not here, BTW).<p>I don't "own" '']'', I don't even have much invested in it. I fixed the mistakes the editor made, added an English translation to the French quotation, cleaned up the refs and some of the formatting, and that's it. The claim that I want to "own" it is bullshit, as is the condescension I don't need and don't deserve.<p>This is my comment on this matter, and there will be no other. Don't post on my talk page about it unless you're an admin giving me a formal warning or block, because I'm not interested in your opinion. ] (]) 20:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC | |||
| :: When did it become a policy requirement that we don't edit articles without first tagging them as "in use"? | |||
| :: We don't do this, or need to. because there is generally some recognition that overlaps happen, occasionally the forethought to see that sizable edits might not stop in moments after the last one that's visible, and (most importantly) the recognition that if you do overlap with another editor in action, then an appropriate action is ''to back off'' and let them get on with it. This isn't about ownership, it's about basic politeness on a shared project. ] (]) 21:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nevertheless, it's also not a requirement to wait until someone is done to start editing, especially if one is not actually reverting them. BMK's edits were not commented, which isn't awesome, but it's not against any rules, and Deoliveirafan's weren't, either. To respond to someone else editing the same article with an edit summary of "Calm down, patience is a virtue dear" , which really is condescending, and follow it up with --the first two actual communications of any type between the two--is just not cool, and while BMK overreacted, he overreacted to actual provocation. So yeah, I'm not sure either editor is better than the other in this situation; both could've handled things much, much better. ] ]] 22:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::To be fair I was also provoked into being condescending (reverting perfectly acceptable edits within minutes does not seem reasonable to me), nevertheless will acknowledge that I was indeed being condescending (in response to rudeness) and will be the bigger user and apologize to Beyond my Ken here and now. However to be condescending is to be humorous, and so I will not apologize for the act of combating hostility with humor. It would be a sad day for the world if that became outlawed. I admit that I do not know the official rules (if there are any), but I would request that in the future if I or any user are clearly working on a specific page and have several edits within minutes of each other, it would be courteous to not immediately revert them, especially since the only justification seems to be "I don't like". I assure you that I have already taken pages and pages of handwritten notes for this page (that's just how I edit) and would like to see it improved. Correct me if I'm wrong but I do believe that that is what actually matters.--] (]) 23:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Um, ok now that I've actually read some other posts by both Beyond my Ken AND Writ Keeper, it seems I'm being dragged into some completely different issues that have nothing at all to do with me and that I am not at all the problem here. Beyond My Ken, your language was unacceptable, please apologize right now. Writ Keeper, if you clearly have a conflict of interest please do not comment.--] (]) 23:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I wouldn't consider myself to have a conflict of interest whith respect to BMK. I've interacted with BMK a lot, but always in an administrative role (which isn't usually thought to create a COI, as far as ] is concerned), and not always in the way BMK would've liked. There are some other issues that got dragged into the conversation on my talk page, and I'm sorry for that, but I don't think it has affected anything I've said here. Certainly I need to avoid even the ''appearance'' of being involved, and so I certainly wouldn't act as an admin in this situation, but I don't think there's anything that would prevent me from simply commenting. Nevertheless, to avoid all doubt, I won't comment further about this issue. ] ]] 23:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od|5}} Without commenting on the validity of any of the edits made to the actual article, I think Writ Keeper's initial appraisal of the system is spot-on. Deo, you have to remember that humor doesn't translate well without visual and tone cues (basically, doesn't translate well on the internet). I ripped this quote, without associated links, from ]: {{xt|Humor tends to be very subjective. One should remain aware that what one finds hilarious, another may be offended by. The use of humor does not override such core policies as Civility and No Personal Attacks.}} Learn this lesson: humor rarely works in response to online arguments. There will always be someone who takes your words at face value, or worse. And besides, I don't know why you think condescension is funny in the first place, from wiktionary ] is awfully close to ], which is defined as "offensively condescending"...well, thanks, wiktionary, that helped a lot...anyways, I'd say a vast majority of people would consider a "condescending" comment insulting, not funny. In any case, good on you for apologizing, though hopefully that was a ''sincere'' apology. I personally think BMK should offer up an equally sincere apology, as what they did ''was'' a severe and rather uncivil overreaction, but I don't know if that'll ever get across to that one. Hope it all ends well, ] (]) 02:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC) (Former ] - oh, and, just so you know, I don't think I've had any interaction with either user before, either on the account or IPs) | |||
| == ]== | |||
| Some effort to reduce the backlog and hopefully get most of these to an 'acceptable' standard for Commons would be appreciated.] (]) 23:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :It's not clear to me what is wanted for the images in this category. Some of them already have high resolution and reasonable or good quality. Presumably you can use help from non-admins in technical work or finding better source images. Is there some project page or similar that provides additional information? --] (]) 18:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Like Amble, I'm confused what you would like others to do. How are we to get them to an "acceptable" standard for Commons, for example? ] (]) 03:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == User:24.185.206.250 == | |||
| This IP has been going around to various New Jersey road articles and making poor formatting changes and reducing the accuracy of mileposts. The NJDOT SLDs give the mileposts out to 2 decimal places but the IP changes them to one decimal place. For example . The IP has been warned but continues to make the edits. <span style="background:#00001A; padding:2px">''']]]'''</span> 01:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :For the record ] has similar edits. <span style="background:#00001A; padding:2px">''']]]'''</span> 01:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Category:Candidates for speedy deletion == | |||
| Hi. There is currently a backlog at the ]. Thanks. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 08:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : I've actionned a whackload of them one way or another. What's left is primarily AFC G13's, with a mere handful of others <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::G13's what? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I believe the usage was in the sense of "]". Once again, just the Panda being controversial and trying to push the envelope. I <s>suggest</s> ''insist upon'' desysopping. Rgrds. --] (]) 23:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Please note that your comment is highly inappropriate.--] (]) 19:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think it was just tongue in cheek sarcasm, just friendly poking at Lugnut for his poking at Panda, but maybe I just read it differently. ] | ] | ] 13:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: ]: When I finished going through what was then all of the entries in the CSD category, I had pretty much taken care of all of them ''except'' the ones that had been nominated under ] - those that were abandoned Articles for Creation. There were about 25 of them, and were easy-peasy for any admin to handle as they were uncontroversial. In other words, I handled most of the tough ones, leaving the easy ones for someone else <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 00:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Farah Pahlavi == | |||
| {{archive top|1=Content dispute; ] is thataway →. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 13:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| Hi, ] say Azerbaijani is somebody, who was born and raised in Azerbaijan means (] or ]) and his/her first language is turkish. because ] was born in ], He says so she isnot Azerbaijani people. In the event that his father is Azerbaijani ethnicity<ref name="books.google.com">Shakibi, Zhand. . I.B.Tauris, 2007. ISBN 1-84511-292-X; p. 90</ref><ref name="Taheri, Amir 1991. p. 160">Taheri, Amir. ''The Unknown Life of the Shah''. Hutchinson, 1991. ISBN 0-09-174860-7; p. 160</ref> | |||
| and Tehran have 25%<ref>{{cite web|url=http://looklex.com/e.o/iran.peoples.htm |title=Iran Peoples |publisher=] |date= |accessdate=2013-07-27}}</ref> to 1/3 Azerbaijani people–<ref name="Library of Congress Iran">"Chapter 2 - The Society and Its Environment: People and Languages: Turkic-speaking Groups: Azarbaijanis" in ''A Country Study: Iran'' Library of Congress Country Studies, , last accessed 19 November 2008</ref><ref name="Country Study Giude-Azerbaijanis">{{cite news|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=0KOSUrLPC6IC&pg=PA152&dq=majority+of+the+population+of+East+Azarbaijan+and+a+majority+of+West+Azarbaijan.#v=onepage&q=majority%20of%20the%20population%20of%20East%20Azarbaijan%20and%20a%20majority%20of%20West%20Azarbaijan.&f=false |title=Country Study Giude-Azerbaijanis |publisher=STRATEGIC INFORMATION AND DEVELOPMENTS-USA |date= |accessdate=13 August 2013}}</ref> So Azerbaijanis in Tehran due to being born in Tehran, arenot Azeris? | |||
| Plz see Revision history ] and ]--] (]) 13:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <references /> | |||
| :This is not the correct place to raise the dispute. First, try discussing the matter on the article talk page. If that doesn't work, try another venue like ]. This board does not solve your disputes for you. --]''''']''''' 00:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Copyright problems == | |||
| Is legal per ]? It looks like a direct translation of a copyrighted text. | |||
| PS I hope this is the right noticeboard for this kind of issues. ] (]) 07:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You might get a good response here, but you can also try posting the issue at ], which is specifically tailored to deal with copyright things. --]''''']''''' 14:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi ]. I agree with Jayron, but since I saw this, and would answer the same thing ]... It's not plagiarism, because the source is credited and the quotes are clearly marked. But it is still a copyright infringement. The amount of copyright text quoted far exceeds what is acceptable per ] policy. The quoted segments need to be shortened to at most one or two sentences, and the rest of the content should be appropriately summarised. See also ] of ]. ] (]) 14:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::] I see. Maybe you could send a message to ] to instruct him what to do. ] (]) 14:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::], I've left message about this issue at ] and directed the editor to that talk page. Best, ] (]) 16:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == OTRS issue == | |||
| <small>Moving to the OTRS noticeboard. ] (]) 11:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == Proposed topic ban for 2 editors == | |||
| The article ] is currently going through a second nomination for deletion. After several ANI incidents and lots of discussion, two editors stand out as being extremely disruptive to the Misplaced Pages community. Instead of rehashing the arguments here, I would like to nominate two editors for a topic ban. ] I'm asking for community consensus from involved editors to determine whether a topic ban for one or both editors is appropriate action. Comments from the community are welcome. ] (]) 17:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| '''Background'''. | |||
| Recent threads at AN/I: and . Discussion at Jimbo: . | |||
| * More examples: ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * Ownership issues | |||
| '''Proposed bans for topics on ] and ]''' | |||
| ===First nominee=== | |||
| {{archive top|Strong support for a topic ban for the topics ] and also for ]. Potočnik, formerly PRODUCER, is topic banned from making any edits on any page on Misplaced Pages, with the exception of an appeal on ] or ], related to Jews or Communism. To be clear, these are two separate topics and this topic ban should not in any way be construed to only be applicable in topics about Jews and Communism together. This topic ban will last until removed by community consensus. Enforcement may be made by escalating blocks.--v/r - ]] 19:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] - Previously named Producer. Original creator of the article ] | |||
| *'''Support''' as nominator. ] (]) 17:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' for disruptive editing in this area. However, this TBAN should not be closed until the AFD is closed. ] (]) 18:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong support''' for the decision to reproduce a vitriolic article on Misplaced Pages, and for the disruptive protection of it. ] (]) 19:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong support (] solely) ''' for creating an antisemitic article that relies heavily on ] sources , such an editor should be prevented in any way possible from editing further articles relating to ] --] (]) 19:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' based on the fact that this editor copied over to Misplaced Pages, in substantial part, an article that ran on a notorious anti-Semitic website. See analysis at . There may well be other reasons to topic-ban this editor, but this is enough. No, more than enough, to topic-ban this editor from any subject even remotely related to Judaism or Communism. ] (]) 19:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' a block for Potočnik if it can be established that he copied non-free content into the project. This is sufficient reason for an indefinite general block, in my opinion, actually, given the context. However, if it cannot be established that non-free content was copied, then the case is a bit muddier. Certainly Producer showed tendentious behaviour at many points during the discussion, but whether it raises to the level of a topic ban, especially given that he has been quiet for some time now, is uncertain. I'd certainly ''like'' to see him blocked for bringing this garbage into the project, but having an objectionable stance on an issue is not sufficient policy reason, so I think this all hinges on the nature of the content copied (in terms of ownership, not odiousness) and how close the material added conformed to it. ] ] 19:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Creating an article that presented an anti-Semitic view is disruptive. Even if the article itself was justified, beginning it in such a POV tone makes it much harder to improve it, thereby wasting the time of dozens of editors at various noticeboards, including an RfC and two AfDs. ] (]) 20:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Support''': Not only was the article creation immensely disruptive, but the persistent, unrelenting and determined defense of that article against any change or improvement, or any lessening of its anti-Semitism or attempt to balance its neutrality, was terrible damaging to the project. Indefinite site ban. ] (]) 20:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' No evidence provided of problematic behaviour. Linking to discussions that failed to gain consensus is not evidence. ] (]) 20:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::He was warned on his ] with examples of diffs ] (]) 20:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' ban and block if this is shown to be copyvio. ] (]) 20:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support.''' The evidence that Potočnik plagiarised an antisemitic source without attribution is indisputable. This is about as gross a violation of WP:NPOV policy as one could imagine, and I find it difficult to believe that Potočnik could do so without being aware that it would be seen as such. Frankly, I am having difficulty understanding why this was done in the first place, given that the article was plainly going to be controversial, and accordingly subject to close scrutiny. One has to conclude that Potočnik either lacks the competence and understanding of elementary policy required to edit in such sensitive areas, or understands policy full well, but chooses to ignore it. Either way, we can manage well enough without such 'contributions' on these topics. ] (]) 21:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support.''' I would also support an indefinite block for from editing altogether, copying content from extremist websites without attribution should not be tolerated.] (]) 21:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Support''' -(of a topic ban, for Producer only). This user CREATED the article, an embarrassment to wikipedia, and has demonstrated a heavy ownership of it since. For him to claim that he had no knowledge of the content of the article's origins is outrageous. He refused to listen to any and all outside criticism of an obviously troubled article. He obviously is incapable of providing NPOV on any subjects related to Judaism.. he (supposedly) copied content from a strictly anti-Semitic website, and then continued to edit war and initiate massive conflicts when editors tried to neutralize or, god forbid, actually ''remove'' the inaccurate content, as proven per what USchick provided above. Even if he didn't copy the content (I'm at odds as to who would have, if not), his ignorance of the concepts of consensus and the 3RR demonstrate the need for a topic ban. ] ] ] 21:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Support''' per nom. I also think a sock and/or meat puppetry investigation is warranted, as explained here. .--] (]) 22:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::There's already been ], deriving from problematic editing on an older article; the conclusion was that they are not the same person. Meatpuppetry remains a strong possibility, of course, but having reviewed the evidence, I'm doubtful of the strength of the case to be made, beyond suspicion. ] ] 23:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Snow, I'd really appreciate your participation in the discussion of this.--] (]) 00:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' for POV-pushing, pure and simple. ]] 23:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' – Given his almost certain knowing creation of an article based on anti-Jewish sources, and consistent intellectual dishonesty, I cannot see any future edits by him edits in these areas that would be productive. ] — ] 04:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. POV pushing, tendentious editing, dishonesty about sources, and other disruptive behavior. He would be lucky to get off with a mere topic ban. A block or site ban would also be appropriate for someone with this history. ] (]) 05:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - the formulation of this proposed ban does not make much sense to me. It is clear that the greatest issue by a huge margin is the anti-Semitic material that was adapted. Why a topic ban on communism is necessary is beyond me. A topic ban on Jews would automatically encompass a ban on anything involving Jews AND communism, or Jews and anything else. We are surely not suggesting that because the two subjects intersect in the article in question that it is necessary to topic ban him from communism as well? Topic bans should be carefully and accurately targeted. This one is not, and it should be refactored. Regards, ] (]) 06:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' - Per my explanation below, I am opposed to suggested topic bans from thousands and thousands of articles, either existing or potential, based on "one spat over a single contentious article". If serious accusations are justified, it should be easy to present evidence which would reveal all members of their traveling circus and all topic areas they operated. Only based on such evidence uninvolved administrators can determine who should be topic banned and from what topic areas. --] (]) 07:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: ] ?? ] (]) 10:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per warnings by User {{user|Jehochman}} to PRODUCER (as he was known at that time)/Potocnik: '''1''' "Do you have a connection with ]? I find it odd that both of you show up with the same ] dispute. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)" ; '''2''' "In any case, your account is blocked indefinitely, not for the sock or meat puppetry which is a strong possibility and also good grounds to block, but for tendentious POV pushing. The account will remain blocked until there is a discussion about how to prevent further recurrences...] <sup>]</sup> 16:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)" ; '''3''' "...The following diffs show inappropriate editing. Should you accumulate more examples of a similar nature, you may be subject to a sanction...] <sup>]</sup> 14:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)" . Thank you, ] (]) 08:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' a ban on anything to do with Jews, Judaism, or anti-semitism for reasons given by many editors above. ] (]) 09:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' a topic ban on communism, the case has not been made out by the nominator or supporters, per my comment above. The admin Jehochman acted prematurely and excessively, and their conduct should be examined closely to determine whether they should continue to wield the mop. I do not have a view on whether a topic ban should be implemented regarding the topic of Jews, but I caution the closing admin that this proposal was essentially canvassed in the battleground only, and that should be taken into account. ] (]) 11:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' more or less exactly as Peacemaker67 and also per Onlyindeathdoesdutyend (diffs are in the "so what?" category). As pointed out in the additional discussion sub-thread, the supports come out of a highly charged content dispute and a lot of the other behaviours (notably the proposer's, USchick) deserve at least equal scrutiny). ] (]) 12:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' As per obvious anti-semitic POV, evident on the creation of a ] article copied from an anti-semitic source. ] (]) 12:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' procedurally as one-sided. There has been ugly, nasty behavior around this article and related AfDs over the months and it would take the Arbitration Committee to look into '''everyone'''s behavior to determine who is at fault and who needs to be pried out of the topic area. Atlantictire , is one from the "other side" that come to mind. This is not the type of thing where one's wiki-enemies should be able to propose and vote on topic bans. ] (]) 14:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::] is a great ally to Potočnik and Director. I would encourage him to read the essay on ]'s page. I don't have a problem saying things that are true, and this positively nails Tarc and his kind.--] (]) 18:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::], I am an ally to no one, other than to those who may be railroaded by blood-boiling hysterics and lynch mob mentalities. If either of these editors, or others, have run afoul of this project's policies, then the project has the means to determine this and act accordingly. At no time, throughout any of this, have your screaming antics produced anything but disruption and distraction. If the article is to be deleted and/or if editors are to be sanctioned, it will be due to the diligence of sane heads and sound minds taking the lead. ] (]) 18:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Tarc—I responded to you on the Talk page of Jimbo Wales. This was on April 29, 2014. You are saying there I am assuming those thoughts represent your true feelings, that editors are ''"playing up the victim card"'' and that this is a ''"front in their war"''. ] (]) 19:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Intersting. Tarc, who are "they," and what do you mean by them playing up the victim card "in real life"? What "victim card" are you talking about? ] (]) 19:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Per request of Jehochman (]), I retracted & redacted that comment, as can be verified by how the thread appeared ]. It was a heat-of-the-moment thing that added no value to the discussion. ] (]) 19:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Well OK, but what did you mean? You're sorta begging the question. I take it you understand the kind of implication of the word "they" in this context? ] (]) 19:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yes, I am well-aware of what you are implying . "They" is a 3rd-person personal pronoun, and it was used by me as such. Nothing more. ] (]) 19:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::If an editor is considerate enough to strike something, please don't bring it up again. We want people to recognize if they "go over the top" and back down. If they do, that is good, and the matter should not be raised again. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Oh brother. OK, that's fine. I think people know what he meant. ] (]) 20:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC | |||
| :::::::::: ], ], I think ] has mistaken you for people who confuse Wikininnying about Wikietiquette with having principles. I'm sure all of you agree that Wikininnying that sanctions and enables antisemitism and allows racists to manipulate the whole project can eat our collective fucks. Now good day to you fine sirs (or madams as the case may be) .--] (]) 20:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' as POV pushing & in general disruptive editing. ]] 15:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' topic ban for both Judaism and Communism. This has been an exercise in blatant POV-pushing, and a topic ban is the bare minimum action needed. I would also support a site ban, because I don't think that an editor who been POV-pushing so hard in one topic is going to be editing constructively elsewhere. {{unsigned|BrownHairedGirl}}--15:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Support''' - There is no way you can convince me the the article was not an attempt to legitimize the ] of ]. I mean, does the editor want us to believe that they just had all of those sources lined up, many of which are lined up elsewhere, by the Holocaust denial ], with no intent? I support a site ban, or at the very least a ban on all topics related to Judaism, Jewish People and Communism. ] (]) 16:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - the article has been blanked by an admin as "substantial plagiarism (and therefore copyright violation) going back to its creation". Producer, the creator of the article, says he has retired but I think he should be given an indefinite site ban in case he changes his mind.] (]) 19:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Support''' Been staliking and reading up on this. Would advocate site ban. We are here to create articles, not shit-pits of racist POV. ] (]) 23:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' a ban on Jews and Judaism, but oppose a ban on Communism. The editor has been contributing in the highest quality there for years. Regarding myself, I already said I have no intention of entangling myself in this ugly business again, and do self-ban myself from any topics relating to Judaism. But honestly I don't know why a ban on ''Communism'' is being proposed at all, it seems a very simplistic copy-pasting of the article's title. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 11:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per the admission found at the post by Potočnik (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC), in the discussion below. No user should think stringing articles together from an (uncited, mis-cited, masked) antisemitic source on these topics is not prohibited. How is one to trust anything this User has written, if that is his method. Site ban would be reasonable for this. ] (]) 13:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. In all honesty I feel these users should be pleased if they ''only'' get handed a topic ban. '''] <sup><span style="color:#FFD700; font-family:serif">Go Bruins!</span></sup>''' 17:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <s>*'''Oppose''' Little evidence presented. ] (]) 19:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)</s> -''This user has been blocked as a sockpuppet'' - ] (]) 12:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. The preceding ] comment was added at 19:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC) (UTC).</small> | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| ===Second nominee=== | |||
| {{archive top|result=No consensus, especially among uninvolved editors, for a topic ban on Director. Director has apologized for his defense of the recently deleted version of the article and AGF'd that the sources were legitimate. I expect he will take a more cautious and open minded approach to the concerns of other editors in the future.--v/r - ]] 19:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] - Blindly supported Producer and now changed his mind. Has a history of disruptive editing. | |||
| *'''Support''' as nominator. ] (]) 17:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' for disruptive editing in this area. However, this TBAN should not be closed until the AFD is closed. ] (]) 18:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' a topic ban on subjects related to Judaism or Communism. While it may be true that he was not aware of the origins of this article, the fact is that he blindly and unreasonably supported the article after it was created by Producer. That is evident by simply reviewing his actions after the article was created. See and in particular his rollback of 14:01, 3 March 2014 with the edit summary "standard USChick nonsense.." Eh, no. It was not USChick's nonsense or anyone's nonsense. It was an effort to reverse some of the damage that Producer was causing to the project by copying over text from an anti-Semitic website and creating an article that quickly passed muster with ] and was reproduced there. Producer put in motion this effort to make Misplaced Pages a part of this daisy chain of drivel-producers, and Director became his right-hand man, fighting alongside him in the article and, on the talk page. But you don't have to wade through all the verbiage on the talk page, all the nastiness, all the threats, all the boorish behavior, all the saber-rattling. This is enough. I appreciate that he now favors deletion of the article, but his behavior in this article is such that it cannot be ignored, and a topic ban is necessary to protect the project from further such behavior. ] (]) 20:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' The case is presently unclear for Director as well. More so than anyone, Producer included, his behaviour reflected battleground mentality and a lack of appreciation for our non-negotiable civility policies and had I been asked to respond to this proposal a few days ago, I would have given unequivocal support for not just a topic ban, but probably a general block. However, I question the wisdom of blocking a user just as they've proven that they are capable of having their mind changed on the matter (albeit only by a lightning bolt revelation), and have backed off from their combative behaviour some, even expressing mortification over the whole affair. I know it's a risk, given past patterns of behaviour, but I wonder that maybe the best approach, and the one suggested to us by policy, is to give this user a chance to assimilate the obvious lesson here, rather than assuming he can't, given his change in position. I said it in the AfD already, but it bears repeating here: it's easier to change a person's approach to a situation than it is their motive and while Director exhibited considerable problems in his approach, it is clear his motive was ''not'' antisemitism. I think I (narrowly) support leaving Director's editing privileges intact, as per ]; if he exhibits the same problematic approach to contentious issues in the future as he did in the present article (and apparently in the past on others) then I would whole-heartedly support a general and indefinite block and will participate with vigor in the process to see it done. ] ] 19:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Support''' at least a broad topic ban. Director's dropping of his determined opposition in the face of conclusive evidence of the article's toxic sourcing is commendable, but comes after months of vitriolic posts and even more vitriolic disputation and incessant edit-warring. If Director and Producer were not in fact sock puppets, observers may be forgiven the assumption for they frequently acted in close concert, dominating the page and effectively shutting out alternative voices while threatening to "report" almost everyone who ventured the slightest disagreement. Even after his recantation, for example, Director asserts '''on the AfD page''' that my own précis of WP:FRINGE makes it impossible for him to WP:AGF . Director has burnt countless hours of time and irreplaceable reservoirs of good will; had this received broader publicity, the damage could well have been much worse.] (]) 20:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' No evidence provided of problematic behaviour. Linking to discussions that failed to gain consensus is not evidence. Also, accusing an editor of a history of disruptive editing without providing diffs is a personal attack. ] (]) 20:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::It really doesn't matter how many diffs are posted if no one is interested in looking at them. At one point, he was ]. ] (]) 20:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Uhh, no, the position expressed in that latter statement is not at all reflected in policy, that I know of anyway; failure to provide a diff is at most an inadvisable oversight. ''Knowingly'' constructing a specious claim ''for which absolutely no evidence exists at all'' could ''arguably'' be considered a personal attack, but even then, it would be be better described as just general bad-faith behaviour. Let's be careful about misrepresentation of policy to suggest inappropriate behaviour here, in a situation which already has enough fuel. Regardless of how each of us feels about the advisability of the posting, and regardless of how many diffs USChick put into her initial comments, there is a significant issue of ongoing disruption being discussed here that has been agreed to be an issue by dozens of involved editors. Suggesting that there is bad-faith at work in attempting review of the issues is ''not'' going to help. ] ] 21:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::] "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." I have yet to see any ''evidence''. Diffs or otherwise. It is a personal attack without ''evidence''. ] (]) 21:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, accusations that ''lack evidence'' altogether, not accusations for which the evidence was not immediately proffered at the arbitrary point at which you happened to enter the discussion. In order for it to be a personal attack, the claim has to have no basis in fact and be made as part of bad-faith activity. Failing to provide that evidence is an oversight, one that can be (and should, and has been) corrected, but it is ''not'' a personal attack if it was based on an informed perspective of the matter, least of all when there is massive support for the position amongst involved editors also familiar with the circumstances. You specifically implied that failing to provide diffs made any comment they would have supported a personal attack, and that is simply not true. Besides, it's not just diffs alone which make that case, but, as the very section you quoted shows, and linking to relevant discussion. There are a variety of links and diffs in this thread which direct to voluminous discussion across a variety of venues. These are not spurious claims being made by parties on a whim and without any substantial reason for concern, which is the only situation in which the policy you quote would apply. There is no bad-faith activity at work amongst those who brought this topic for discussion - your argument in that direction has no merit. ] ] 21:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Your interpretation is not what the policy says. You could make an argument not providing evidence at the point of asking for the ban was an oversight, but that is not an excuse given it was three hours before I asked for it and multiple people had voted support already. ] (]) 06:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::In what way does my interpretation depart from policy? Please be specific. You made the very precise claim that ''"accusing an editor of a history of disruptive editing without providing diffs is a personal attack."'' and I called you on that. No one is saying either A) that diffs and other solid evidence aren't recommended if you want your claims of bad-faith behaviour on the part of another contributor to be taken seriously, nor B) that it wouldn't be a personal attack if one manufactured non-existent complaints for which they never will be capable of giving evidence. But you've synthesized these two principles into one notion that if an editor makes an accusation of impropriety and they don't immediately make their case with evidence, that is a personal attack, regardless of whether they are in fact correct about the purported behaviour and acting in good faith. That idea is just not supported in policy. Anywhere. But to an extent it's a moot point, since demonstrates there were in fact a dozen-plus diffs and links in this thread supplied as evidence of the behaviour and circumstances being discussed supplied by parties to the discussion, previous to your first post. Mind you, I don't want to get into an endlessly recursive discussion here with you, as it would serve little use to the broader issues here. And I have misgivings about how things have been handled too. But the statement you made was categorically false, and not in a trivial way, since through it you implied that another contributor was engaged in personal attacks. I didn't see that as particularly helpful to the current circumstances, whatever your feelings about whether or not the instigation of this process was well-advised. ] ] 10:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - Yes, Director's behaviour was very bad, however he has apologised. I would suggest keeping tabs on his activities in related articles and putting him "on probation", as it were, rather than a ban right now.] (]) 21:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I partially agree with Smeat75's proposal. Director has apologized and admitted his fault in the article. '''Support''' (for Director only) the figurative "probation", if not that, then a temporary Topic Ban.. '''oppose''' anything else as Director's involvement is unclear at the moment, it seems as if all he did was behave in a slightly unorthodox way whilst defending the article from the likes of Atlanticire, and that doesn't warrant a topic ban. ] ] ] 21:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' {{u|Snow Rise}} wrote {{tq|"they've proven that they are capable of having their mind changed on the matter"}}. I can't agree. Director collaborated on this polemic before Producer uploaded it. The lede was not the beginning of a neutral encylopedic article; it was recognisably hate literature. It began {{tq|"A near majority of Jews dominated the top ten to twenty leaders of the Russian Bolshevik Party's first twenty years and the Soviet Union's secret police was "one of the most Jewish" of all Soviet institutions"}}, the entire lede continued that litany, and the rest of the article followed in that vein. In discussion, he insisted it was neutral, that it was American bias against communism that rendered his opponents unable to see the true neutrality of the piece. He insisted that oppression of Jews under communism was outside the scope of an article called "Jews and Communism", but would not describe the scope except as {{tq|"an article that lays out the association between "Jews and Communism""}}. He only recoiled when he was busted, and not from the language, not from the framing, not from the purpose, not from the sourcing even now, just from it becoming publicly known that the creators of the Misplaced Pages article - Producer and Director together, that we know of - had taken this polemic from an article written by a known Holocaust denier and defended it to the hilt. Is it {{tq|"clear his motive was ''not'' antisemitism"}} because he expressed mortification for being deceived, mortification that's already been succeeded by resentment at being taken to task for fighting so bitterly for such malicious trash? No, it's not clear. ] (]) 21:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Director doesn't strike me as the type of contributor who changes his perspective based upon the general community consensus of his character and behaviour, no matter how overwhelming. Of course, if your assertion that he and Producer collaborated on the page before it was introduced into article space, or more specifically, that he knew the material was being plagiarized from the source from which it came, can be supported with evidence, that would be a different situation entirely and would generate an instant change in position on my part. However, the diffs you provide are only for a previous implication of this fact on your part and his denial of said claim, which is not really evidence of any sort either way. On a side note, though, I never saw a version the article that far back until now; I had thought the current version was problematic, but that version is truly hideous. As if the obviously fringe and distasteful wording of the prose aside, the use of images to create the implication of a rogue's gallery is itself unsettling, as if meant to say "Look how Jewish all of these communists are." Still, nothing I see screams out as proof that Director wasn't just blind to rampant synthesis at work. While it may seem inconceivable to you or I to not be able to appreciate the hate-mongering that must have been at work in the ultimate source of those claims, it's entirely feasible Director did not. My view of him is that he is simply a problematic editor in general who does not like be disagreed with, and once the situation on the page reached a certain level of heatedness, he was lost to discussion on the matter and inclined to view opposing views as nonsense by default, until incontrovetable evidence as the source of the content snapped him out of it. That's a serious issue in itself, but one not well addressed by a topic ban. Which is why I've advocated giving him a chance to learn a lesson here, but with very little tolerance for anything approaching that kind of behaviour again, which should be met by a general indefinite ban from the project. ] ] 22:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: What would your opinion be if it was proven that Director knowingly added a source from an anti-semitic "hate group" onto the article (not that I suggest he has, I only mirror what previous editors have said). Would you support a topic ban then? My position of current, based upon the evidence provided, is that Director is just adamant and stubborn, and perhaps a bit offensive in general. I haven't seen any specific links to a personal attack he made, or to unacceptable contents/sources he uploaded.. although I highly suspect he has done one of the two, that's just speculation.. as much as I would like him to be blocked, and as much as I disagree with his ethics, we're not in a position to do much yet.. ] ] ] 22:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Personally, my perspective on that matter would depend highly upon the nature of the source and the manner in which it was added. After-all, it's entirely within the realm of possibility that a source used in some context by a hate group could be used for quite a different purpose as a reliable source on Misplaced Pages. On the other hand, if Director quoted a source from the same hate group from which Producer plagiarized his content, then it would suggest he was fully aware of Producer's activities, but I've yet to see any evidence of such. If the source came from a different locale entirely, but was not an appropriate source, then that would also raise the spectre of his inability to edit in the topic area in a way consistent with NPOV; but once again, I must stress this is a response to the hypothetical -- all evidence suggests to me that, as you said, he is simply stubborn and determined to get his own way, once he's determined that it's ''the'' way. Though I would add "arrogant, dismissive, and combative" to the list of applicable descriptors. ] ] 23:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Just briefly, because it's late: I found Director's "to all intents and purposes" phrasing curious and so I tried to make my question precise, asking {{tq|"whether you were involved in writing or reviewing any of this material before it appeared as an article in mainspace on the English-language Misplaced Pages?"}}. He didn't say if he reviewed it but he did say that {{tq|"I think I maybe wrote one sentence, and added three or four images."}} so yes, Director worked on it before Producer uploaded it. We now know that much was adapted from the original Weber piece or some intermediate version. I can't tell you if Director was slyly alluding to that when he said he maybe wrote one sentence, whether Producer prepared the adaptation and hid its origins from Director (which I don't think Director has offered as an explanation), or whether they collaborated in the adaptation just as they collaborated in the defence (which seems the simplest explanation). As for the images, that collection was not the synthesis of another hand. There are just five in the article, of which Director admits to "three or four" - most of the work. He also says the sources "checked out"; someone did put in the effort of adding ISBNs as the references in Weber's piece don't have them. ] (]) 23:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hmmm, it does seem to raise the question of how much they collaborate which is germane to other areas of this discussion, but still is not a smoking gun as regards Director knowing the work was plagiarized from an antisemitic source. And lack of foreknowledge of this aspect would explain why he would later say he felt like he needed to take a shower when he learned the true source of the material; that is, he lent his support and collaboration to Producer from the start without knowing of this fact and was disturbed to learn he had been used to further an antisemitic agenda. ] ] 00:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I wanted to say I didn't "write a word of it", but then I remembered I added some images and introduced a brief sentence to the lede, and I didn't want to turn out dishonest. So I said "to all intents and purposes". The edits I referred to were done ''well after'' the article was created. I can't believe all the nonsense that's being drawn from that.. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 18:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well, I for one am inclined to believe you on this point and I think this line of discussion should be shut down unless more than speculation can be offered. At the same time, it's not exactly "nonsense" for the question to have been raised to begin with, given the circumstances. Honestly, I don't know what to think about your relationship with Producer, but if you two ''do'' have an off-wiki friendship, I imagine you have some choice words to share with him over this whole affair. ] ] 00:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Support''' per nom. I also think a sock and/or meat puppetry investigation is warranted, as explained here. .--] (]) 22:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support (] solely)''' After reading through both the Jews and Communism talk page and its archives , , , and I have changed my mind on the matter. The users attitude was incessant and unwavering. It definitely constitutes ]. That said, I don't think a topic ban on Communism would be helpful here, as the issue largely relates to the antisemitic content that was defended for so long, and the users lack of comprehension as to what the articles greater message was --] (]) 22:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' While I commend Director for his change in view on the article, bans are meant to be preventive. There is nothing that he has to offer to this subject area and his track record shows that disruption could continue. This is certainly a more favorable decision for him than a block, which is probably warranted by his comments on other editors which he continues in this discussion. ] (]) 23:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' How did he "blindly" follow the other editor when he even reversed his position completely? Please, provide diffs for comments that you feel were inappropriate and worthy of a topic ban. There just isn't any evidence here. Just because you disagreed with him in the AfD is not a reason for a topic ban. The discussion at the talk page and the first AfD did become lousier at points, but ] the blame could be equally put upon this ANI topic ban nominator {{u|USchick}} who kept insisting communism doesn't have anything to do with socialism or the Soviet Union with some no-true-scotsman argument that became very tedious. Director kept replying and atleast that following conversation was rather low-quality. Actually, in every "bad" discussion I can find from the archives Drowninglimbo linked above USchick is the other party, both engage with similar style. And USchick is the one suggesting a topic ban for Director? Objectionable. --]] 01:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::He blindly followed the other editor by not having his own opinion about the content as POV, FRINGE and SYNTH. To the point that no one was allowed to fix a math error except Producer. No one else can count? Then he cried crocodile tears when he was exposed. Read through other people's comments please and feel free to nominate me for a topic ban as well if you feel it's warranted. ] (]) 02:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::FYI, I don't think you should get a topic ban. I just think that the most disruptive process in this, if any, was discussion between you and Director. --]] 02:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I understand your concern. I was stooping to his level in order to even have a discussion with him at all. I was reprimanded by an admin for doing that. Neither one of us took it personally and we continue to joke around about that. Like we do here for example ] ] (]) 02:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - Keep an eye on him, as Smeat said above: "probation". I'm sure he knows what's happened, and he has even evidenced disgust on the matter. Let him start fresh, and if problems arise, then action should be taken. At yet, I think he deserves the chance to make a fresh start. I think I can tell, personally, that he knows what happened, and how he got caught up in it. ] — ] 03:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Note that an of his user page had the text: {{ex|This user is not a racist, but does support ]'s statement on racial scientific facts. This user does not believe scientific facts can be "improper", or "morally unacceptable"}} Agreeing with ] or being a racist is not a reason to topic ban someone. But when they have a history of tendentious editing in articles based on racist sources, this is a good reason for a topic ban. I don't think we can trust this user to edit articles that are sensitive to race issues without POV pushing and other disruptive behaviors. ] (]) 05:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - I repeat the comment I made about the proposed ban on PRODUCER. The formulation of this proposed ban does not make much sense to me. It is clear that the greatest issue by a huge margin is the anti-Semitic material that was adapted. Why a topic ban on communism is necessary is beyond me. A topic ban on Jews would automatically encompass a ban on anything involving Jews AND communism, or Jews and anything else. We are surely not suggesting that because the two subjects intersect in the article in question that it is necessary to topic ban him from communism as well? Topic bans should be carefully and accurately targeted. This one is not, and it should be refactored. Regards, ] (]) 06:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' - Per my explanation below, I am opposed to suggested topic bans from thousands and thousands of articles, either existing or potential, based on "one spat over a single contentious article". If serious accusations are justified, it should be easy to present evidence which would reveal all members of their traveling circus and all topic areas they operated. Only based on such evidence uninvolved administrators can determine who should be topic banned and from what topic areas. --] (]) 07:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per User {{user|Jehochman}}'s prior warning to Director : "I am alarmed by this edit . You should never reference another editor's religion, race or nationality to challenge their edits or worse to suggest excluding them. This diff is ground to ban you from Misplaced Pages. Please remove it swiftly. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)". Thank you, ] (]) 07:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' a topic ban for any content relating to Jews, Judaism and anti-semitism, user contributed to and supported the initial wildly anti-semitic article as documented by ] above, then defended it at all costs. ] and ] also seem relevant. ] (]) 10:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' a topic ban on communism, the case has not been made out by the nominator or supporters, per my comment above. I do not have a view on whether a topic ban should be implemented regarding the topic of Jews, but I caution the closing admin that this proposal was essentially canvassed in the battleground only, and that should be taken into account. ] (]) 11:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' more or less exactly as Peacemaker67 and also per Onlyindeathdoesdutyend (diffs are in the "so what?" category). As pointed out in the additional discussion sub-thread, the supports come out of a highly charged content dispute and a lot of the other behaviours (notably the proposer's, USchick) deserve at least equal scrutiny). ] (]) 12:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' because of the user having defended anti-semitic content for so long and so fiercely, that it's impossible to believe that there is no personal POV involved, even after the user claimed to have changed his mind. ] (]) 13:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Director's primary mistake was really a matter of ], by trusting that the primary source was legitimate. Everything else was based on an attempt to enforce policy and find appropriate resources for the subject. And once the ] broke out, it's not unnatural to feel backed into a corner and have a few choice words. When the actual source of the work came out, Director apologized and agreed to deletion. That's not the action of an unreasonable editor, and I don't see anything to be gained by sanctioning him. — <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 15:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per in section 1. ] (]) 15:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - He has apologized which is better than nothing, but anyway we should just keep on eye out for now. ]] 15:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - There is no question the editor was disruptive on the article, but that in itself does not rise to the level of a topic or site ban. Most especially the latter. I choose to ] that this editor is just passionate about the topic of Communism and has no interest in trying to legitimize antisemitic canards. I think many well intentioned supporters of this should rethink their support and try to put themselves in the position of having to defend something you believe is being wrongs associated with. I think we would all feel attacked. And even though the editor was wrong, they apologized when the origins of the article were revealed and reversed themselves. That should be good enough. Thanks. ] (]) 16:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've been thinking a bit about how to assume good faith in this situation and what the consequences of that assumption are. IMO the bias in the article (primarily cherry-picking and weight) was so self-evident to a ] that, assuming the editor was engaged in a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, the issues raised in ] come into play. ] (]) 18:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - Because Misplaced Pages errs on the side of assuming good faith, the chorus of people opposing a topic ban for Director will probably prevail. In any case, I encourage you to read ]'s essay on his user page. That someone would spend weeks, day in day out, aggressively defending Producer's anti-Semitic POV without recognizing it for what it is seems highly improbable. If you operate on the principle of "do unto others as you would not have them do unto you," then you're counting on people to mistake deviousness for contrition.--] (]) 18:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' six month site ban and subsequent topic banning for a period to be decided to community consensus. I find the editor's epithiny unconvincing. ] (]) 23:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''oppose''' User has now realised the questionable sources involved and has apologised. Nothing to be gained by any ban/blocks. The agenda now appears to be driven by a group of editors using Foxmanesque smear tactics. ] (]) 04:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Maybe when someone makes a full time job of defending blatantly racist content we ought to stop "assuming good faith" with this person. Maybe consider the possibility that they're a, I dunno, manipulative bigot with an agenda and their apology is probably not sincere. Maybe take a look at the ] links posted to Jim Wales' talk page asking like-minded individuals to edit Misplaced Pages, consider the possibility that they're here, and think about the extent to which you want to allow them to subvert a process such as this one. --] (]) 11:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Wow, long on fantasy..short on facts. Who knows, maybe they are even participating in a secret email campaign against Misplaced Pages to ] As I said, Foxmanesque. ] (]) 12:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Except that it's not... | |||
| ::::* | |||
| ::::* | |||
| ::::* | |||
| ::::* | |||
| ::::* | |||
| ::::... you get the idea. | |||
| ::::Sorry, what are you implying here? Care to explain what you think this ] project you linked to has to do with the current discussion?--] (]) 13:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: As this is a section concerning ] I naturally assume that all your frothings are accusations against him personally. Have you evidence that those posts are by him? As for the link to CAMERA's attempts to subvert wikipedia, that was alluding to ]s handwaving a few paras down. ] (]) 17:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Let's be very clear, ] . Are you suggesting that ] is in any way associated to CAMERA, or is WP:NOTHERE to benefit the project? What ''are'' you suggesting? ] (]) 17:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Along with agreeing with TFD about disruption and knowledge issues, I find remarks like - really malevolent, nasty- and the POV complaint is 'projecting', in Jungian terms imo ] (]) 16:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. In all honesty I feel these users should be pleased if they ''only'' get handed a topic ban. '''] <sup><span style="color:#FFD700; font-family:serif">Go Bruins!</span></sup>''' 17:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <s>*'''Oppose''' Little actual evidence based on user behavior. ] (]) 19:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)</s> -''This user has been blocked as a sockpuppet''-] (]) 12:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. The preceding ] comment was added at 19:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC) (UTC).</small> | |||
| :*{{tq|"This user is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference: 20:57, 15 May 2014 Timotheus Canens blocked Verycarefully with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation disabled)"}} (]) ] (]) 10:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| ===Additional discussion=== | |||
| First, I think you should be looking for feedback from ''un''involved editors. Secondly, if you want to hear from the Misplaced Pages community, ] is a better forum for this than ]. You will also need to present diffs outlining specific acts of disruption. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 17:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :This noticeboard is for ban proposals. ANI is for specific incidents. This proposal spans lots of incidents over a long period of time. ] (]) 18:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Liz, it's patently obvious that Director and Producer need to be banned, and maybe not just from this article. But they're really symptoms of a bigger issue: how admins enforce the rules. Both Director and Producer are counting on admins who don't really investigate an issue before acting, and who become indignant at suggestions that they've made an ill-informed decision or acted defensively/impulsively. | |||
| ::I'd be in favor of a checklist of inquiries that ought to be made before punishing someone in response to a complaint. Maybe blocking shouldn't be at the discretion of just one admin.--] (]) 18:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Either is allowable (to be fair to both of you, the guidelines in the headers have a bit of an identity crisis, between the version on the viewable page and the one on edit page), but I daresay you'd get more involvement if this were on ANI. ] ] 19:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''''Note for admins''''': An in depth discussion of the behaviour of these two has already been discussed at a controversial ] in which these two were VERY involved (and, in my opinion, overly controlling of). The discussion led to a near-consensus there calling for a topic ban to be made on Director and Producer/Potocnik. ] ] ] 18:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| '''Summary:''' ] was adapted in late February 2014 by ], then known as Producer, from an article found on the site of a Holocaust denier. Producer and Director worked tirelessly and in concert to avoid changes to the article, almost invariably adopting a combative and threatening tone in Talk and edit comments. Despite its very evident problems, its rancid anti-Semitism, and the discussion at Jimbo, the article survived a March 2014 AfD as No Consensus. The article is again at AfD, where many thousands of words have been expended and where the article has attracted negligible support after the revelation of its roots. Director changed his position from Strong Keep to Delete; Potocnik has been silent. | |||
| '''The Problem:''' Literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of volunteer hours have been spent, and tens -- perhaps hundreds -- of thousands of words have been written, in order to keep a vitriolically anti-Semitic attack page off Misplaced Pages, or at least to reduce the worst aspects of that page. This is a terrible waste. It is clear that two or three dedicated and sophisticated editors, working together and cooperating closely, can tie the project in knots. This page would have been terribly embarrassing to the project if it had received wider media attention but it was also a comparatively easy call; we may not be as lucky in the future. The community needs a forum to consider and address the problems this episode so clearly presents. There will always be anti-Semites and zealots and conspiracy theorists and fanatics eager to spread The Word and capable of "following the sources" to cram racism, anti-semitism, fringe science, and fanaticism into Misplaced Pages, and where just two or three are gathered together they are extremely difficult or impossible to oppose. We have strong policies against socks, but two or three coordinated ideologues can assume ownership of a page and do nearly anything provided they take care to cherry-pick sources and avoid ''concerted'' opposition. If Misplaced Pages does not address this problem, it will have no future. ] (]) 18:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Alright, let's not panic here. Misplaced Pages does have processes for handling these situations, processes that have not even been exhausted in this case; ArbCom, for example, was never brought in on matters though I think a number of us anticipated it heading in that direction. For that matter, no manner of formal mediation was requested, though postings were made to ANI. It strikes me as a bit histrionic to prophesy the doom of the project over this scenario. You're of course more than welcome (encouraged even) to take any proposals or discussion about new guidelines to ], but I suspect you'll get mostly comments along the lines of what I have to say here -- that is to say, this situation is well-covered in existing policy and this situation became the chore that it did because those policies were not applied as elegantly as they could have been (venues that could have been explored weren't and administrator involvement was not what it could have been, both of which happen from time to time). Let's also remember that, meatpuppetry (for which we also have policies) aside, two or three editors working ardently against prevailing consensus is not in and of itself problem behaviour -- it's just the reality of Misplaced Pages and something we depend upon really. That said, clearly there ''was'' problematic behaviour involved here, but again, that can all be addressed through existing process (as is being done in this very thread for example), and it makes little sense to me to try to reinvent the wheel when only a portion of the possible solutions we have at our disposal have been tapped. ] ] 19:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I personally think that article is appalling, as was the behavior of these two editors. During the brief time I was involved in that article, I was attacked by the two of them, and threatened by one. I didn't like some of the talk page comments I saw; I felt that some of them were ugly, raising, in one instance, the religious background of an editor in a gratuitous fashion. Even so, I'd like to see some diffs. Who did what. There is new evidence that much of the article was copied from a racist website. Whoever did the copying should be topic-banned. Whoever abetted that action, ditto. Other specific evidence of bad behavior should also be introduced. Similarly, I'm not sure the timing is correct, though I admit that it is easier to engage in this discussion now, while the article and its talk page still exist. ] (]) 19:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The demonstration of the original version's reliance on an article from the ''Institute for Historical Research'' is . The talk page's numerous archives -- all since February 2014 -- speak for themselves, as does the outcry at AfD. I'm very concerned by the amount of volunteer time and energy this is requiring, with seemingly unbounded demands for further demonstrations of diffs, evidence, argumentation, surely to come. What is to be done? ] (]) 19:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There are lots of diffs listed in the ANI examples. For anyone interested, they can see them there. My concern is with the attitude of the two editors and their tag team effort to shut down any discussion on the talk page and block other editors from participating. This is also documented in the archived talk pages of ] and ]. ] (]) 19:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It didn't require that much of a deep-dive into the evidence to see the justification for topic bans for both editors. See my comments above. ] (]) 20:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|Coretheapple}}, can you elaborate? Was it producer or director that threatened you? Also, can you provide diffs to the talk page comments you speak of? My current opinion is that of a topic ban for Producer, and a 'temporary topic ban' for the likes of Director, but I could easily have their roles the wrong way around.. ] ] ] 22:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Director. See the repeated "warnings" and threats to "report" me at , especially the "Please consider yourself formally warned" at 07:27, 27 April 2014. These are the kind of bullying tactics that I found especially dismaying from Director. I don't recall if they came from the other chap too, but to be frank I found their tactics interchangeable. ] (]) 23:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I could write an entire essay here about the highly inappropriate behavior of a large number of editors on that article, the flaming, the accusations of antisemitism, the ''incessant'' use of edit-warring as a substitute for discussion, the accusations of sockpuppetry, etc, etc.. But I won't. #1 because the article is being deleted and this is a <u>dead issue</u>, #2 because I just now went away on business and hace nothing but my phone, and #3 because I don't care, tbh. To single out Producer and me for sanctions, imo, defies all logic. The article did turn out to be based in part on some IHR essay - but ''nobody knew that'' at that time. I didn't; and the sources checked out. When the IHR thing was revealed, I immediately supported deletion and repeatedly apologized to everyone. If someone wishes to "take revenge" for my defending the article, fine, I won't offer any kind of detailed defense. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 19:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I respect that you may not have known but it is highly unlikely that the Producer, who created the article, did not --] (]) 19:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Director, I deeply appreciate your change of heart on the article. But the fact remains that the article that Producer created was, on its face, an act of anti-Semitic propaganda. One did not have to know chapter and verse or its precise origins to see that. But you dove right in and acted as his trusty right hand, Robin to his Batman, or perhaps the second Batman. I don't think that you should be punished. But I do think that you need to be separated from articles on this subject for the good of the project. ] (]) 20:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also, and this is why we're here, it is ''not'' a dead issue. If indeed this article is deleted, as is entirely possible as it seems to be a ] situation, I am sure ] will rear its ugly head in the blink of an eye. ] (]) 20:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Director, has it not occurred to you that the recurrent suggestion of antisemitism at work in the motives of those defending the content might be related to the fact that the content itself was perceived to be indicative of the type of synthesis of facts consistent with an antisemitic view, a fact that was borne out once we discovered the origins of the content? Other contributors saw that at once. You interpreted the content differently and did not detect that underlying motive at work. That's fine, and nobody expects every editor to catch something along those lines, and I for one take it on faith you were operating as to what you thought was the approrpiate approach to the content. But is unreasonable in this context to not understand the suspicion of others, when there ''was promotion of obviously antisemitic material at work'' and when you would like, presumably, for others to be understanding of your good faith support of that material. You may notice that, despite having considerable reservations about your behaviour on that article and it's talk page, I've gone out of my way to advise restraint in regards to sanctions against you, on the hope that your change of position reflects that you're capable of reforming your approach a little. But you're not helping the case for that approach when you don't own up to how you contributed to the mess that became of that situation. And here I'm not longer talking about the antisemitic issue at all, but rather your tendency to see everyone else as the problem and you as the besieged party. You went into full-on battle-mode on that page. You were unreceptive to opposing arguments and frequently uncivil, both in terms of denigrating your opposition's perspectives and, most especially, ignoring ], the very principle to which you would now like to appeal, constantly. Having seen this situation play out many, many times on the noticeboards, I'm telling you that you have a very limited window here to get out ahead of things, but it requires owning up to your mistakes in full (that is, not just as regards being duped by material), and commiting to another approach. If editing on Misplaced Pages and in these areas is important to you, I'd do it fast, before the votes stack, even if your circumstances allow only a small message. ] ] 20:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :To justify a topic ban from 'Jews' and 'Communism' evidence needs to be presented of significant disruption ''in the topic area.'' One spat over a single contentious article is not enough to justify a topic ban from thousands and thousands of articles, either existing or potential. ] (]) 20:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Disruption spans across ], ], and ] with many discussions about What is Communism, Who killed the tzar , Who is a Jew . I would say a broad range of topics has already been covered. ] (]) 21:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's also worth noting that, while Only in Death's perspective (that disruption on a single, or low number, of articles does not constitute cause for a topic ban) is valid personal position on what is appropriate here, it is not a bar which is required by policy or the block process itself; many topic bans have been instituted for editors whose contentious behaviour was linked to a particular inflexible perspective deemed likely to spill over into other articles. I will say though that OiD's point as to the breadth of topics that would be banned is worth taking under advisement; between those two topics, a significant number of articles would be barred to the editors. That's part of the reason I have reservations in Director's case. With regard to Producer, I dare say it's obvious his issues with NPOV on the Jewish people are problematic beyond repair. Director, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have come into conflict with other editors because of a devotion to the subject matter; rather that conflict stemmed from what he perceived as a matter of editing principle. His issues are more with general civility and the ability to collaborate harmoniously with other editor's and are not tied up with any one particular topic. Which makes a topic ban a dubious solution for dealing with him. I think what is called for in his case is outreach as regards general behaviour and, if that fails in the long-run, a more general sanction/block. ] ] 21:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Precisely for this reason I nominated them separately, for individual consideration. Thank your for putting it so eloquently. ] (]) 22:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Snow, my opinion is practically a mirror of yours. I concur with Snow's stance on Director precisely. ] ] ] 22:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Is there anything in Director's editing history that makes you believe that his future contributions to Misplaced Pages outweigh the risk episodes like this one pose to the project? Yes, Director was staunch in defending policy and standing by his sources -- but only ''his'' sources were permitted throughout the article's regrettable life. Only two days ago, he prepared a spirited defense of the page, stating that the entire nomination was deceitful: '''"Folks, you're being lied to regarding what the article is and what its about. The deletion rationale is an appeal to emotion, and is aimed to gather ] on such a basis. ''Nothing'' in it is accurate nor factual…. Furthermore: such ridiculous accusations push forward a right-wing, practically Reaganite political agenda.'''. I particularly draw attention to the dog-whistle allegation about vote-gathering, but more generally to the tone and incivility. This is not the language of an editor who is working collaboratively to improve the encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Like I said before, the problem I have with the whole situation is that it IS largely unclear who did what. I'm not saying I agree with Director's ethic, but he has a right to say what he said on the afD discussion (no matter how mislead it may be) - we can't punish him in that regard. It's his opinion, and it may be blunt, but it isn't so far as being a personal attack. If you were to provide diffs and references proving that only his sources were permitted through the article's agreeably regrettable life, my opinion could easily sway.. but from an NPOV, I don't think we can judge his behaviour unless more raw proof is provided. Then again, if Director had been making these edits behind an IP rather than a fancy account, he may well already have been banned entirely by now.. all in all, I just don't want to judge pre-emptively.] ] ] 22:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::And, much as I like to avoid using an essay in circumstances where a very fine policy determination needs to be made, it's rather hard to imagine a situation to which ] would better apply. I'll be clear on this -- I stuck to the ANI discussion and avoided the talk page and even a firm position in the AfD outside of behavioural arguments until the eleventh hour for the very specific reason that I was more concerned with the constant breaks with general civility than anything else and I anticipated that an uninvolved editor would be required to take the matter before another administrator or even ArbCom. I fully expected to have to take that action within a few days. Director's reversal in the AfD backed me away from that perspective, ever so slightly -- just enough that I felt it warranted to give him another opportunity to digest the situation and learn better of boring full steam ahead, deflecting the concerns of large numbers of editors and viewing such contributors as obstinate obstacles rather than collaborators with whom he must work. I am not in any way yet convinced he has taken that lesson to heart, but I think policy and the circumstances compel us to give him one ''very limited'' opportunity to prove that he can before we condemn him outright. If he can't do that, then the topic ban proposed here in insufficient and not well-targeted at his style of disruption, and a general block of at least six months to a year, if not indefinite, is what I would view as the recommendable course of action, though course, if it comes to that, the exact sanction will be at the discretion of the reviewing admin or committee. ] ] 22:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::All I saw was "sources - reliable - attacked - defend!", and by an editor I've known for years to be highly careful about sourcing and very neutral in his approach (not just me either, see Peacemaker's input) - ''and'' the topic was one that could only be expected to draw emotional reaponses no matter how reliable and thorough the sourcing. There really was no ''evidence'' for SYNTH, or any kind of serious wrongdoing - until months have past and some really impressive detective work uncovered the collection of sources to have been those cherry-picked by a racist essay. At that point I actually felt physically ill, not only at discovering the source, but also at having wasted so much effort at being so utterly wrong. I had previously said I'd move for deletion myself if something like that turned out to be the case (I checked the sources, found them to be reliable, and was confident), so when it did turn out that way, I did a 180. | |||
| ::::::::I still think I acted correctly given the information I had, but I nevertheless apologize for the sheer gravity of the error. I am always annoyed, perhaps to an undue degree, by arguments that I perceive to be borne out of prejudice or bias, hence my strong defense of the sources. It felt weird to me to, but ignoring my gut and going with cold principles, following protocol, its a big part of what I do in real life. And for that I don't apologize, that's how science works, that's how medicine works, that's how Wiki works. | |||
| ::::::::At the AfD I apologized to anyone offended by my conduct, which, admittedly, stripped as it is now of its "righteous cause" (of defending reliable sources), does indeed render into sheer rudeness. But viewed in the context of what we had in terms of evidence at that time, I can't bring myself to view it as "disruption". I shall not ''grovel,'' nor will I now attack my fellow Wikipedian of many years, regardless of what he put me (and others) through. I find kicking one when he's down distasteful, regardless of whether he deserves to be down. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 19:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Yeah, I know you like to present yourself as a scientific kind of guy. But then you let slip something like : ''IZAK is a religious Jewish person with an agenda to disassociate Jews and Communism to the best of his POV-pushing ability. That's a fact. He should leave.'' Yeah, I know, you deleted it, you hoped people would forget you ever said it. But you did, and I have to tell you frankly that your entire approach seemed to reflect the kind of viewpoint that is reflected there. I.e., that your "opponents" were "religious Jews" and "emotional" and ought to get the hell out of the article. That's not what you said, except in this instance, but it was your attitude. It's not a very nice viewpoint, and in fact, I think it's downright ugly. Scientific? A product of "cold principles"? Eh, not exactly. I would feel a lot better if you were a little bit more upfront about your actual attitudes. ] (]) 19:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Yah. If you're a member of a group, any group, and if you're religious, you're likely to be offended by your group being connected to Communism - completely regardless of whether that's actually warranted or not. That's an objective fact, "scientific", if you will. And the comment was posted in light of ''yet another'' of IZAK's edit wars to introduce changes without consensus, or even proper talkpage discussion. Introducing lists of his favorite religious leaders and whatnot. I said he should leave because he just stopped discussing and simply reverted to edit war. Religious bias is not new as a problem this project has to face. Note also that I have not infrequently called out my own countrymen for nationalist bias when I see it blatantly raise its ugly head. The lesson there is: "science" (or rather objective observations) by no means need be pretty. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 20:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The thing is, editing on Misplaced Pages requires more than just a nominal dislike of bias; it requires genuine patience with views you don't ascribe much value to. This need for tolerance of opposing perspectives is not just a matter of maintaining civility and keeping discussions from blowing up as they did in this case, though that role is ''crucial'' to our work here; it's also useful because sometimes you're ''really, really'' sure that you right about something...when in fact you aren't. You've just described the sources that informed upon the article as "cherry-picked" - that is in fact the precise argument that a number of involved editors used to call the article into question, suggesting that selective sourcing of trivial facts were being used to formulate a notion not supported by legitimate sourcing on the topic. High as your regard is for your approach as scientific, your empirical nose failed to detect the odor rising from these claims, whereas some of your fellow editors ''did'' sense it, many of whom you actively derided for the position. So it doesn't really serve to excuse your excesses in terms of defense against bias, especially given the level of virulence involved, when it seems that you were applying the most bias yourself, albeit ''partially'' as a result of an exercise in trust. | |||
| :::::::::I come from a background in science myself, and I know of no academic or research institution, not any organization devoted to a genuinely "scientific" approach to tackling problems, that would have allowed you to try to make your arguments the way that you did in this case -- that is, in such an obstinate and uncivil manner; those kinds of attitudes are viewed very dimly in scientific literature, in lecture halls, at conferences, in debates, and anywhere else where scientific consensus is typically formulated. I wish I could say such attitudes and personal arrogance were absent entirely from the process of contemporary scientific process -- they certainly aren't -- but they aren't typically tolerated as appropriate to public discourse at least. And, thankfully, neither are they welcome on Misplaced Pages. Anybody can state that they have depersonalized "scientific" way of approaching problems, but the mere proclamation doesn't necessarily make them a particularly good standard-bearers for those ideals in reality, and I've often observed that those who make such announcements outside of context of actual science often have the most tenuous grasp of such notions. | |||
| :::::::::And on the topic of empirical validation, I don't really have enough prior experience with you to know if this is an isolated incident or typical of your approach to discussion, but I do think that your perspective as voiced here... | |||
| ::::::::::''"At the AfD I apologized to anyone offended by my conduct, which, admittedly, stripped as it is now of its "righteous cause" (of defending reliable sources), does indeed render into sheer rudeness. But viewed in the context of what we had in terms of evidence at that time, I can't bring myself to view it as 'disruption'."'' | |||
| :::::::::...is really at the crux of the matter. You should be writing every single posting in a Misplaced Pages discussion, ''every last one'', so that, if it is stripped of its "righteous cause" (or any motivation, virtuous or petty), it still will not come across as rude. Because if it's rude when you're in the wrong about the matter being discussed, it's almost certainly ''still'' rude if you're in the right; rudeness is not really directly correlated to the strength of your factual or policy argument -- it's about respect and how you ''make'' your argument. And if your comments aren't composed to avoid incivility, regardless of the strength of your positions, the behaviour ''is'' disruptive, by default. It's not really my place to lecture you sanctimoniously as to what lesson you ''should'' learn here, but if there is one I would ''hope'' you should learn from this fiasco, it's that. I certainly can't think of a better general piece of advice to give ''any'' contributor. ] ] 01:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I'd put it this way. I find that Director's continued ignorance of the ugliness and unacceptable character of his words, his utter absence of respect for other editors, his judging of them on the basis of their religion, his stratospheric arrogance, to be nothing less than chilling. I must say that I am starting to have a lot of trouble accepting the sincerity of his mea culpa. It strikes me as being purely expedient and not in any way reassuring that he won't "objectively" decide someday to go on the offensive in an article like this again. ] (]) 04:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Well, only time will tell. ] ] 05:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::@"You should be writing every single posting in a Misplaced Pages discussion, ''every last one'', so that, if it is stripped of its "righteous cause" (or any motivation, virtuous or petty), it still will not come across as rude." - That would be the ideal, and I did apologize for the conduct you refer to. However, that is just not how the human mind perceives rudeness.. or else you would be reporting MarkBernstein for his outrageously offensive conduct, in my view far more vitriolic than anything I ever wrote. Of corse, him being right, it seems its ok if he repeatedly claims I support antisemitism, implying I knowingly did so. That's personal attack and slander of the highest order. Why isn't he "on trial" here? I'm not saying he should be, but I hope I got my point across. If I was "right", and I was opposing censorship of reliable non-cherry-picked sources against biased POV-pushers deliberately disrupting the article, then I doubt my conduct would be perceived in such a negative light. | |||
| ::::::::::::@Coretheapple, I think I have explained exactly and honestly what I'm sorry for, and what I'm not. I don't see what there is for you to speculate about. I'm not sorry for calling on an edit warrior to spare us his disruption, or to stop pushing a POV. You can perceive that as whatever you like, I can't alter your preconceptions. What I am sorry for is wherever I was unduly zealous in defending the cherry-picked sources, as well as for the error itself. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 11:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::It's not a question of "sorry" as much as it is one of whether there will be problems in the future. As I keep saying, the aim of a topic ban is preventive, not punitive. I think your declaration on your talk page and above that you're "self-banning" from topics relating to Jews is a positive step. ] (]) 13:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::I pretty much said so ''from the start''.. Didn't I say I had no intention of restarting all this? <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 14:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::"Spat" - seriously? You're characterising antisemitism as ? ] (]) 12:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - Two editors who edited wikipedia for many years are faced with very serious accusations for ] and all kind of disruptive behavior. Editors who made such accusations (and maybe administrator ({{U|Jehochman}}) who indeffed them) should present evidence (in form of diffs) for their accusations within reasonable period of time. | |||
| *# I agree with opinion that "disruption on a single, or low number, of articles does not constitute cause for a topic ban". That is why it would be good, if accusations would be proven, to check if there are more members of their travelling circus (this should not be difficult because there are efficient tools for interaction analysis) and to define what topic areas they covered. Based on this it would be possible to determine who should be banned and from what topic areas. | |||
| *# If accusations remain unjustified within reasonable period of time, something should be done to prevent unjustified accusations against those two editors in future.--] (]) 22:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| '''Additional examples:''' | |||
| * In this lively debate Director provides a source to prove his point about Lenin. Then when I attempt to use the same source to prove a different point, he wants to shut down the discussion. | |||
| * In a discussion about Secret Police there was a math error. Director claimed that no one was allowed to make any edits until Producer showed up. Like no one else can count? | |||
| * Atlantictire was blocked over a dispute that was content related. And then he lost it. I tried to console him and Producer took me to ANI over this statement on his talk page . I don't know how to find the ANI discussion. Really, there are plenty of diffs linked in this discussion already if anyone is interested in following them. ] (]) 22:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Trotsky poster discussion went to ANI and showed up again in an unrelated article. . | |||
| :: Director had a right to disagree with the AfD nomination, but he did not have a right to call it a lie. It was not. He did not have a right to claim that nothing in the nomination was accurate or factual; that claim was untrue. He did not have a right to call them ridiculous, or to characterize them as a right-wing; that's both untrue and a personal attack. Read the whole sorry talk page -- it's only two or three months, and you can read it all in a few hours. Director and Producer are counting on you not to bother. They can and will issue, just as they have repeatedly issued, personal attacks without sanction against any and all editors trying to improve their articles, and it seems people will continue to ask for more evidence and more WP:ROPE. Please turn out the lights when you leave, OK? ] (]) 22:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::WP:ROPE can be better applied in case of the editors supporting these suggested topic bans from thousands and thousands of articles, either existing or potential, based on ''"one spat over a single contentious article"''. If your accusations are justified, it should be easy to present evidence which would reveal all members of their traveling circus and all topic areas they operated.--] (]) 23:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't personally believe such a cabal of editors exists. Frankly, I think that the collaboration between Director and Producer alone has been overemphasized, a determination I make from my own observations of the present article as well as procedural discussion of their past behaviours. An SPI failed to find an geolocative link between them, and though this does not rule out meatpuppetry, neither have we firm evidence along these lines that I have been able to turn up. There's also ], in which the link is explored and users {{u|DeCausa}} and {{u|TParis}} imply that the two have frequently been at eachother's throats in other discussions pertaining to Eastern European articles. There ''were'' past issues referenced by {{u|FkpCascais}} concerning Director and Producer in ], surrounding a past discussion surrounding ] and collaborative behaviour between the two, but he references no other parties and I never dug up the discussion to observe the nature of their interaction there.. I don't know what to make of the ultimate likelihood that meatpuppetry is at work here. I rather get the feeling that what we are talking about is two very tenacious and combative editors who work in similar areas and that sometimes butt heads, but when their interests converge, they have no qualms with combining their considerably dogged (and frequently vitriolic) efforts to try to tear down any dissent to their preferred approach. They could be collaborating off-wiki, or these combined efforts could be the result of entirely incidental cross over in interests, but I think their motives at the very least could be said to be very different in most cases. In any event, I don't think a link needs to be established to prove that their behaviour has been collectively disruptive and generally inappropriate, but their violations of policy are not identical in form or context, so I'm doubtful of the "traveling circus" hypothesis or that it can inform significantly on how to deal with them. ] ] 00:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - Many, maybe most, of the editors supporting these suggested topic bans I have never seen at AN befroe, which worries me. How did they get here? Were they canvassed? Was the canvassing of '''''all'''''' participants in the various discussions, or only those on one side? If this truly a fair hearing or a kangaroo court? ] (]) 22:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The only place this discussion was announced is here ]. Everyone commenting was personally involved in some way. ] (]) 22:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::So, what you're saying is that almost everyone -- or let's says a large percentage of everyone -- who has commented here is on the opposite side of the issue from Producer and Direktor. yes? Doesn't that strike you as a problem, that the people who will decide if those two should be topic banned are those who strongly disagree with them on that topic? ] (]) 23:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::To make matters worse, they are proposed for topic ban from Jews and Communism although the most important point at related AfD was that it is wrong to connect Jews and Communism.--] (]) 23:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Don't you think it's strange for 2 people to have created so much animosity toward themselves? If you can find any supporters they have, feel free to canvass for them. The people here all have different opinions about the topic, but strangely enough, they all agree to ban 2 very offensive editors. ] (]) 23:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I had no association with Director or Producer before the AfD. Most people who have voted thus far first met the likes of Director and Producer at the AfD page, with a few exceptions. After making judgement there, as seen on the AfD page, we decided the best thing to do next was to pursue a topic ban. No "personal biases" against Producer nor Director existed for the vast majority of us, as most of us (I'd think) stumbled upon this whole fiasco via the Articles for Deletion page.. our initial judgement was made there and then was carried here. ] ] ] 23:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::(ec) Sorry, but I see a lot of personal animosity and groupthink in your statement above ("the likes of...", "<u>we</u> decided", "<u>our</u> initial judgment"). I agree with Liz that we need the opinions of '''''uninvolved''''' editors in this matter. ] (]) 23:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: By "we", and "our", I meant those who came here from the AfD page by the means of consensus, not the entire group, although I do recognize your point.. from your perspective it's understandable. As you can see by the intense debate above, there isn't really any 'groupthink' amongst those who came here from AfD. I'm relatively uninvolved in the whole fiasco, and in fact I came in to contribute to the AfD as someone who was precisely that; uninvolved. Obviously, it would be better for more uninvolved users to come and contribute.. but just because a user has contributed to a discussion on an AfD page doesn't render them illegitimate in the regard of offering their opinion about related topic bans.. my choice of the word "we" held the meaning of "those who came from the AfD page", not "We, the group of collaborators". ] ] ] 23:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Animosities are not valid arguments for a ban. Not all editors here agree about the ban. At least not such widely defined, unless evidence is presented about members of the circus and all topic areas they covered. Only based on such evidence uninvolved administrators can determine who should be topic banned and from what topic areas.--] (]) 23:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::BMK, "the people who will decide if those two should be topic banned are" certainly not "those who strongly disagree with them on that topic". That's not how Misplaced Pages works and I suspect everyone here knows that - yourself included. ] (]) 23:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Can you be clearer? ] (]) 23:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'll try. You asked "If this truly a fair hearing or a kangaroo court?" and "Doesn't that strike you as a problem, that the people who will decide if those two should be topic banned are those who strongly disagree with them on that topic?" I'm answering that your premise is wrong: the editors who are making a case for bans or other measures know full well that they will not get to decide, that they will not have the opportunity to be the judges in a kangaroo court. They are making a case - or rather several cases, as usual - and discussing the matter. This is normal, this is how the process works. You've been around a long time and I think I've seen you participating in ban discussions before, so you know this already. Or am I wrong? ] (]) 00:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Ah - I see I was. One editor didn't quite grasp the need for uninvolved editors to participate. Sorry. ] (]) 00:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :What bothers me is that Director emphatically stated that the article was neutral and impugned the motives of editors who said it was anti-Semitic. Even now he suggests that there was no way of knowing this without seeing the comparison with the IHR article, and that editors who recognized this weakness in the article before the comparison was presented were acting in bad faith. He stubbornly defended the article instead of doing basic research to see whether this presentation was consistent with academic literature. I commend him for finally backing down in the second AfD. | |||
| :But I think a break from this topic is in order. If any editors plan to revisit the topic and create new articles, I think his participation would continue to be disruptive. Furthermore, he has no particular expertise in the area and has not done any in-depth research. His participation was mostly fighting to maintain the ''status quo'' in the article. | |||
| :] (]) 23:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{out}} I'm confused - what is being asked for here, a topic ban from the '''''intersection''''' of the subjects "Jews" and "Communism", i.e. everything to do with the relationship between Jews and Communism; or a ban from the '''''combination''''' of those two subjects, i.e. everything to do with Jews '''''and''''' everything to do with Communism? ] (]) 23:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Both subjects. Everything to do with ] and everything to do with ]. As stated in the original proposal. ] (]) 23:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I didn't submit the report, but I think a topic ban for ] is more appropriate than ] '''and''' ], due to the main issue being the promotion of antisemitic views on the website --] (]) 23:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not everyone agrees that antisemitism is a problem in this case. Just like not everyone here agrees on the topic of Jews and Communism. However, everyone agrees that Director and Producer should be banned form these topics (Director to a lesser extent). ] (]) 23:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"Everyone agrees" - So, you're ignoring the one oppose !vote? ] (]) 23:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The one "oppose" vote is a non involved party. As the nominator, i specifically asked for involved parties on both sides of the Jewish/Communist argument (yes there are both sides) to comment. Maybe that's the wrong approach? Maybe only non involved parties should comment? The problem with that, is Producer/Director are very skilled at policy and at tag teaming against everyone else to the point where lots of us have been sanctioned because of this ongoing situation. Some people have been banned and are not here. My intention is to see if there is any community consensus for a topic ban and to do it while the evidence is still here. (Pending AfD) What's funny, is that early on, people were worried that no one would find this discussion to participate in it. ] (]) 00:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Ah, you've just proved me wrong - I told BMK everyone here seemed to understand the process. Everyone can comment but no decision to ban will be made without the participation of uninvolved members of the community. ] (]) 00:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Non involved members voted here as well. But the one "oppose" vote is from a non involved party. To see who is involved or not is very easy. Anyone not voting on the AfD is not involved in any way. Here's a link of people voting in the AfD ] (]) 00:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I'd be massively oversimplifying if I said that the closing administrator will look for consensus among the uninvolved editors and ignore the involved ones. But you might do well to continue as if that was true. ] (]) 00:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I made the nomination, but I honestly didn't expect this much support. I'm not looking to sway the jury, let the community decide what to do. ] (]) 00:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::It's worth noting that a number of editors who responded to the AfD had no previous involvement in the article or the caustic situation on its talk page. Still others came to be involved through the ANI postings and did not contribute opinions to the content of the article itself so much as the behaviour of certain parties already operating there. A look at ] suggests that involvement in the discussion here does not seem to rely exclusively upon those who were already in conflict over the article, though of course those parties are welcome to have their say and their knowledge of specific incidents of disruption is necessary to make heads or tails of this situation. ] ] 00:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::The problem is that with a topic ban discussion which appears, from the nominator's comments here, to have been set up in a deliberately partisan fashion, it's likely that the closing admin will note the lack of !votes from uninvolved editors and close it without action -- especially when there's a distinct lack of evidence presented. ] (]) 03:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::That would be unfortunate. Instructions at ] don't explain that only non involved editors are allowed to comment. No where does it say how to nominate someone for a topic ban or what will be considered, only that it takes community consensus. So basically, you have to be an experienced admin to understand the process. Producer and Director are allowed to get away with terrorizing editors simply because they have experience with the system as repeat offenders and bullies. I don't know how many more diffs I could possibly provide as examples because no one seems to care about the examples already provided. I hope admins will consider the volumes already written in previous ANI complaints and the time required to babysit these 2 editors on complaint boards, not to mention wasted electricity by the combined effort of all involved. This is a recurring complaint, and if I knew how to link to all the other similar complaints, I would, but seriously, unlike the 2 editors nominated, who have lots and lots of Misplaced Pages edits, I have a life. Unless questions are directed at me personally, I don't plan to contribute anything else to this discussion. I trust that the Misplaced Pages community will do the right thing, whatever you decide that to be. I hope by bringing this to light, enough people are aware now of the Producer/Director duo. Save this link, because someone will want to link to it again in the near future. ] (]) 04:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::p.s. Some of the complaints can't be found because they happened at ] article which has since been deleted along with the edit history. This is why this nomination is taking place now, before the AfD for ] is finished. ] (]) 05:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::I have to say that in my decade on Misplaced Pages, I've rarely or never seen any discussion which was primarily lead by "uninvolved" editors, at least not if one uses such a narrow definition of "involved" as "voted a particular way on deletion of an article". I've been at the article in question since April 28th, in response to an ANI discussion asking for more eyes back then. I've seen Director (mostly) and Producer (a little) in action, and that enables me to have an informed opinion about their behaviour in this topic. Does that make me "involved" or merely "informed"? --] (]) 05:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Well, the nom's original posting may not have made the case it might have, lacking diffs, but there are now dozens of diffs and links to discussions above which supply a pretty cohesive picture of the behaviours being weighed here; I'd say there's as much evidence as you're ever likely to find for such a proposal, whatever one's disposition to that evidence. Mind you, I'm one of the few editors who has commented so far who doesn't feel that the case is an open-and-shut one for both editors, but even I don't contest that the behaviours of both have been disruptive in the extreme -- one need only look at ] to establish that much. I'm simply uncertain as to whether the solution being proposed here is the ideal one under the circumstances. With regard to Producer, my hesitation hinges on the fact that I have not seen the side-by-side of the source which the article was apparently lifted from and the article itself, but if blatant plagiarism is involved (from an antisemitic fringe source, no less) then it's unlikely the responding administrator will find reason to stop and count !votes as they aren't particularly necessary or relevant in that context. Director is a more nuanced case, and though I would have preferred to have waited to see whether he would continue to operate in the same manner as he has before launching such a discussion as this with regard to him, it's hard to fault those who wanted to curtail his combative behaviour. | |||
| :::::::::::In any event, I must, with respect, also disagree with your characterization that there is a dearth of uninvolved editors voting, as a number of those who have commented here were not involved in any form of content dispute with either editor, and commented here seemingly as a result of coming to a dim view, through the prism of one of the ANIs or AfDs, of the pair's tactics. Editors who were not involved in said content disputes, or who gave only an opinion within the narrow context of the most recent AfD without having had any opportunity to come into conflict with either party, can generally be said to be about as uninvolved as anyone who came across this matter just by checking the noticeboards. Administrators operating in this venue are familiar enough with this song and dance to know how to review the pertinent discussions in enough detail to see which editors have a truly neutral disposition to the matter, and which might have been biased by the ongoing arguments surrounding the article, and weight their perspectives accordingly in determining the broader consensus. Unless unduly influenced by our very conversation here on the matter, this is not an example of a situation where I anticipate the responding editor would be likely to dismiss the concerns raised as not backed by sufficient neutral voices or as generally lacking in evidence. I still don't favour a topic ban for Director at this time, not under the circumstances, but at the same time, I hope your concerns as to the prospect of a non-committal close prove unfounded, as process has already failed to arrest this situation at several points where it might have and I am concerned the situation will only renew itself without some form of finding, whatever the sanctions or lack there-of. ] ] 06:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}I find the call for involved editors to reach a determination on this strange and unusual. A TBAN needs to be determined by the community at large whether involved or univolved. Sure, AN discussions are typically led by the involved, but that's something different. I tend to agree with BMK that it ''sounds'' like a partisan call to their enemies at the AfD. <s>I doubt it's so bad that it invalidates the apparent consensus - most likely, in this case, uninvolved would have appeared here as much if the involved call had not been made - but,</s> IMO, any closing admin should make it clear it was incorrect to launch the discussion in that way. ] (]) 06:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I am highly suspicious given I have looked over the diffs that have been presented as evidence. At the worst they consist of ''multiple'' people edit-warring to add/remove reliably-sourced information. The repeated bandying about of that ridiculous indef block is certainly interesting given the strong consensus it was ill-thought out in the first place (see why it was removed), but also in the sheer amount of editing that went on while it was in place. Unsurprisingly more than a few of the support voters above are represented there. A good sign of tendentious editing is seeing what happens when one party to a dispute is unable to edit. ] (]) 06:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, I'm inclined to think the same. I've just been looking through many of the diffs, having not been involved before, and a big "so what?" is growing in my mind. I've had tangles with Direktor before (not on this) and yes he can be dogmatic and a pain in the rear sometimes, but frankly in the diffs presented I'm seeing similar from his opponents. ] (]) 07:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::A few points. I am uninvolved in this case, but have edited alongside both editors for over two years in the Yugoslavia in WWII space. They are neither socks nor meat, they regularly disagree, sometimes vehemently (as do I with them on occasion). I recently watchlisted PRODUCER's talk page because I had left a comment there about an unrelated issue, and that is how I come to be here. I have made a comment above on my view about the scope of the proposed bans. IMO there is insufficient basis for a ban on the topic of communism, regardless of the success or otherwise of a push for a ban on the subject of Jews. This is a similar concern to that expressed by Drowninginlimbo above. | |||
| :::*I note that Antidiskriminator pops in now and again to try to get some interest in other areas that these editors edit in the apparent hope of expanding any bans to other topics and other editors. So far, unsuccessfully, although I note that he has now opposed a ban unless his "travelling circus" allegation is properly explored. All I will say is that this is a blatant attempt to "pile on" and stick the boot in to two editors he has sparred with over a number of years, and the attempt does not paint him in a good light. His allusions to a "travelling circus" is an allegation he has made in the past when disputes have arisen. He has significant history with both editors, and his comments about them should be assessed with that in mind. | |||
| :::*I have edited alongside both of these editors in the Yugoslavia in WWII space, and while I occasionally find Director's approach to certain matters frustrating, I have found PRODUCER and Director to be meticulous about using reliable sources, and was very surprised to read the allegation that PRODUCER had used an unreliable source and that Director had defended it (at least until he became aware of its origin). | |||
| :::*PRODUCER and I have collaborated on several FAs and MILHIST A-Class articles, and he has always been a stickler for reliable sources in what is also a controversial area. | |||
| :::*I agree with many of the comments made by Liz, Snow Rise, Flipandflopped, DeCausa and BMK, and urge caution here. I will observe that USchick comes across (rightly or wrongly) as harbouring quite a bit of personal animosity, despite saying that "I'm not looking to sway the jury, let the community decide what to do". Descriptions like "terrorizing editors simply because they have experience with the system as repeat offenders and bullies", "Producer/Director are very skilled at policy and at tag teaming against everyone else to the point where lots of us have been sanctioned because of this ongoing situation" and "Don't you think it's strange for 2 people to have created so much animosity toward themselves? If you can find any supporters they have, feel free to canvass for them. The people here all have different opinions about the topic, but strangely enough, they all agree to ban 2 very offensive editors". There is a level of personal attack that I consider unwarranted, and it was continued with dubious accusations about Director's apparent admiration for Watson and "scientific racism". | |||
| :::*I am also very concerned that the only place this ban proposal was advertised (by the nominator, I understand) was on the talk page of the article about which the dispute arose. This was problematic, because it drew editors that were already involved, with the fairly predictable result above. There do not seem to be many really uninvolved editors here, to me at least. Regards, ] (]) 07:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I hadn't realised that last bullet point - and have struck my comment that the call for "involved editors" wouldn't affect the outcome. The avalanche of "supports" is, I think, the grinding of axe's from that article talk page. (Btw, I too have seen Producer and Direktor squabble - I assumed that sock/meat allegation had been burried. If not, it is ridiculous to anyone who's been around Eastern european articles for the last few years.) ] (]) 08:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That comes close to dismissing everyone who's contributed to the article or discussions on it as axe-grinders, bearers of long-standing grudges and the like. I only came to the article a week ago and the last time I looked at contribution histories I was struck by how many had also arrived quite recently - long after the first AfD and the ANI discussions and so on. Again without running checks with wikitools, I think I've never interacted with Director or Producer before and I suspect that's true of others here. (I had seen the names on the drama-boards before, true, and had a vague impression that they often squabbled.) ] (]) 10:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I wasn't referring to long-standing grudges (although that may be present in some cases) but to the preponderance of opponents of Direktor and Producer on the article talk page appearing here and the lack of signifificant univolved comment, until recently. In other words, the axe to be ground originated at that article. That's not to say that every post in support is grinding an axe, but, taken overall, this AN thread supposedly about behaviour is largely (but not entirely) a mirror of the content dispute with the content majority on one side and the content minority (a very small minority) on the other. There are editors within the content majority whose behaviour at the article talk page is at least as problematic as the content minority's behaviour, but there appears no interest in holding that up to scrutiny. ] (]) 11:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I just noticed that Director expressed below far more succinctly what I meant by axe grinding: "The vast majority of editors commenting here were just now on the opposite side from me in a highly contentious and emotional content dispute". ] (]) 11:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I also agree that USchick's involvement is problematic. One of the relatively few diffs prsented by them is this: "In this lively debate Director provides a source to prove his point about Lenin. Then when I attempt to use the same source to prove a different point, he wants to shut down the discussion." But I would characterise that diff as Direktor rightly ddismissing an off-point and tendentious response to him by USchick. In fact, much of the disruption around this article seems to be generated by USchicj - see . ] (]) 09:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@Peacemaker67, Thank you for pointing to the collaboration between you, Director and Potočnik in ARBMAC topic area which paint all of you in a good light. You somehow overlooked to say that you were blocked at ] (). Three of you are top three active contributors of this article () whose title remained unchanged because three of you opposed on the talkpage, where you and Director alone made 1649 comments.. --] (]) 09:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That is barely worth responding to. All I will point out is that Antidiskriminator was ARBMAC-banned from an article for tendentious and disruptive editing. He comes here with unclean hands, and should be pointedly ignored in this case. ] (]) 10:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. <u>The vast majority of editors commenting here were just now on the opposite side from me in a highly contentious and emotional content dispute</u>. If the community wishes to impose sanctions I would appreciate it if the decision was made by uninvolved editors, objectively evaluating the exchanges in question - ''not'' a collection of biased, angry editors quite possibly out for revenge after my having dared to oppose their positions on an article talkpage. | |||
| :If the community considers user conduct on that article worthy of review, then I suggest the whole mess be brought before ArbCom for an objective overall assessment of everyone's conduct, rather than singling anyone out like this. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 09:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have some support for this notion. There's no guarantee they will take the case, but if they did, there'd be some genuine resolution. You should bear in mind though, Director, there is an outside chance this approach could end with more significant actions than just a topic ban. As an observer to that page, I'll be blunt with you -- you didn't come off well, especially in the civility department -- to my assessment anyway. Utilizing this solution may serve to spread the blame around a little, but if it's pure vindication you are looking for, I think you're likely to be disappointed. Right now, in the present discussion, a lot of energy is being wasted on the debate concerning whether the fight to introduce and maintain antisemitic material disqualifies you and Producer from contributing in certain related areas. ArbCom is unlikely to be distracted for long by such red herrings; they'll focus very quickly on the substantive ''policy'' matters, and I should be not at all surprised if ] becomes the chief issue in that discussion, whereas it has been severely underrepresented so far in discussions about what went wrong on that talk page. That being said, you will at least be afforded every opportunity to defend your position on equal footing with your detractors. In that respect, I think it may be the best way forward for all parties. ] ] 10:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I said "''if''". I don't care about "spreading the blame", I just care that we do this ''fairly'', objectivity is kind of "my thing". I don't care if I'm the only one who gets sanctioned, but I don't want it to happen because biased users with a specific interest gathered and posted a lot of "'''Support'''" votes. Input by new, uninvolved editors should be what matters here. The term "kangaroo court" does come to mind. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 12:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I feel I need to state a few things: This pdf that is being persistently pushed is by some individual named "Valdas Anelauskas" and titled "Zionism and Russia" and readily available on Archive.org alongside thousands of other works by various authors. In any event I did not know that reliable sources are absolutely off limits if they've happened to have been quoted elsewhere by less reputable sources. For what it's worth my interest on the subject was piqued by Stanford University's "Jews and Communism" publication (hence the article name), later Slezkine, and more later by other sources. All that being said this article and this area of Misplaced Pages has put out such a toxic environment with its nonstop drama that, regardless of the outcome above, I'm willfully barring myself from editing in it ever again. I had been contemplating retiring from Misplaced Pages for a while now even prior to this whole ordeal and have chosen to follow through with it and do so. Therefore I am retiring indefinitely and am ceasing all further editing on any portion of Misplaced Pages. This my final and only comment on the matter and on Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 10:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that is sad, because en WP has lost a productive editor who contributed to featured content of which en WP should be proud. Editors bringing such matters to this or similar fora should remember that throwing a ] can result in your being hit in the back of the head when you least expect it. Some of the above has not been done in good faith, but in pursuit of personal agendas. This discussion has only included a very narrow and largely involved slice of the en WP community, and this should be taken into account by closing administrators. ] (]) 11:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You mean Valdas Anelauskas, member of the white nationalist ]? --] (]) 11:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::If we can hold Producer/Potočnik to his self imposed exile, I think that in itself will make many people very happy. No further action will be necessary. ] (]) 11:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I personally don't care about the exile either way, I still think the user should receive a topic ban for ] to prevent them spreading further ideas about the Jewish people at their discretion. It would otherwise be a good thing if they were able to edit other parts of the website. I think the very least administrators should do is show initiative and prevent the potential circulation of further anti-Semitic propaganda on the website? --] (]) 12:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's true. A person who retires can unretire. ] (]) 14:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I still fail to see the supposed "animosity" that Peacemaker67 and Antidiskriminator speak of. Where has any any one on here expressed any strong hostility towards director? Just because I have an editing history on the afD page for Jews and Communism, one of the several articles in question, my opinion becomes invalid? My first direct interaction with Director happened after the creation of this topic ban proposal, so how could I have had a "vendetta" against Director? In fact, at this point, I don't even agree with the nominator in regard to giving Director a topic ban, only Potocnik. The notion that an editor has to be entirely clueless of a situation when he joins the discussion associated with it in order to have a valued opinion makes no sense. ] ] ] 15:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, there clearly isn't all that much animosity toward Director because, at the moment, a plurality of people oppose his topic ban. He has definitely won over a lot of people by his apology, and that is how it should be. The question is whether a topic ban is needed to prevent further damage to the project, not whether he needs to be dragged to the town square and horsewhipped. ] (]) 17:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is some animosity, especially between Atlanticire and Director, but not enough to render the entire topic ban irrelevant, or to render the opinions of everyone who contributed to the afD page irrelevant (as some people above have suggested). My opinion on Director has been that I'm incapable of judging him because no one is on the same page as to what it is he actually did, but to me it's clear that Potocnik/Producer is incapable of editing Judaism related articles from a NPOV. ] ] ] 18:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| To User Potocnik @ 10:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC) above. Sorry to see you go. Somehow I suspect it is just a case of a "]". Time will tell. You know, whenever I see you or Director edit or opine during this entire laborious labyrinthine byzantine Jews & Communism discussion, the words of an English poet I studied many decades ago come to mind: | |||
| :"...'''A truth that’s told with bad intent''' | |||
| :'''Beats all the Lies you can invent'''. | |||
| :It is right it should be so; | |||
| :Man was made for Joy and Woe; | |||
| :'''And when this we rightly know''' | |||
| :'''Thro’ the World we safely go'''..." (From ]'s "To See a World..."). | |||
| Based on the unyielding ongoing self-righteous defenses you and Director offer up all the time, evidently you fail to grasp the profound import and implications of what the words "...<u>A truth that’s told with bad intent Beats all the Lies you can invent</u>!" mean. If you would, or could, then none of this horrendous and divisive debate would be necessary as the discussion would stop being one of "]" as the two of you try making it all about "sources" when the real problem is one of the core underlying negative and malicious ''intent'' of the way it's set up that comes across based on its presentation and your torrid defenses of what is ultimately indefensible. Thank you, ] (]) 06:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree. Good point on a "]".--] (]) 08:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Systemic failure to provide oversight in this case=== | |||
| The article "Jews and Communism" was created, as we know now, using material from an extremist anti-Semitic website as a source without attribution. Two days after its creation, it was nominated for deletion but the result was "no consensus". I find it disturbing that closing admin RoySmith says in his closure that one of the charges against the article is that it is "Attack page (anti-semetic)" but does not address that in his remarks, saying "what this really comes down to, is this a POV fork of Jewish Bolshevism?" and the answer is that there is no consensus, so he allowed this very clearly anti-Semitic attack page to continue to be promulgated on this site. Then there was a deletion review, closed by Sandstein as "no consensus" , again, the very clear anti-Semitic content did not seem to be disturbing any admins or oversighters on this site. A long AN/I started by Director with the stated aim of removing "those folks who hang around being disruptive obstructions" from the article and which developed into a discussion of his behaviour, was eventually closed by v/r as "no consensus". "No consensus, no consensus, no consensus, not to become an anti-Semitic website, go away and leave us alone, and don't edit war or call each other names or you will be expelled from school for a day or two." I must say I was very disappointed that Jimbo Wales, in the discussion on his talk page, said he would look at the article and give his opinion, but he never did, and the discussion was archived with no further comment from him . All this did attract the attention of two admins who honourably did try to intervene and improved things a little,Jehochman and Stephan Schulz, but what were all the rest of you doing? Another AN/I I started about edit-warring was also just ignored by admins for days and days until it was closed by Spike Wilbury as, guess what, "no consensus" , but at least he did then step into the article talk page and try to do something. Maybe because I know a little about early 20th century Russia, that stuff in the article about Jews killing the Tsar immediately indicated to me that this was as clearly pushing extreme anti-Semitism as if there were an article on WP about the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" saying that it shows a Jewish plot to take over the world. I said so over and over but no one in authority seemed to take any notice, you would have hoped that someone might have looked into it. I am the person who found the connection between the article on the white supremacist website and the original WP article, and it really wasn't that hard,all I had to do was google the quote about "Jewish violins" killing the Tsar and there it was. All these bureaucratic procedures, lists of rules, blah blah blah, should not have prevented somebody doing something to remove poisonous racist crap from this website but the people who could have done that seem to be timid and afraid of doing anything and wait for someone else to deal with it or for it to "go to ArbCom", oh yes, spend five months collecting "evidence" and going through infinite quasi-legal hoops. The article is ''still'' onsite, though at least without the horrible "Jews killed the Tsar" stuff. Please excuse the rant, I needed to get that off my chest, it can be hatted if someone wants to do that.] (]) 12:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] identifies the central issue in this matter: '''Can Misplaced Pages resist concerted efforts to contaminate it with lies, hate, and deception?''' In the time from February through May 2014, it signally failed to do so. The virulent anti-Semitism of the original article should have been evident to all, and much of it persists to this day despite the efforts of literally dozens of editors and the investment of hundreds of hours. The attention of administrators, and indeed of Wikimedia board members, should have been focused by the original AfD, the Jimbo discussion, the two long, long threads at AN/I, and plenty of direct correspondence. | |||
| This was not an obscure or difficult issue requiring expertise, some dispute about mathematical series or the best name for some forgotten Balkan outpost. The article was filled with evident canards -- and it linked to a fairly extensive Misplaced Pages article filling in the historical background on the smear! We have the whole cast: the ugly Jews, the Jews in banking and finance, the secretive Jews, the Jewish traitors. We argue that all sorts of people were ''really'' Jews because their ancestors were Jewish. And on the talk page, as here, we have the repeated dismissal of opposition because, after all, it's just those Jews again coming to WP:VOTE, and everyone knows how they stick together. | |||
| Misplaced Pages is in serious trouble. It is hemorrhaging editors. Its reputation is already low, and scandals like this page diminish it. Worse, it seems clear that Misplaced Pages cannot and will not resist serious efforts by a small team of concerted editors who, as was the case here, can easily override policy and consensus by pretending to adhere to the forms. I've used Wikis since Ward’s Wiki was new; I've been keynote at WikiSym and I've been program chair; I’ve written wikis. Never -- not even during the great wiki mind wipe of 1999 -- have I so completely doubted the efficacy of the WikiWay. The conclusion seems inescapable that Wikipedians have lost the ability to distinguish routine contention from opposition to racist and anti-semitic distortion; if we cannot do that (and I see scant evidence that we can), the wind will blow through the empty corridors of Misplaced Pages? | |||
| Could it happen? If you think not, think again. Events like ] bring Misplaced Pages into disrepute. If Misplaced Pages becomes sufficiently disreputable, an engineer at Google can press a button and, overnight, Misplaced Pages could go back to Page Rank 3, taking our traffic. If Misplaced Pages becomes sufficiently disreputable, donations will dry up. If Misplaced Pages becomes sufficiently disreputable, the remaining editors will be even more dominated by the hacks and the charlatans, the zealots for obscure movements, the gamified WikiLawyers looking for one more scalp and one more barnstar. '''This can still be fixed,''' but it can not be fixed by kicking the can down the road and nodding sagely that, if the anti-semites were regrettable, some of their opponents were sometimes intemperate. ] (]) 15:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : No, with our current policies and guidelines, Misplaced Pages can not manage this, even if it had the manpower. Part of what I believe is required is no more and no less than a very careful reconsideration and revision of ]. Legal systems around the world have often recognized that marginalized classes of people are the subject of a systemic bias (in fact, this is almost tautological), and respond to this fact with positive (that is, proactive) structures, such as ], which attempt to address said bias. | |||
| : The belief that one can address this bias with better intentions but without that sort of teeth has been disproven time and time again, there's quite a bit of research that a blind approach leads to likely unintentional (if not intentional "turning a blind eye") discrimination (e.g., . See the research on ], not just our article, but the actual research, to understand one of the dynamics that may underly this intractability.) | |||
| : There are very, very difficult questions ahead if people were to agree with me, about how to construct such a system. Legal systems in the United States and around the world continue to struggle with those same questions, in part under the guise of standards of scrutiny. I don't know what the best solution looks like, one that actually provides some reasonable protections but that is resistant to gaming. But I think it has finally come time to admit that we need something more in the way of policy than what we have. Propagating this material has and continues to do harm to living people, even if that harm is diffuse. BLP requires we do something, but BLPGROUP denies us the tools required to do anything. '''If months of propagating Nazi hate literature isn't a good enough reason for change, I don't know what the (redacted) is.''' --]] 15:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the above two comments. I am not Jewish, by the way, so not recognising that article as horrendous anti-Semitism because how are you supposed to know if you're not Jewish, is no excuse. All anyone had to do was google "Jews killed the Tsar" and see what sheer evil they were confronted with, but it seemed no one wanted to make that small effort and almost all just looked the other way.] (]) 17:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - This is the portion of this issue that concerns me the most. We had over two-thirds of editors stating in the 1st deletion attempt that the article was an ] based on the antisemitic canard of ], but ] overruled the community and ruled "no consensus". I am well aware of the fact that admins have to take all relevant arguments into consideration, and that AfDs are ]. But when you have two-thirds of the community pointing to what looks exactly like what it was, Roy should have been damn sure he was right with his overruling. He was not. And that should have been obvious to people who are informed about these types of issues. If he wasn't(or isn't) then he should not have taken the AfD. If he was, then I have to firstly question the competence of someone who couldn't see the obvious. Then to see it discussed in multiple venues, with no action, was disheartening. To say the least. If editors think it's just melodramatic for the editors who stated they don't want to edit someplace that would allow such malfeasance, they haven't been involved enough with the disgusting minds of the ](shudder). The worse kind of antisemites. Smart, educated, informed and with a hatred of Jews that can't be matched. Like Uncle ] one minute, and then when they see the ring/Jew, . Should never have gotten to this point. ] (]) 23:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - Been following this with increasing horror in the past few days. Made my first edits tonight, though recall having a brief run in on this a week or so ago on the articles for deletion discussion. I left before a closure was made. (I think I was in denial since) :/) Has the closing admins given a full explaination of their rationale in closing? If the admin have clue - I have always respected Sandstein's judgement before - then they showed a huge lack of horse sense and gut based clue. Shit stinks. We can all smell. Sounds like the majority of the community smelt the stench. The admins didnt get it. This shows a worrying insensitivity to elements of the comminity IMO ] (]) 23:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::It does show significant oversight in this instance, I don't think having an attitude that the article is only antisemitic because an antisemitic source was found to scapegoat is a good thing, although it certainly proves it without question. I think I speak for many editors, at least reading through the comments here, in saying that the article read as antisemitic propaganda before the source was found that designated it as such, and the admins in question should have listened to the communities outcry concerning it. After all, one of the principles of the website is ] if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, and the policies of the website were definitely used intelligently here to defend the article. I'm not sure whose discretion it is whether or not a particular group is worth defending from hate speech, or if this website, with its global influence, should have a clear stance on this, but if I were asked, I would certainly say that antisemitism has no place here, and that it should indeed make rules against hate speech --] (]) 01:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::That will just lead to the circular argument, already represented on that talk page ad nauseum -- that it wasn't really hate speech, just sourced facts that happened to make some uncomfortable for "personal" or otherwise small-minded reasons. Look a number of people here have commented that this situation was more complicated than it needed to be and that we ought to have new rules to deal with this type of situation, but there are two problems with that as I see it: 1) It's all well and good to make such a statement, but no one has proposed ''specific'' mechanisms or procedures that could be employed for such scenarios that wouldn't cause more problems than they solved and that wouldn't be subject to the same kind of mental/semantic gymnastics that kept this article alive for as long as it was despite being in conflict with ''existing'' policies. And 2) Complicated is just the way Misplaced Pages is sometimes. We had a heated content discussion compounded by battleground behaviour; welcome to the project and bear in mind that such debates have gone on for ''a lot'' longer, including on topics of significant social sensitivity. As of today, the page is blanked, likely to be briefly deleted. It won't be coming back in it's recent form, though I daresay claims found within it will rear their ugly head elsewhere. And there will be dedicated contributors with common sense and the will to protect the project in those scenarios too. Yes, administrators acted with perhaps an excess of caution, but don't we like (and demand) caution in our admins, typically? They balance a lot of different considerations, and possible vandalism for the purposes of fringe ideologies are just one of them, if one of the more serious ones. If anything I'd say this situation is just reflective of the need for more admins, as they do seem stretched thin at times of late, and getting administrator attention, let alone attention admin possessing both the time and will to weather the storm of a situation where they can only choose amongst courses of action that are all going to be contentious with one group or another can be difficult at times. But I don't think we need new policy for this contingency, and if we do, it needs to be more refined than "Do something!". If anyone feels the need for new more specific rules is pressing, though, take the matter to ] after the conclusion of this discussion and the AfD, and don't forget to ping me. ] ] 02:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, there was an argument earlier in the debate that suggested a revision of ]. That may help in this instance. I think you're probably right about the request for more admins. It's possible that they simply didn't have the time to look it over properly. It's a difficult situation and I guess that returns to the matter of Producers ]. This sort of behaviour generally leads to admin response, and events such as this will serve well as an example for future possible article creations --] (]) 03:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's right, I forgot about the BLPGROUP suggestion. Well...maybe. It's quite difficult to say anything definitive about how useful it would be without knowing the exact change proposed. And altering BLP to include protections to broad groups would redefine the concept of uphill battles. Now, as I said above, I'm not sure what change is warranted by these circumstances, but if someone ''were'' convinced that a new level of oversight was required here, I'd suggest they look in the direction of the recently updated ] system. It could be put before ArbCom that Judaism (or more specifically, the Jewish people) should be added to the "current areas of conflict" list for the DS system. This would allow admins to apply discretionary sanctions relating to activity on the topic without as much concern about fall-out, since sanctions are allowed for even moderate violations of policy in such cases. Using it to combat the creation of an undesirable article would be a little bit of a twist on the system's usual purpose, which is to maintain and protect existing articles from disruptive activity, but I daresay the general function -- protecting the project in a specific content area prone to heated debate, vandalism, and general disruption, are the same in both cases. I think if you take this and the related discussions to ArbCom, you've a decent shot at getting some significant oversight. ] ] 06:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You do raise some good points. These things aren't always the fault of admins. Once enough of the community had been made aware of the article, the consensus seemed to sweep towards delete. Maybe we could also push to using ] more frequently as a resource? It has some utility on the Talk page but not a significant amount. If it were more popular and had an amount of active watchers, it could help deal with the creation of articles such as this --] (]) 14:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I see it differently. The decision to close the AfD as "no consensus" was perverse. 9/10 administrators would have closed it as "delete." Let's hope the current AfD is not also closed as "keep." At DRN, many of the "Endorse" keep votes said they thought it should be deleted but respected the discretion of the closing administrator. To me that makes no sense, because what then is the purpose of DRN. Add to that many of the regulars there are "inclusionist" tipped the balance. But it's precisely because many editors are sensitive to anti-Semitism that most editors favor deletion. | |||
| :The main policy reason for deletion is notability. If the topic were notable, we would be able to identify a body of literature to use as a source and could determine what was significant to the subject and what the different views were. It would not be possible to base the article on an ''IHR'' article, because it would not reflect the weight shown in a hythothetical article about the subject in a reliable source. | |||
| :The problem I see is that there are lots of articles that are just synthesis, where someone picks two words and puts them together and creates their own topic. Generally these pass AfD where the odds of getting an article deleted that should be deleted are about 50%. For example ] and ] have survived AfDs, although no one has agreed the definition or scope. So a libertarian writer said the Republican Party is right-wing socialist because both parties are socialist, and a ''New York Times'' reporter in the 1950s said Peron was a right-wing socialist because he was right-wing and his policies seemed socialist. And of course Tony Blair was on the right of the nominally socialist Labour Party so that's multiple uses of the term. | |||
| :] (]) 02:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''agreed,''''Misplaced Pages's existence is contingent on preserving a modicum of respect from the mainstream public. One more episode of wikipedia's admins deciding to tolerate a bit of "well-sourced" racism could well land the uproar on the front page of he Times or Le Monde. the next day, Google demotes wikipedia's page rank, and it's all over. Easy calls need to be easy; this was not a tricky question, and the corps of admins failed abjectly. If we can't find policy to bar anti semiotic and racist cant, what the *** are admins, or policy, for? {{unsigned|MarkBernstein}} 03:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::<small>I hardly think that writing would cause Google's algorithms to react that way. ] (]) 03:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::Just for the record, a deletion review is only to determine if the closing admin acted within policy. Not for deciding if the AfD was decided "right". Most closing admins know how to close an AfD or RM within policy so that it cannot be overturned by review. So I wouldn't spend too much time focusing on the review, because even if the closing admin used ], it would be within policy to endorse the close. ] (]) 03:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Question - can anyone suggest an appropriate venue to continue to discuss this issue once this thread is closed? By "this issue" I mean the failure of the system to remove ''gross'' racist/anti-Semitic material, the reluctance of admins to deal with the matter and what I would describe as a widespread tendency among them to avoid contentious disputes and leave those to someone else.] (]) 04:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|Smeat75|Smeat}}, the appropriate locations for such a discussion are ], or this very noticeboard (in a new thread, of course, though I do tend to think the Village Pump is a better location in general and especially under the current circumstances). Wherever you host the discussion itself, a posting concerning it at ] is advisable to increase participation. I've also suggested above that those looking for additional oversight in this area might consider viewing the recently overhauled ] system, with an eye towards petitioning ArbCom to add topics concerning the Jewish people to the ]. ] ] 06:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Many thought that the article should stay, but that the content should be modified to be more appropriate. So the first AfD wasn't only about "removing gross racist/anti-Semitic" content but whether the topic itself should stay. You are not summarizing the first AfD accurately. Content can be always modified later. If you are claiming that everyone who voiced that the topic of Jewish people in historical communist movements is a notable topic are racists, anti-Semitic and somehow linked to sites like Stormfront, you are bordering on a personal attack. --]] 22:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree that there is something disturbing in how long time it took to root this out, including the first failed AfD. I think that Jimbo Wales and others who feels some overall responsibility for the project should look into this and in general we as a community should do an evaluation of what went wrong like it’s done here by Smeat75 and Bernstein It’s a case that deservs broad attention so people keep it in mind if something similar happens. Some kind of formal recognition that this was something else than an ordinary content dispute may be in order One point of learning may be that when there is sincere concern that an article is fundamentally flawed and unsound (extremism, hoax or similar) the concern can not be put aside by «no consensus»; one solution would be to direct such cases directly to ArbCom (and blank the article until the case is settled). In this particular case there most probably was a consensus to delete, but the point is that "no consensus" with no formal follow-up shouldn't be an option when there is very deep concern for the state of an article. ] (]) 12:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you for the comment Iselilja, I think that is an idea worth pursuing. I noticed that on ]'s talk page, he is the admin that closed the first AfD, there are two warnings from bots telling him that he shouldn't have removed the template for Articles from Deletion from Jews and Communism the day it was nominated for deletion and he shouldn't have removed other peoples' comments from the discussion. I looked at the edit history of the deletion discussion and the article and talk page but I could not see any edits from him removing comments. I don't know if there is some way that admins can erase things from edit histories as well as removing comments. I have asked him to explain on his talk page .] (]) 14:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Forget that comment above, he has replied and it seems to be confusion caused by a malfunctioning bot.] (]) 17:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Please see for what appears to be a logical explaination for how this happened. -- ] ] 18:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| Hi User {{user|RoySmith}}, a few points: | |||
| #Until this moment I had no idea you were an admin, why don't you indicate that on your own user page with some sort of icon or statement so that it avoids confusion and misunderstanding and it be clear you are one when you get involved in controversially closing controversial AfDs such as the now notorious ] especially? In some previous discussions I had no idea you were an admin, and now I had to do a special search to find out and confirm that you are an admin. Or maybe I am missing something and my PC just doesn't pick up the icon? | |||
| #It would be fascinating to know your thoughts now that as a '''direct result''' of your initial decision to override a clear more than two thirds majority, actually almost a two to one majority (22 in favor, three to merge into other articles, and 14 to keep) of many users in the original AfD -- who all said then what is now going to happen as a result of the second AfD (]), i.e. ] because the original article is a direct copy of material taken from a bunch of disgusting neo-Nazi pseudo-research -- it has now come to this sorry state that has created so much bitterness, a huge split in the WP community and possible sanctions against the creators and defenders of the Jews & Communism article. Just look at what they are going through now, they could have been prevented from harming themselves had you nipped this in the bud based on a solid majority, not to mention what this is doing to WP as this cancerous topic metastasizes and grows even more toxic in its ongoing mushroom cloud radioactive fallout. | |||
| #It is not too late to explain yourself. Even Director it's staunchest defender now realizes the sheer blunder and sees the wrong of it and calls for the article to be blown up, even though he was obviously very fond of the topic and fought to the death to defend it regardless of how rotten it all was as anyone with a working nose/conscience could smell that. There needs to be a rational answer that shows some remorse and retraction on your side and not some gibberish about "policies" or whatnot in a distracting flurry of ] as to how you could have allowed such a disaster to go on and unfold as it has been doing still with no end in sight (and certainly no responsible oversight) at this time. You overlooked a simple rule of real life or in any democracy as ] put it "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but '''you cannot fool all the people all the time'''." | |||
| #You must take your share of the responsibility for what has transpired and you must offer an unconditional apology for allowing neo-Nazi hate onto WP, even if out of massive ignorance or well-intentioned motives, but there cannot be any excuse for a gross failure of judgement on your part and your part alone. If you don't you should be subject to some sort of very serious sanction for your failure and the damage it has brought upon WP and its good name. | |||
| #You should also reverse your closing of the first AfD with the simple explanation that it was taken from an indefensible source and had you known you would never have done what you did. | |||
| To sum up, not only was there no oversight when there were many chances to do so especially during the frivolous ANI requests launched by Potocnik and Director and others' pleadings at ANI and even on Jimbo Wales' page but in your case the "oversight" (and as an admin you have that responsibility at all times) that allowed this to happen was not just passive but actively ''counter''productive right off the bat as is evidenced right now by all the fallout from this fiasco and the abyss it has opened up at the feet of WP. Your response is awaited. Thank you so much in advance, ] (]) 10:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : Hmmm. I just assumed if people wanted to know if I was an admin, they could look me up on ]. I certainly don't make a secret of it. However, if you think it would be useful for me to put something on my user page, I would be glad to oblige. As for the rest of the rant above, my explanation was in my closing statement for the AfD. If that doesn't satisfy you, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to get dragged into this slugfest. -- ] ] 13:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for that post Izak, well said, I completely agree with all of it.] (]) 12:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The issue was brought up at deletion review and there was "no consensus" to overturn the "no consensus" decision of the AfD. While that is not a ringing endorsement, and does not mean the closing of the first AfD was correct, it does mean that we are not likely to get anywhere pursuing this it. ] (]) 18:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Involved / uninvolved editors=== | |||
| *'''Comment''' on the issue of involved versus uninvolved editors: | |||
| :I first became aware of this article when it was mentioned at ANI following the first AfD. The title alone drew my attention rather strongly. | |||
| :I suspect a large number of editors may be in the same position, because the increase in the number of respondents between the first AfD and the second AfD is really very substantial. | |||
| :I would suggest (but leave it to others to judge) that the line between 'involved' and 'uninvolved' be drawn at those editors who were involved before the first AfD, because surely part of the point of the AfD and ANI process is to get input from the wider community; it could seem perverse to then ignore the views of those members of the wider community who choose at that point to comment. | |||
| :L&K, ] (]) 18:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, in that case, I was made aware of it just under a week before the second AfD was opened due to the two RfCs on the article talk page. I imagine many of the ''"involved"'' editors may be recent due to the amount of controversy ] has been generating and the different boards it had been put up on --] (]) 18:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq|"many of the ''"involved"'' editors may be recent due to the amount of controversy ] has been generating and the different boards it had been put up on"}}. Exactly. ] (]) 18:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think that's going/gone away as an issue now as "non-involved" have since posted and made the response more balanced. But the issue ''was'' not so much involved/noninvolved but one side of a content dispute (call it "involved") loading a discussion <u>on behaviour</u> here with little input from those who had not taken a position in that content dispute. ] (]) 18:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Luckily, there are very few editors who support blatant anti-semitism (or other forms of racism and bigotry), and hence in this case most editors will be on one side of the content issue. In this case, these editors also were the ones on the receiving side of Directors comments. --] (]) 20:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That is what I understood the concern to be as well. But then, clarification on this matter was ignored for a good bit as several editors pointed out that a majority of the editors who had responded to this thread (even at the time this issue was first raised) had never been involved in any form of content dispute with either party, having become "involved" at the juncture of the still-ongoing AfD. Despite these efforts at clarity, the characterization of this discussion as mostly the effort of a mob with an axe to grind against the pair being discussed persisted, and I fear it will now muddy the waters some for the duration of the discussion. I do tend to agree with DeCausa that the concern has been addressed some by the arrival of more editors through the normal noticeboard traffic, as was largely inevitable, but this aspect has now gained so much traction, I think the spectre of "revenge" votes stands a good chance of being factored into any response taken here at a much higher level than it ever should be, as the parties out to make an example of these two, while present, are only a slim, slim minority in the discussion. Two, maybe three contributors, depending on how you parse their motives. | |||
| :::::Allow me to clarify the extent of my own involvement in the pages and discussions of relevance here -- not because I want to make the case for why ''my'' perspectives on the whole affair should be given non-mitigated weight (this whole discussion is going to get absurdly congested if each party feels compelled to delineate where they came into the matter and in what context the operated, which is what I was afraid was about to happen), but because I think my case is fairly indicative of those editors who might be described as quasi-involved -- that is to say, they participated in the most recent AfD, the ANIs, or the article talk page, but were never on opposing sides of a content issue with either of the editors who are the subject of this discussion. I came to be aware of the toxic situation on that article through ] and I commented twice in that discussion ( ); the gist of my comments was that, while no one should be proud of what was going at that page, the two most problematic personalities, from what I had observed, were Director and Producer, who were vastly more likely to denigrate the perspectives of their opposition, to make personal attacks, to make implications of bad-faith and ulterior motives without evidence, and generally fail to observe ] broadly. The two just seemed ''completely'' incapable, at least by that point in the discussion, of coping with the notion that others disagreed so strongly with them and every one of their responses to opposition contained some degree of vitriol. I had hoped that a little community attention, including from admins, might put the pair, and others tending towards a combative mindset, on better behaviour, but I saw no really productive benefit in getting involved in the ongoing, and devolving, debate on the article talk page over the crux of whether the content in the article itself was antisemitic and/or synthesis and stayed well-clear of it, but I continued to be concerned about the abandon with which civility standards were trampled there and the general battleground attitudes at work, so I put the talk page on my watchlist. I made on the talk page, directed at Director after he speculated on the motives of another editor in a matter that didn't even directly concern him and then told said editor to "go away"; I informed him that neither action was in his purview, that it was uncivil and that it seemed consistent with the ] behaviour many involved editors had accused him of. I never had a direct exchange with him or any other party over the content itself, nor was I personally the subject of derogatory comments from anybody (which may make me unique in the history of that article). My last involvement with the article was in] wherein I never made a formal vote and tried to make it clear that my main concern was not the content itself, but how broke the process of discussion itself was on the page and that, regardless of whether or not the content was antisemitic or not, or appropriately sourced, some editors there were in their right to believe the situation could never be fixed through usually collaborative effort because of the battleground mentality that presided there. | |||
| :::::I think this type of story is much more common to the editors who have commented above than is the scenario of an editor who duked it out over the content of the article (and more lucky me, for the fact that I didn't have to step into that quagmire). Was I involved? Well, only to the extent that I observed a great deal acrimony and editors with less than acceptable stance on civility and commented as such. In the cases of others who did the same, or even commented narrowly within the last AfD and never interacted with Director or Producer, I think it's a serious mischaracterization to dismiss their perspectives as biased, given the entire point of a discussion such as this is to consider behavioural issues. Again, I think the call for a topic ban is premature, for Director at least. But that doesn't mean I want the valid opinions of other editors quashed or treated as tainted simply because they happened upon this mess a little earlier than others. ] ] 21:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| @Balaenoptera, that's pretty much everyone. I don't agree with that. I'd rather go for the ''second AfD'' since the point of having "uninvolved" editor input is that those editors haven't been advocating content changes and hence are more objective in viewing behavior as such. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 19:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :That said, I imagine most of those involved in the ''second AfD'' had not been directly involved with you on the article, that is to say, the "history of disruptive editing" in question --] (]) 19:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure, I said ''before'' the second AfD, and I was just going along with the notion of an "AfD-based" criterion. Editors viewed as "involved" should I think obviously be simply those involved in content disputes on the article talkpage. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 22:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I apologise, I misread "I'd rather go for the ''second AfD''" as meaning those involved in it. That makes more sense --] (]) 22:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think we all need to stop talking about this in terms of a timeline and specific landmarks, prior to which no editor who observed the mess is capable of being given full weight here. That approach, aside from being artificial and reflected nowhere in policy, removes any consideration of context. Administrators are not simpletons and we do not need to provide guidelines as to which editor's perspectives are to be "trusted" more than others -- nor do I think we would be welcome in making the effort. Any responding admins have every link at their disposal here to review the comments and involvement of all parties and to decided whether they are presenting a factual account of events or being led by prior bias. I don't think you have much to be concerned over, Director - as things are moving, it seems you will likely avoid any kind of topic ban, if not by the hugest margin. But regardless of whether or not that prediction bears out, it's not our place to be deconstructing the motives and general capacity for neutrality of one-another with regard to this already convoluted situation, at least not with the broad strokes that are now being suggested. ] ] 22:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment:''' I'm an AfD regular. I noticed this at AfD the first but didn't comment because I didn't understand the content (so i was unlikely to provide a unique insight) and saw that there appeared to be a significant number of different voices. I'd probably do the same if a similar situation arose again with similar content and similar arguements at AfD. ] (]) 03:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree, the content as presented was not understandable. That's why people were trying to edit it to something that made more sense. It says a lot about an article, when you come across an encyclopedia article and walk away with no better understanding of the subject matter. lol ] (]) 03:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Note''' - I noticed the nomination (2nd one) on the "Articles for Deletion" page as I was defending another article that had been nominated the same day, so I suppose that would qualify me as "uninvolved"? Even so, if we are to say that only 'uninvolved' editors can exert opinions about an issue, we would have to consider that without involved parties to exert their testimony on what happened, we would be largely clueless as to what actually happened. Of course we shouldn't interpret the opinions of involved editors as a "neutral and unbiased perspective" that should directly affect the outcome of the case, but the opinions of involved editors are still valuable in the regard that they help us understand what actually happened. You're never going to have a "witness to a crime" sitting on the jury, but that doesn't mean their opinion and what they have to say ''shouldn't be said.'' ] ] ] 10:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ** Good point. | |||
| ** DIREKTOR and PRODUCER/Potočnik are subjected to very serious accusations | |||
| ** it is necessary to present evidence for such serious accusations. Such evidence can, of course be presented and discussed by all editors, <u>both involved and uninvolved</u>. Closing (uninvolved) administrator will consider the strength of the argument when deciding if accusations are justified | |||
| **# if such accusations are proven not to be justified all editors who made unjustified accusations should be <u>boomeranged</u> | |||
| **# if accusations about some kind of travelling circus (active not only in topics relating to Jews, but also in other topic areas like communism, ARBMAC, ... ) would be proven, then <u>all members of that travelling circus should be banned from all topic areas they were active</u>.--] (]) 14:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| User {{user|Antidiskriminator}} cut out the hysterics and histrionics please. It's an open and shut case as anyone can see. First of all on Potocnik's current user page it says he has "{{tl|retired}}", it would seem as an open admission of ] and therefore you should quit your defending him when he himself has gone and even Director admits that the original offending article must be deleted, so what you are doing now makes absolutely no sense at all! Kindly calm down and reconsider your actions or you will land up defending what cannot and should not be defended. This summarizes the situation in simple terms. On 27 February 2014 Potocnik posted an article on "Jews & Communism" . This is what the behavior of Potocnik and Director has amounted to as evidenced by almost every diff from them since (far too many to list here, feel free to click on them all at {{User|Potočnik}} and {{User|Director}}) their behavior throughout is a classic case of violating ]; ], ], ] and of violating ], ], ] and ] for which they were eventually blocked and warned by user {{user|Jehochman}} and that is just the tip of the iceberg. What is happening to them now can be explained in four simple steps: '''1''' Potocnik, then known as "PRODUCER" with lots of "citations" posts an article called "Jews and Communism" that he and Director, then known as "DIREKTOR" working in almost indistinguishable tandem like in a ], defend to the death, ridiculing, belittling and attacking any users who get in their way to keep ''their'' ] material up all the time in violation of ]. '''2'''The article is eventually proven to be a proven "cut and paste" carbon copy of tendentious pseudo-research from an indefensible and hate-mongering antisemitic neo-Nazi site and organization (this is assuming you understand the implications of doing that). '''3''' Potocnik and Director realize they have been caught red-handed. First they change and downgrade their user names and then Potocnik says "goodbye" and Director admits his blunders and joins calls to "delete" the offending article. '''4''' However, '''every single''' edit, revert, rollback, attack that Potocnik and Director undertook, and a vast majority of their comments and actions on the talk pages and beyond, shows the vehemence, nastiness, downright scariness and open and arrogant disregard for the contributions of others, of the many experienced editors also too many to mention by now but they are all in the article' edit history, for anyone to see just how much effort went into salvaging even this wreck of an article and even so facing a barrage of unjustified and unjustifiable harassment from the Potocnik and Director team and a few others who thought it was just "marvelous" to help them in an effort to defend every detail and especially the original article's clear and obvious anti-Jewish and antisemitic ''slant'' (that Director euphemistically used to refer to as its "scope") all in the original article and much in it during its existence that easily can be seen by anyone with clear unbiased eyes and has the time and stomach for it by clicking on virtually most of the diffs available on their user histories at User {{User|Potočnik}} and {{User|Director}}. Feel free to do so, it's all there, but please do not create panic and confusion when it is all very clear. Thanks, ] (]) 11:55, 16 May 2014 (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) | |||
| ===Tactical Remorse=== | |||
| *'''Support''' Make the most of the second chance ] (]) 23:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Above, Director writes: | |||
| *'''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}} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :''...However, that is just not how the human mind perceives rudeness.. or else you would be reporting MarkBernstein for his outrageously offensive conduct, in my view far more vitriolic than anything I ever wrote. Of corse, him being right, it seems its ok if he repeatedly claims I support antisemitism, implying I knowingly did so. That's personal attack and slander of the highest order. Why isn't he "on trial" here? I'm not saying he should be, but I hope I got my point across. If I was "right", and I was opposing censorship of reliable non-cherry-picked sources against biased POV-pushers deliberately disrupting the article, then I doubt my conduct would be perceived in such a negative light. -- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 11:44, 15 May 2014 (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) | |||
| This false equivalence (and this personal attack) should make clear to any reader that ]'s remorse is merely a tactic. Once again, Producer and Director are working in apparent concert here: Producer retiring in silence while Director is shocked -- shocked! -- to discover that he has been defending anti-semitic cant. Note, too, how even now Director stands by his "reliable non-cherry-picked" sources; the only thing wrong with the ghastly article, and with his staunch defense of every insinuation, distortion, and lie it contained, is that it was also plagiarized. Those, like myself, who wish to preserve NPOV are "biased POV pushers" and attempts to remove specious arguments are balance the article are "disrupting". Director sees only the technical violation -- the indefensible plagiarism -- and is expressly prepared to do it all over again. He doesn't, even now, regret the faults of the article; he regrets getting caught in a copyvio that makes it harder for him to defend it right now. | |||
| ::Snowed by me. — ] ] 16:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you!!! ] (]) 16:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Request for Administrator Review of Repeatedly Declined Draft: Ario Nahavandi == | |||
| Note, too, that once more ] chooses to single out an editor he thinks to be Jewish, claims to be deeply wronged ("personal attack and slander of the highest order"!) and emphasizes the collective danger of plural "POV-pushers deliberately disrupting the article", which he intends to be heards as a reference "other editors" by admins but which will be understood as an allusion to "the International Conspiracy Of The Jews" by certain other parties . And once again he threatens editors with reports, trials, sanctions (If he were I, I bet he'd point to the word "slander" above and escalate WP:NLT immediately.) | |||
| {{atop|1=]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Dear Administrators, | |||
| I am writing to request your assistance regarding my draft, ], which has been repeatedly declined over the past year despite my adherence to Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. | |||
| After all, how '''could''' Director be expected to know the anti-semitic leanings of an article he didn't write? How could the admins be expected to know? ''Perhaps by reading it?'' Director is correct to observe that one difference between him and me (and almost everyone else!) in this matter is that he has been wrong, and in the wrong. | |||
| 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. | |||
| Director hopes that this very limited display of remorse will save his Misplaced Pages account, and with it some time, inconvenience, and some small residual influence. The effort is clumsy: thorough contrition would have cost him nothing, but clearly he cannot stomach that. Whether Producer will be rejoining him here under the same name, under a new name, or whether the two were ever distinguishable, is an interesting question to which it seems unlikely we shall ever learn an answer. Once more, two editors acting in close cooperation are poised to emerge from this shameful and costly disaster with scant effective sanction. | |||
| 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. | |||
| '''What damage could editors this dedicated wreak if they thought things though?''' Director and Producer act in such tight concert that they seem to be socks; more clever operatives would adopt more distinct personae who sometimes agreed, sometimes differed, and who had distinct interests. More resourceful operatives would recruit a parcel of agents to work with them from distant locations -- a few people in Bangalore, a few in Russia, perhaps a small office in Ireland -- each editing quietly and each prepared to chime in when needed at AN/I or Arbcom or AfD to back them up. Smarter operatives would choose a cause (or perhaps a client?) less hideous. Two zealots pursuing a lost and discredited crusade have tied Misplaced Pages in knots; what couldn't a sensible and unscrupulous PR team with achieve with a few dozen internet accounts and a few thousand dollars? ] (]) 14:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Interesting point. Editor who worked with them and chimed in at this AN to back them up... That resembles what one editor did here.--] (]) 15:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Antidiskriminator, if you have an accusation, you should be brave enough to make it. Please don't hide behind a vague allusion of impropriety. MarkBernstein is actually doing something after years of neglect from the entire community. What are you doing? You seem to be supporting people who knowingly discriminate. As Antidiskriminator, the only question is why? Does your personal relationship to their part of the world have anything to do with it? Is this some sort of nationalism? I'm not accusing, I'm asking in an effort to understand. Please enlighten us. ] (]) 16:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::My comment was related to editor who is, like me, opposed to ban here. I already presented about him coming here to create a false narrative which paint all three of them in a good light, forgetting to mention their block logs. One () at ] article (to which three of them are one of main contributors) made me additionally worried and convinced that it is necessary to: | |||
| :::# gather as much evidence as possible about the activities of this group and if evidence prove accusations | |||
| :::# to reveal all members of this group | |||
| :::# to reveal all topic areas in which they operated | |||
| :::# to impose appropriate bans to all of them in order to prevent them to continue their activities in future | |||
| ::: Limiting discussion only to one article (Jews and Communism) and one nation (Jews) would probably be discriminatory.--] (]) 17:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you for your explanation. Your comment "That resembles what one editor did here" sounds like a veiled accusation against MarkBernstein. Based on your explanation, that's not the case, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who misunderstood. I would caution about expanding this nomination to include other areas outside Jews and Communism, because that would be a witch hunt. They have previously been sanctioned in other areas. It appears, after that, they took their show on the road to other areas of interest, using the same tactics. My goal is to separate these two, and if they wish to separate by choice, that's fine with me. It would be nice to back it up with some sort of enforcement, just in case they change their mind. If people wish to do an in-depth investigation of a potential terrorist plot that may involve lots of other people, I think that's outside the scope of this nomination. ] (]) 17:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I have followed all guidelines in good faith and cannot accept decisions that appear to be based on personal opinion rather than policy. It feels as though my article is being subjected to an unjust standard, especially when compared to articles that seem to bypass scrutiny. I genuinely wonder if this process is influenced by factors beyond content quality, as I have no means to “pay” for an article to be published, unlike some others. | |||
| *Note to User {{user|Antidiskriminator}}: Stop living in the past. In the past few days, much water has passed under the bridge that you seem to be blind to. Potocnik has voluntarily "retired" from WP and Director agrees that the "]" article ''must'' be deleted because it's essentially a fraud now proven to be copied from an article from a neo-Nazi organization. In fact, the entire article has now been completely blanked by an admin as a copyright violation because the material comes from NAZIS. Do you even know what that means?? Nazis, yes Nazis, writing about the "history" of the Jews, that's like having Adolf Hitler's '']'' become the official WP version and the evil "standard" of all things Jewish!!! Do you even see the absurdity of that?? And that is what Potocnik wanted to sneakily foist on WP and what Director defended to the death til it blew up in his face!! At this point in time, by blindly defending Potocnik and Director you are verging into behavior than can only be classed as ] and ] in violation of ] and ]. I would strongly suggest you quit whilst you are still ahead and go edit in some other non-controversial area that you enjoy. You would be well-advised to read ] that may help calm your frustrations and jitters at this point. Thank you so much, ] (]) 12:55, 16 May 2014 (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. | |||
| To provide context, here are some of the sources I included: | |||
| === An Error, And A Shame === | |||
| {{archivetop|The proposals/discussion above is reopened ] (]) 19:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| :''<small>I don't know the correct form, etiquette, or indeed forum for posting this. Forgive its incorrect placement if it is in fact wrongly situated.</small>'' | |||
| • https://www.nationaldiversityawards.co.uk/awards-2024/nominations/ario-nahavandi/ | |||
| In my opinion, ]'s closure of this is a mistake, and the failure of admins to take action is an injustice. I further observe that a just-begun complaint against me at AN/I, which BMK also closed in the same manner, concluded with the suggestion that this was the appropriate venue for discussion. | |||
| • Taurus Magazine (2024-11-19). "Ario Nahavandi". Taurus Magazine. 88: 7 – via www.magcloud.com | |||
| It further seems prudent to maintain a discussion area on this topic and its aftermath briefly, as the AfD is due to be closed shortly. This discussion may be generating a good deal of heat, but it is in the immediate interests of the project that it take place here and not -- as may otherwise be the case -- on editorial pages and in magazines. | |||
| • 6x Magazine (2024-11-22). "Ario Nahavandi; The Persian Icon". 6X Magazine. 432: 6–7 – via www.magcloud.com | |||
| Finally, it astonishes me that no admin and (for that matter) no board member has seen fit to take action here. I had assumed that the delay was procedural -- that it made good sense to await the conclusion of the AfD and then to dispose of this matter. Does '''any''' admin wish now to step forward and affirm that this matter has been correctly handled throughout? That this is a reasonable way for WIkipedia to operate, and that ] is a valuable asset to the project, one to which the community of editors can point with pride? ] (]) 14:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for your time and consideration xx | |||
| :Thank you Mark,I also '''''strongly protest''''' the closure of that thread by a non-admin on the grounds that it is "disruptive". This is more of the "go away and leave us alone" mentality that has plagued the issues around this article from the beginning. If we cannot discuss those issues here, where can we discuss them?] (]) 15:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 23:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was actually considering closing the threads last night, and decided not to purely because I didn't need the inevitable follow up drama in my life. Had I closed them, however, I would have instituted the topic ban for Potočnik, and closed the topic ban thread on Director as not having sufficient consensus, but with an admonishment that he escaped a topic ban by a thread. I will say that I feel {{u|Beyond My Ken}}'s close to be insufficiently well thought out and his rationale insufficiently detailed. I will not, however, revert it (because I don't need the inevitable follow up drama in my life). | |||
| ::To {{u|MarkBernstein}}, I will comment that header titles like "An Error, And A Shame" go a great way towards robbing the poster's comments of any credibility. An overly dramatic, non-descriptive title does nothing except make people roll their eyes at the title, and that influences how they read everything that comes after it. Dramatic pleas and admonishments in bold text also do nothing for your case. Really, you might have actually gotten the close you were looking for if you didn't come across as being, well, a rant. ] ] 15:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''Comment''' I would strongly support the line that Sven would have taken. That closure would have satisfied the evident concerns of the community I suspect. ] (]) 15:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|Sven Manguard}}, at some point I think you have to expect that reasoned debate will devolve into outrage if unvarnished racism can be aggressively defended here without penalty for its defenders. I am way beyond furious, which is why I rescue myself from this discussion. Coming from an editor who writes mostly about guitar effects, I think this says something.--] (]) 15:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Administrators cannot override draft declines, and in fact the administrator toolset ]. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 23:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Misplaced Pages has been marred for months ]. The article could not be substantially improved, for its self-appointed defenders acerbically reverted any attempts to ameliorate its viciousness. The article could not be deleted because the article's few defenders were able to establish a case for the lack of consensus and ably used the project's disciplinary process against all comers. The only available recourse ''within Misplaced Pages'' was a second AfD that would establish a consensus. To establish a decisive consensus, it was (and, alas, remains) necessary to be emphatic. | |||
| ::So who can I turn to for help? If administrators cannot assist in overriding the draft declines, to whom can I escalate this issue? I am deeply concerned that my article has been repeatedly declined without proper consideration of the sources I’ve provided. These sources are reliable, published, and fully comply with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines, yet they continue to be dismissed without even being properly reviewed. | |||
| ::It’s becoming clear that the rejection process isn’t being carried out fairly. I can’t help but feel that my article is being judged based on factors other than content quality, especially when I see articles approved with far less solid references. | |||
| ::I understand that the review process is based on policy, but when it seems clear that my draft isn’t being given the attention it deserves, I need to know where I can seek help to ensure fairness. | |||
| ::I kindly ask for your guidance—if administrators cannot intervene, who can I turn to for proper support in getting this article reviewed fairly? | |||
| ::Thank you for your time. ] (]) 00:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::]. This is where you appeal problems with submissions of drafts. You should read the ] and ] carefully. ] (]) 00:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|Lanak20}} I actually ]. They're all malformed at best and unusable at worst. ] —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 00:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I've blocked the OP as a spam-advertising-only account. I should add that it's pretty obvious they've used other accounts to promote this person, I believe most recently as of last October.--] (]) 00:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist Edit Restriction Appeal == | |||
| ::: AM I a rant? I have keynoted WikiSym, and served as its program chair. I have written and nurtured wikis since long before Misplaced Pages began. I have invested a great deal of time on this AfD, which I composed with great care and which has demanded constant attention. I chose to consult this forum rather than a larger and more conspicuous platform because I believed this forum would be better for the project. I have done this under my own name and on the record; any person who wished to know who this emphatic interlocutor might be has only to glance at my user page or Google my name. | |||
| {{atop green|Unanimous consent after 36 hours to lift the restriction. ] (]) 14:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| A bit over a year ago, with near unanimous support, I appealed a TBAN from GENSEX - receiving in its place the following sanctions {{tq|1RR restriction in both the GENSEX and AMPOL topics; is limited to 0RR on articles for organizations/activists who are affiliated with anti-transgender activism or gender-critical feminism, broadly construed; and has a PBAN from Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull.}} Previous discussions are linked there. I am now requesting that my restrictions be dropped entirely because I have grown considerably as an editor, both since my initial TBAN when I'd just turned 19 and since the appeal. | |||
| I translated ] (having originally wrote it on eswiki during my TBAN) and made it my first GA. I uploaded multiple colorized photographs of transgender historical figures to commons I improved ] and wrote articles for famous trans activists ] and ]. I also cleared up serious BLP violations at ] and rewrote the article. I also helped expand ] and wrote ]. I improved ] and ]. I improved ]. I rewrote and considerably expanded ] as well as ]. I expanded the article on the ]. I wrote the article on the 1970 semi-governmental report '']''. I expanded the articles on ] and ]. I rewrote ] to follow ] and use systematic reviews instead of primary studies. '''Most proudly''', I wrote ] and took it to GA - this is particularly relevant as a key part of the original TBAN discussion was whether my commitment to removing misinformation from Misplaced Pages was a case of either ] or following ] and ]. | |||
| ::: I deserved better of the project. And I deserved better of you. ] (]) 15:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I believe the restrictions impair my ability to edit productively. I generally edit with 1RR regardless of sanctions. With 0RR, as Red-tailed hawk noted at my previous appeal "they can wind up restricting the sorts of partial reverts that are often a healthy part of the ordinary editing process." With 0RR, I am unable to engage in the BRD cycle properly and always second-guessing whether a partial edit to a recent edit counts as a revert or not. It also prevents me reverting drive-by SPA/IP povpushing. I don't plan to ever edit KJK's article again, but I believe that my record of neutral constructive editing shows the PBAN is no longer preventative or necessary. In the highly unlikely event I ever see a reason to edit it in future, I know my edits would be subject to heightened scrutiny which I'd welcome. | |||
| :::::An article that promotes blatant anti-Semitism is on this site for months and those who protest about it are told "don't be dramatic, don't rant, go away and shut up". It isn't right.] (]) 15:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I appreciate your consideration. My best regards, ] (]) 01:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You've gotten so emotionally involved in the outcome of this debate that yes, you are in fact, being a rant. Right now, in the post immediately above this one, you are being a rant. Before, when you started making statements expressing your outrage, using bold text, you were being a rant. Being a rant isn't a permanent thing; I am sure that in other discussions, at other times, you're not a rant. The issue at the heart of this discussion is a valid one, and your opinion on the matter is also valid. How you have chosen to express that opinion in this discussion, however, is problematic. Any uninvolved reader can tell immediately that you are putting way too much emotion into everything you say, and that reflects badly on your comments. You really do need to take a step back and let all of this play out without you, because it's very obvious that you are burning out over this. ] ] 15:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support.''' ] (]/]) 01:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I hope you're talking about me and not {{u|MarkBernstein}}. I've been spitting furry for days, but Mark has somehow managed to intelligently and patiently explain himself throughout this whole process. I can't fathom how he does it. Ok, that is all.--] (]) 16:02, 16 May 2014 (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) | |||
| :::::::I don't know who he is talking about, my guess is Mark, but maybe he means all three of us.] (]) 16:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support'''. Welcome back comrade. ] (]) 06:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::can we stick to the point here please. I am well aware of the intense frustration, trauma and hurt this horrible issue has generated, but can we get this closure overturned. I would favour and support a closure of the type advocated by Sven. ] (]) 16:22, 16 May 2014 (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. ] ] 08:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you DD2K for reopening the nomination and asking for admin action. ] (]) 16:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Snow Support''' ] (]) 14:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :No problem. My guess is that BMK is just frustrated by the constant bickering. So to keep the discussion at a level below the histrionic phase, let's just let an admin close the proposals without any more back and forths. There is no need to continue pointing out the obvious, everything is there for anyone to see. So please, everyone, I beg of you to stop making one post after the other. Thanks. ] (]) 16:24, 16 May 2014 (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 == | |||
| :{{ec}}:This does need an admin close, taking into account the arguments, the quality of consensus and the self-bans offered, and taking any consequent actions. Just announcing that the drama must stop, at once, won't work. But I quite understand Sven's unwillingness to take it on. Would it be easier if we - or rather you the admins - proceed as with some difficult RFCs? You could announce that a panel of three admins will share the burden of closing, indicate how long that's likely to take, and close the thread to further input pending the formal close. I suspect that would be acceptable if the delay was reasonable - and I'd imagine a couple of days or so to form the panel and deliberate would seem acceptable. ] (]) 16:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I would support that approach. Lets be done with it, and not just kick it down the road. ] (]) 16:49, 16 May 2014 (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. | |||
| For my part, I am just astonished that I can now be openly called a psychotic fanatical racist by a sockpuppeteer, on this my project of many years, without so much as an admonishment. That the user MarkBernstein can write one blatant attack essay after another, deliberately misrepresenting and disregarding the facts, playing on people's uninformed outrage, without someone pointing him to NPA; pointing out that attacking a fellow user in such a manner, repeatedly, without support, is slander of the highest order. I'm just waiting for his next essay, where he will again omit basic facts, thus paint me as a monster, and "appeal" to everyone's "decency", implicitly (or even directly) calling any opposition bigoted if they do not accept his fantastical perceptions. This is highly malicious, manipulative behavior, that should not be thus tolerated on our project, under any circumstances. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 17:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think you need worry. This thread (and others) has become no more than the "outraged" talking amongst themselves. I don't think it now attracts much outside attention. It probably is time for it to be put out of its misery. ] (]) 18:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed. ] (]) 19:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| ] (]) 22:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Personal attacks from ] and ]/] == | |||
| {{archivetop|NAC: It seems highly unlikely to me that this thread is going to generate any kind of admin action one way or the other. ] (]) 04:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| ]'s response to this request. In its entirety. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)]] | |||
| I have already attempted to discuss the situation with JzG (, , , ), but he has refused to do so, contrary to ]. Because of the strong wording of DangerousPanda's attack (including comments made as EatsShootsAndLeaves) and his or her subsequent messages after being questioned by another user, I believed it would not have been productive to respond to the attack through full conversation. | |||
| :To be clear, I don't think that @] is really at any fault here. | |||
| Here are a selection of upsetting personal attacks made against me and my edits: , , . The contents of these attacks are completely untrue, including the unfounded accusations of 'endless querulous demands', 'abusing process and people' and 'trolling'. I am more than happy to address any aspect of my previous editing history to convince you of this. There are still, of course, the stronger accusations of being 'sexist', 'abusive' and 'on a single-minded crusade', to give just a few examples of the comments made. | |||
| :] (]) 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 == | |||
| The issue from which this has arisen is rather complicated, so I shall condense it into just a few sentences. I am more than happy to explain any aspect of it in as much detail as required, if necessary. I saw a discussion at ] and believed there to be a reasonable possibility for a successful move request based on the existing comments of editors. I consulted guidelines and found that the move request was also supported there. The problem, however, is that some users disagreed with the request, some very strongly, in an 'ignore all rules' kind of way. This meant that there were some strong feelings, especially aimed towards me, the user who made the request. Without any warning or discussion, I was blocked by JzG for one week. The personal attacks were made on various Misplaced Pages pages during this week. | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = Essentially unanimous consensus to not unblock. ] ] 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| * {{userlinks|Lardlegwarmers}} | |||
| I fully admit I made two mistakes during the move request, albeit where I had good intentions. I have included an explanation below should it be relevant. As far as I am concerned, it is the only aspect of my editing that has been problematic and, even then, it could have been resolved immediately by a simple notification from any other user. | |||
| I blocked Lardlegwarmers yesterday for one week for a violation of ] from COVID-19. This was about ], although I subsequently noticed ] as well. LLW has asked me to copy their appeal here. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{Collapse|1= | |||
| === Statement from Lardlegwarmers === | |||
| JzG closed the request prematurely based on incorrect information, showing he had misinterpreted the situation. I left a note on his talk page for discussion (he later told me to 'talk to the hand') and reverted the close. Not long later, ] closed the request again. I was not aware Drmies was an administrator; I believed he was an ordinary user who closed the discussion because of his own feelings about the request. I maintain this was a reasonable assumption given the strong personal feelings that were present, how the close seemed contrary to ] (it was 'ignore all rules' with no clear consensus) and how ] blanked a discussion on the page he or she did not like a few days earlier. I reverted the close and was blocked by JzG, without explanation or discussion, before I had any chance to communicate with Drmies. My mistake was that I thought I was entitled to make a revert three times, especially when reverting what was an apparent mistake or non-neutral and unsupported close. Now that I have been directed to more accurate guidelines, I recognise that I should not have reverted, even had my intuition been correct. I have already apologised for this and stated that I would not have reverted had I known the relevant guidance, no matter what I thought of the edits. | |||
| 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. | |||
| |2= Explanation}} | |||
| {{talk reflist}} | |||
| === Statement from Tamzin === | |||
| Excerpting my comment on their talkpage:{{tq2|Usually we only warn someone on their first topic ban violation. However, in your case, the fact that both violations occurred within hours of the ban being imposed, and that they were belligerent rants treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground, made me judge that a short block would more clearly communicate just how far you are from what is considered acceptable conduct. Even if you didn't understand that the ban applied outside articles, you should have understood that the community found your editing about COVID disruptive, which should have been reason enough to not make those edits.}} <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Discussion among uninvolved editors === | |||
| *This is clearly a topic ban violation - and it came less than a day after it was imposed. Even if assuming in good faith that they didn't know it was a topic ban violation, their unblock request shows not only that they don't understand what they did wrong, but they attempt to justify it with statements such as {{tq|Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed}} which is borderline a personal attack (veiled insult that others weren't being grownups); {{tq|which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement}} which is confirming they still don't understand why they were topic banned nor why they were blocked for violating it; and quoting Larry Sanger's ] promoting comments on their userpage after their topic ban. To summarize, I have no confidence that the user understands what they did wrong, and I would go so far as to say the user attempting to skirt the edges of their topic ban and supporting another user trying to promote fringe theories on Misplaced Pages merits an indefinite community ban. TLDR: '''Oppose unblock''' and ultimately would support indefinite ban due to the flagrant violation, lack of understanding, and no belief that after the 7 days is up they will not go straight back to trying to ]. I won't be the one to propose that, however. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 03:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't see how an unblock is possible when Lardlegwarmers clearly still doesn't understand what a broadly construed topic ban means. To be clear, there's no need to ask the "community" whether you can keep your topic ban violation. The only hope for you to be able to obey it is if you are able to decide yourself, especially after you've been told by an admin. While we do try to educate instead of just blocking, the "community" isn't here to help you understand the limits of your topic ban. ] (]) 04:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Should clarify that despite what I said above, I'd weakly oppose extending the topic <del>ban</del> <ins>block</ins> to indefinite at this time. While I'm not hopeful Lardlegwarmers is going to be able to obey it given what they've said, I think it's fine to give them rope after the <del>ban</del> <ins>block</ins> expires and apply normal escalating blocks. Since we're already here, perhaps this will somehow help them understand that yes the community requires you to apply it broadly on anything to do with COVID-19 throughout Misplaced Pages. They should consider this very short rope though and notably the next time they feel they need to ask the community whether they're violating their topic ban when they are, it might be the last time. ] (]) 20:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Sorry mixed up ban and block above twice, now fixed. ] (]) 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock''' as the user looks to have no intention of following Misplaced Pages guidelines with their request. It is only a week and will give a change to think about how to change. ] (]) 04:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock'''. It truly takes some ] to cite a Signpost piece authored by the admin who blocked you to support the proposition that you're being railroaded. '''Weak support for an indef''' because that's what Lardlegwarmers seems to be speedrunning. ] (]/]) 04:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock'''. The topic ban was on ''the topic of COVID-19, broadly construed'', not ''the topic of COVID-19 directly in articlespace''. And the topic ban was violated, not just within less than a day, but ''within three hours'' of it being imposed. On top of that the unblock request could be a case study for ]. I won't call for an indef ], but when the block expires Lardlegwarmers should bear in mind that any further violations of the topic ban will be their last. - ] <sub>]</sub> 10:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''No unblock''' - Basically per Lardlegwarmers: they don't appear to understand why they've been blocked. An indefinite block seems very likely in this editor's future and we certainly should consider cutting out the middle-man and just skipping to it, but I'd like to give them at least some chance here to understand why they were blocked. ] (]) 10:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose unblock''' - While I usually support giving editors ] to demonstrate improvement, this case warrants a longer wait. The user acknowledges pushing a minority POV and failing to disengage per ] norms, but their justification suggests a lack of understanding or acceptance of policies like ], ], and ]. Their off-topic comment in an AE thread, despite knowing the sensitivity of such spaces, and the policy-violating content on their user page, further reflect ongoing disruption. I recommend they take time to reflect and gain a better grasp of Misplaced Pages's collaborative culture before requesting an unblock again. ] • ] ⚽ 11:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose unblock'''. I agree that absent change from this user an indefinite block is likely. For their benefit, if you're the subject of a topic ban, broadly construed, about COVID-19, you need to be editing in an entirely different topic area. Think of something that you're interested in--television shows, football, English gardens, science fiction books? Take a week and think on it. ] ] 11:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock.''' What is there left to say? This conduct feels like appellant's purpose is use Misplaced Pages as a battleground and to soapbox their views rather than to build the encyclopedia-- to remake Misplaced Pages as they think it should be. My feeling is that a week won't be nearly enough. The railroad comment is appallingly full of not understanding that their conduct is not acceptable in a collaborative project. ] (]) 12:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:PS: What Tamzin said in her statement above. ] (]) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Whilst I don't believe user will be able to change their approach, I feel an indef would be premature for now. We should give them a chance to mend their ways. ] (]) 12:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *An account that ] is topic banned, violates that topic ban immediately, and posts a ] unblock request that thoroughly ]. Whoever closes this should be considering indef, not an unblock. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Indeed. ] (]) 14:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock''' this specific response {{tq| Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement}} is indicative of their viewpoints and why they're not ready to contribute. They continue, {{tq|my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed}}. These demonstrate that they still do not get it, and rather project their self-perspective is that they are actually a victim of people who are abusing the rules against them. . I proffer that this is going to be a consistent problem until they acknowledge that they were violating policy. Zero indication that they know how to positively contribute, just perhaps a vague inference that they'll avoid getting in trouble -- because -- we'll I'm not entirely sure they've communicated what they will do differently, but rather simply say that {{tq|a block for this stuff seems harsh.}} ] ] 15:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Notwithstanding the harsh situation I presented above, to be clear I '''oppose indef''' for now. A new user should have the opportunity to overcome early (while significant) setbacks, which is what TBANs are designed to encourage. I am encouraged by things like YFNS corrective behavior in a prior AN discussion, and can only be hopeful and AGF that might apply to LLW here. We need more passionate, subject matter experts, as contributors to this project, but they ''absolutely must contribute positively'' and following established PGs. ] ] 16:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock''' and support an indef. I am pretty confident in saying that this is where we will be heading after this block ends. ] (]) 15:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock''', clear violations of the topic ban. Don't oppose indef, but I'd like to at least give him the chance to figure out exactly what we expect going forward. --] 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support block, oppose unblock, oppose indef''' - this is a topic-banned newbie's first violation, in the heat of the moment after the restriction was imposed. Tamzin's block was the appropriate response. The unblock request is wholly inadequate, but jumping straight to indef for this sort of violation is a pretty extreme overreach. If they go back to violating their sanction after this block expires, ''then'' let's talk community ban, but they should be given the opportunity to edit constructively while respecting the restriction. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 16:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock, oppose indef...however...''' I am sympathetic to their point of view and their general "right" (we don't really have rights here on WP) to post their opinion on a subject, even one as contentious as COVID-19. I think the blanking of the user page is a step too far. We shouldn't be in the business of deleting negative opinions about Misplaced Pages; while the statement was in reference to COVID-19, it doesn't mention it within the claim and is more a critique of Misplaced Pages at large and mass media than its relation to COVID. I would let the statement on their user page stand/restore it. Larry Sanger's statement is not a ], it is a reasonable ''opinion''. There were loads of statements/claims about COVID/its origin/mandates/treatment/vaccines that, despite their widespread implementations and presentation as "the science", later turned out to be misleading or untested conjecture (examples: no studies on masking effectiveness with a large population vs the coronavirus, 6 foot spacing, lying to the American public about wearing masks because health care professionals needed them more, lab leak theory, military connections to the Wuhan Institute, US funding of WI, etc). '''HOWEVER''', civil discourse ''is'' essential. That means that discussions about COVID were fraught with battlegrounds and bludgeoning. As such, we have additional restrictions for COVID discussions and other contentious topics and LLW needs to follow them. LLW did not do so and has shown a consistent flaunting of these restrictions and a weeklong block is a reasonable start. In summary, the quote isn't unreasonable to leave on their user page (give them that latitude), but a weeklong block for the other behavior should stand. ] (]) 16:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:They added two comments to their userpage. Both were critical of Misplaced Pages. One was also critical of ] and other aspects of the US government's COVID response. I removed the latter. It doesn't matter whether Sanger's opinion is fringe or not; what matters is that he was talking about COVID. I would be quite the hypocrite to remove something from someone's userpage just for criticizing Misplaced Pages, as I have a fair bit of that on my own userpage. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::There's some pretty big overlap there in criticism of Fauci and how it is handled on Misplaced Pages. Again, I don't feel THAT is a significant violation of COVID editing restrictions (beyond the fact that they did it despite such an editing restriction). Anyone can completely skip over it if they wish. {{ping|Tamzin}} playing devil's advocate for a moment, what if I published the same thing on my user page? Would it be ok? Would it be ok if I posted it on LLW's user page (as long as LLW was ok with it, of course)? I realize we're getting in the weeds of a "what-if..." but if so, what's the substantive difference between me putting it on a user page and LLW doing the same? ] (]) 17:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::If you posted it to your userpage, it would be fine (although not that constructive), because you are not topic-banned from COVID. If you posted it to their userpage, that would be ] for a banned editor, since I'd struggle to believe you have an independent reason to think that particular quote belongs on that particular page. {{PB}} If you really want to fight the removal from the userpage, feel free to create a subsection here, but I stand by the removal. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I'm not fighting the removal per se. Just wondering where the boundaries are and if it's wise to have such a boundary. ] (]) 17:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::The boundary is ]. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 19:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Buffs: In the ''realm of hypothetical'' I would presume that if that quote had been on LLW user page for a long time, in a sea of content, pre-existing AN, then it ''might even still be up today.'' However, on the other hand, to post that after the TBAN was imposed is nothing other than what can be seen as ''abject defiance'' to the ban. But beyond that, it simply violates plain language of the ban, as it applies to {{tq|all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic}}, so I proffer that Tamzin is clearly in the right here. To your charged statement about ''if you were to post the same thing'' to your user page, prior to your statement here and presuming you were not under a TBAN, it would ''not be questioned'' one iota. However, as a response to this discussion, it could be construed (but not technically violating) the principles of ] and I would caution against it. Moreover, you reinstating it on LLW talk page would be a far closer in the proximity of violating PROXYING. ] ] 18:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::The fact that the comment only came after the topic ban is key here. I'm fairly sure I've seen several cases where there's something on an editor's user page which is covered by a topic ban but which no one has said or done anything about because it was there from before the topic ban. In fact I'm fairly sure I even remember a case where someone asked specifically if they could modify or remove something on their user page which related to their talk page which was technically under the topic ban (probably gensex). I think this was allowed especially since it related to their personal life rather than some comment on something, although they were told just this once is best. There might have even been a case where an editor wanted to do some more editing or formatting of something under their topic ban and was either denied or told only this once. IIRC, there was also an editor who was happy to be able to finally change someone on their userpage covered by their topic ban once it was lifted. A topic ban is a topic ban. I'd note that if someone makes an extremely constructive edit to an article that is not covered by ] we still treat this as a topic ban violation, although it's something much more beneficial for the project than an editor being able to repost random ramblings about Misplaced Pages they want to share. ] (]) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock, oppose indef''' - The topic ban violation was clear cut. Let's hope Lardlegwarmers will read a bit about how to avoid topic ban violations, or else indef block is not too far for them. ] (]) 16:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock, extend block indefinitely''' - Lardle should try to demonstrate good behavior on another wiki for six months before asking for a SO. Let's hope that this user should handle contentious topics carefully in the future. ] (]) 18:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock''' but no reason to indef, a block has already been imposed. If the user continues to violate the TBAN, than a longer block might be warranted. ''']]''' 02:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Comments from involved editors === | |||
| At least three other experienced users, including an arbitrator, have raised concerns at the conduct of JzG and DangerousPanda (, , , ). I do not know where it can be addressed, though. I thought ] would be appropriate because it concerns the actions of administrators, but the request was declined. The committee seemed to suggest that I should post here, even though some of the attacks made by JzG were made to this page. Ultimately, I would like to know whether administrators are entitled to make these attacks against editors with whom they disagree or whether this behaviour is entirely acceptable. As always, if there is anything that needs explaining, let me know and I shall do so. I want to help. ] (]) 19:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Going to open a new subsection here since I've made comments to ] two weeks ago. I wish I could say I was surprised that this ended in tears but that would be untrue (though I did have some hopes the comment a month ago indicating they were aware pro-fringe POV-pushing was sactionable was a signal they were intending to modify their behaviour). As bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez points out, making thinly veiled attacks is not exactly the type of thing looked favourably upon in an unblock request. Nor is making polemical statements on one's user page, whether within the scope of the ban or not, likely to convince the community of one's inclination and ability to ]. Lardlegwarmers, if you do really want to return to editing, especially if you want to appeal your topic ban in 6 months or a year, I would strongly advise reading ] and following the advice there, especially ]. Complaining about Hob's conduct won't help you here, because the block (and it's a rather short one) and ban are about you, not Hob. Given your comment that {{tq|apparently two wrongs make a right}}, I had hoped that you were already also considering your own behaviour, but I would like to make it very clear: taking the role of one of the "wrongs" to address someone else's "borderline uncivil" behaviour is ]. Whether Hob crosses the line is on them, but what you do is entirely on you. ] (] • ]) 07:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * As I was involved in the discussion to topic ban LLW I think I count as an involved editor. With that said I would discourage an early lifting of this block, which seems appropriate considering that LLW's response to the topic ban was to immediately violate the topic ban. ] (]) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Also, perhaps LLW wasn't aware of this, but people who aren't uninvolved administrators aren't generally supposed to put comments into the "results" section of an AE filing. ] (]) 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I was there.. Three thousand ye-- No. More like one, two days ago. I seriously believe Lard Leg Warmers is one of two situations: '''1:''' ] and unable to understand the concepts of medical science as if they were a Facebook mother invested in "essential oils" and "holistic medicine" rather than trusting medical and scientific experts; '''2:''' ] and simply f<s>**</s>king with us for no good reason and leading us around, and around, and around, and around, and around the bend because they get a rise out of it. Either way, my advice: don't get led around the bend, '''advise indef block''' for either ] or ]. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::], those kinds of personal assumptions about their character are unnecessary to this discussion. Instead of speculation on who they are elsewhere, let's just focus on their behavior on Misplaced Pages. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Lardlegwarmers' statement clearly shows that they have learned little from the sanction. They should demonstrate such before there is any lifting. ] (]) 18:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Usage of 'Notable people' vis-a-vis 'Notable person' in section headers == | |||
| :In case anyone is not aware of this, This same user recent made an ArbCom case request for these same issues which was declined, so the user is trying to forum shop for some double jeopardy trials imo. I suggest this be speedily closed and if the ip persists in his disruptive accusations he should be blocked. ] (]) 19:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = This is not an administrative issue. ] (]/]) 20:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| In the course of editing numerous articles, I have come across the header featuring 'notable people' when there is only one person and have therefore modified the grammar. | |||
| ::I wrote about the ] case above and why I have made a post it here. The arbitrators who declined it suggested that it was not serious enough for arbitration and that it should resolved elsewhere, such as here. Gaijin42, are you trying to say that complaining about these attacks constitutes making dusruptive accusations and that I could be blocked for making such complaints? If you have not done so already, please look through what I wrote above. I can promise you that I am anything but a disruptive user and you will see this if you look carefully. ] (]) 19:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I recently had another editor come behind me and revert one such edit on the grounds that things have always been done this way, regardless of the number of notables for a given locale, which makes little sense to me. Is this really policy? ] (]) 16:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::131, the Brown issue is closed, so you are not going to get any traction on that point. If people were uncivil or even if they made personal attacks, it is now quite stale with many of your diffs being from almost a month ago and the most recent from quite a ways back. Any action here is to be preventative, not punitive and AN has been notoriously reluctant to address incivility, especially in a case where there is disruptive action on the other side of the coin. So yes, continuing to try and press for some kind of sanction, when there is no ongoing dispute, is disruptive. You have been warned and guided by many many users now to drop the stick. I join in that suggestion. When everything is going against you, sometimes you are actually the one going in the wrong direction. ] (]) 21:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :This seems like a question for ], not ] as it doesn't involve administrator actions. AN isn't a general Help forum for questions about editing. You could even try asking at ] or the Help Desk. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Reporting Administrator Abuse == | |||
| * Sorry, I don't see my involvement here. My statement to 131.x well over a week ago was clearly ''not'' a ] - stating it to ArbCom does not make it so. Nobody at the attempted ArbCom case even mentioned it. On top of that, 131.x has by their own admission refused to attempt to clarify my meaning directly with me, but instead is acting in a very disingenuous manner by trying to link 2 things that clearly don't belong together, hoping to make something stick. The three big U's are at play here: untrue, unethical, and unacceptable <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{Atop|I'm going to do the OP a favor and close this with no action against them. Essentially, the OP's misbehavior was pointed out by Acalamari and the OP is trying to present it as Acalamri's misbehavior. If another administrator thinks sanctions against the OP are warranted, that's up to them.--] (]) 23:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] is abusing his moderator powers in order to post unconstructive comments on talk pages, specifically when we were talking about if we should delete the US 2028 election or not, he said "that Drumpf supporters want there to be no more elections so they can remain in power forever doesn't mean we adhere to their delusions by deleting articles here". This is clearly unconstructive, and treating the talk page as a forum. I didn't know he was a moderator when I was removing his comment, and now he left all of these messages on my page and is saying I'm the real vandal here. ] (]) 22:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *One can only maintain so much cheek-turning in the face of this IP editor's continued disruption and refusal-to-drop-the-stick, I don't fault anyone for giving a "talk to the hand" response in this situation. Both the Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sarah Jane Brown articles have been disrupted for several years now by IP editors trying to ram in their preferred, idiosyncratic article title, and have run into opposition again and again and again. We're at the point with both these articles that the trite "consensus can change" has to be set aside in the best interests of the project. Continuously proposing title changes that have no chance of being adopted has to be stopped, and if an admin stops it with some terse language, then that's an acceptable payment. ] (]) 21:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : I have nothing to add to my response up there ↑ <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :So there's two things here. | |||
| : I'm not defending the OP but it's inaccurate to lump all IP editors together as if they are a loosely coordinated group of vandals. I edited as an IP editor for a lot longer than I've edited as a registered account. His status as an IP editor shouldn't affect the outcome of this complaint. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 22:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :* First, TopVat19sEver, you removed other users comments from a talk page (not allowed). A user voicing their opinion is '''not''' vandalism, not in the slightest. If you have a problem with what another user has said on the talkpage, rather than ] (which is only allowed in very specific situations), you should bring it for discussion at an appropriate noticeboard, or preferably ask them to change their own comment. | |||
| :* Second, Acalamari, could you please refrain from calling people "Drumpf supporters" and ] on the reasons for nominating an article for deletion? While you're entitled to your opinions, that's borderline (at best) ], especially when you call them "delusional". | |||
| :If both users agree to accept what they did wrong here and move forward, I don't think any further action is necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 22:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok, I'm newer to Misplaced Pages, I understand what you are saying, my train of thought was, "this comment looks like vandalism, vandalism on Misplaced Pages is removed, therefore remove". I didn't know that they don't do that for talk pages. Thank you my friend. ] (]) 22:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Vandalism has a '''very''' specific definition on Misplaced Pages - see ] for more information on what is not vandalism. Merely calling people names and/or being uncivil, while against the rules, is '''not''' vandalism. There are proper processes for handling other rule violations (such as asking someone to edit their own comments, or asking a noticeboard for help) such as those, but they are decidedly '''not''' vandalism. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ok thank you for telling me ] (]) 23:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Where are the ]? ] (]) 22:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *This is a baseless complaint. Ater not editing for months, the OP refactored an AfD that was closed last November. Acalamari rightly warned them for doing that.--] (]) 22:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I agree, but at the same time, I think TV19E has a right to be unhappy that Acalamari, an administrator and bureaucrat, was able to cast aspersions and call people names without it being called out at the time as far as I can see. They went about it the wrong way (removing the comment), but that doesn't mean there isn't room for discussion of that comment. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 22:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Nope. First, it doesn't rise to the level required of this noticeboard, and, second, it's not at all timely.--] (]) 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::To be blunt, Acalamari didn't even tell the editor when they ''initially'' reverted back in November (while the discussion was open) where they could discuss further/report if they felt the comment was not appropriate. I'm not suggesting sanctions against Acalamari at all. But to tell a new editor "someone broke the rules and since you didn't report it in the proper way at the time because nobody told you how, they're allowed to break the rules" is clear ]. I think all that's necessary is an apology from Acalamari - TV19E has already explained that they were mistaken as to it being vanadalism. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 23:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I didn't edit for a few months because I have to do other things. I was just scrolling around I don't even remember what I was doing and I saw he put it back, I didn't know he was a mod, and it also said you can't edit archived talk pages, which he did, so I reverted his edit. ] (]) 23:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::That's not true. You modified a closed AfD. Acalamari rightly reverted your edit of an archived discussion.--] (]) 23:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I just said, he is the one who modified a closed AfD, which is not allowed, then I reverted it not knowing he is a moderator ] (]) 23:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::He didn't modify a closed AfD. His comment was readded while the discussion was still open, because you removed it in violation of ]. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 23:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Oh okay this is my mistake then I thought it was after the AfD was closed my bad ] (]) 23:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Wait hold on, I just looked at it again. He added back his comment after the result was SNOW. On the page when he re added it, it said do not edit the page. ] (]) 23:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::You removed Acalamari's comment as vandalism with the edit summary "subhanAllah". You had ''no right'' to do that. Acalamari restored it, which even though the AfD was closed, they had the right to do in the circumstances.--] (]) 23:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/2028_United_States_presidential_election_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1257014612 Take a look, this is his edit. When he re added his comment, on the page in red it said '''Do not edit the page''' ] (]) 23:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::The comment never should've been removed in the first place. It's within the spirit of the rules to readd a comment that you improperly removed, even if the discussion had been closed in the meantime. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *{{ec}} There's no admin abuse here as no admin tools have been used. In case you missed ''"The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below"'' with the bright red ''"Please do not modify it"'' at that AfD, I'll repeat the instructions here - don't modify archived discussions.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I was saying Admin abuse because of the fact that he is able to keep his comment on the page when even if he is violating the rules. I'm not a moderator so I can't do anything about. Now I just learned from that guy that they don't remove comments even if its vandalism, now I know. But thats why I reported it here you know. ] (]) 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:He is the one who edited the closed AfD. This was one of the reason why I reverted his edit. ] (]) 23:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *It's very hard to work out what's happening without the presence of diffs. ] (]) 23:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*{{tq|without the presence of diffs}}. But Ponyo and I have contributed, so you're in the presence of greatness; isn't that better than diffs? :p --] (]) 23:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*:* ''Tiggerjay is bowing down in great humility before such greatness never before seen in this universe. '' Now.... where is the trout? ] ] 23:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*:Who am I to disagree with the Jedi? ] (]) 23:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Okay, I've looked into this. And...surprise surprise, TopVat19sEver was the one who ''origially removed Aclamari's !vote while the AfD was still open'' . Yes, about a day after the AfD was closed, Aclamari reverted this removal , which ''is'' technically "editing a closed AfD" but I would say they were ] to revert a ]. And now, suddenly, today, two months later, as their first edit ''after'' having done that improper removal, TopVat19sEver goes back to the AfD and removes Aclamari's !vote ''again'' , which Aclamari - entirely rightfully - reverted , and then TopVat19sEver comes here to cry "admin abuse", when no administrative abilities were used ''at all'' in this whole mess. Could Aclamari have used more moderate language in their initial !vote? Yeah maybe, but it was no ''violation'' at all, and the only thing needed here is a ] or at least a {{tl|trout}} for TopVat19sEver. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: Liz, there's nobody above lumping all IP editors together. Tarc's saying the articles in question have been ''full'' of issue-laden IP's, and this one simply picked up the mantle - nobody suggests there any loose alliance of vandals. Hell, I don't even think ''this'' one is a "vandal", and to prove it I worked darned hard to show them what they needed to address in their unblock request ... and the above is simply more proof that no good deed goes unpunished :-) <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
| == Ban appeal from Rathfelder == | |||
| :::Indeed. The last 2 RMs for Sarah Brown and the last 4 for HRC have all been initiated by IP editors. Are they the same person or related persons? My ] says it is quite likely, but even if they are 100% separate persons, the repeated nominate-and-lie-low-for-a-time is extremely disruptive. ] (]) 01:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * {{userlinks|Rathfelder}} | |||
| *Collaborative editing is sometimes ugly. We sometimes get a bit rude or question each other's motives. As long as it isn't a pattern, I've always been a fan of "let boys be boys" (pardon my sexism, I don't know a gender neutral version). Warnings are fine for singular comments, but admin action seldom is. Some of our best work is forged from sweat, arguments and some spirited debate, so it is and should be tolerated in small doses. What is unhelpful is spending more time on process than on content. While JzG and Panda can both be rather blunt at times, so can I, and the IP, and just about everyone else who actually cares enough to have an opinion. Escalating these little things to Arb then WP:AN is a tremendous waste of time and resources. While I personally strive to make Misplaced Pages a nicer place, I would warn anyone that if you can't take a low blow every now and then, editing at Misplaced Pages isn't for you. With that in mind, I find little merit in the case. Tying up the time of so many people with unnecessary process is disruptive, so I strongly suggest the IP pick his battles more carefully as not to develop a reputation for ]. ] | ] | ] 01:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * ] for sockpuppetry, vote-stacking and undisclosed COI writing of a BLP attack page | |||
| *'''comment''' Panda's comments to the IP which were cynically couched in the language of 'I'm trying to help you' were offensive personal attacks -he accused the IP of making sexist and misogynist statements (no diffs of such statements provided, obviously, since they didn't exist) being a troll and having 1930s thinking. This is ridiculous, and both myself and the IP were offended by these comments but panda continues to believe he was just doing his utmost to help. If one of our admin corp helps by calling someone a misogynist then thanks but no thanks. Guy's block was completely unjustified and would never have been accepted if done against an established editor, the move request for which the IP was blocked was incredibly well formed, policy based and completely innocent - indeed so innocent that '''4''' years of previous move requests had agreed with the title the IP was proposing, and within 2 hours 6 other editors had agreed with the proposed title! now maybe CCC, but CCC again!! That said it's highly unlikely anything will be done as it's water under the bridge but I personally give a citizen trout to both guy and panda for conduct unbecoming an admin, so enjoy the fish gentlemen. I recall ] here. Guy gets an additional side of fries for threatening good faith editors with blocks for brainstorming on possible compromise titles after the SJB move discussion was forcibly shut down per 'admins are righter than others' - even though no consensus for such had formed and the '''oppose''' side in the move request had a strong serving of JDLi and nothing else to base their opposition on. The discussion Guy continually threatened was one that Our god-king Jimbo actually complimented, but permission to discuss had not been granted to the populace so Guy brought out his stick and threatened blocks. Enjoy the fries. Otherwise I agree with DB above, let's move on, nothing will be done here, obviously.--] (]) 01:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * ] declined by the community | |||
| **And thus is ] invoked, time since OP: 6.5 hours. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 03:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * ] not submitted for review by the community for not complying with ] | |||
| :: Those were not threats but warnings. Move request 8 was started two minutes after move request 7 closed as no consensus. Bear in mind that most articles are still at their original title. When move request 8 was closed after discussion here, with agreement that there should be a moratorium on further requests for at least a month, the small group of users obsessed with moving the article immediately started debating what title their next request should be, a clear end-run around that. So you and a coupe of others got warned that this behaviour is disruptive, and disruptive behaviour can and does lead to blocks. | |||
| :: As to "good faith editors", that wears thin when one of the things you have become known for is obsessing over moving an article from a title Jimbo says is "neutral and uncontroversial" to one which is likely to be assessed by other editors, on past evidence, as neither, simply because (horror!) it does not have parentheses. This is not just disruptive, it's downright bizarre. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 07:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::yes, Guy, as suggested by one of the admins who closed the response early, a number of editors, not just myself, continued to brainstorm alternative titles, a discussion that Jimbo complimented while you were issuing 'warnings'... You are the only one who didn't like it since it seemed we were defying your authority, which I reject, especially since you were WP:Involved. I'm not obsessed either, I have filed no RM requests and have participated in only 3 move requests at that article, fewer than several other editors. If anyone is obsessed it is you, who can't fathom that editors decline to obey your directives, which have no merit and were rejected by all other editors at that discussion, indeed your actions were the very definition of disruptive in that you impeded useful brainstorming by good faith editors. The first move to Sarah Brown, which I voted for per IAR wasn't likely to gain consensus so it was closed by the IP early- a move no-one opposed, thus '''that''' close had consensus - and a new request started, there's no problem with that a priori. You keep forgetting that the current title was the result of many years of failed move requests by an 'obsessed' crew of editors who see sexism in a title that the Guardian, BBc, nytimes, and hundreds of other reliable sources use regularly. on the other hand, attempts to close the second move discussion early were resisted by several different editors, but you edit-warred nonetheless to get your way - even though several editors has opposed early closure at the page and at ANI. Thus, you earned a healthy serving of trout for conduct unbecoming. To bushranger, I didn't intend a direct comparison with the nazis and I'm sorry if it came off that way, I don't think anyone here is being nazi-like, rather I intended to state that no-one was defending the IP so I felt I had to stand up.--] (]) 09:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So why are you still posting long comments about it? Do you want the article title to be ]? Do you think further discussions on that topic would help the encyclopedia? What benefit might follow from prolonging this discussion? ] (]) 09:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::the title of the article is irrelevant here, we're talking about admin behavior, and I'm far from the only one who complained about Guy's bullying on this matter- just go to the SJB page to see other editors complaining about his actions. Nothing will happen here but people should not gang up on the IP without knowing the context and the other side of the story. And Pandas comments, diffed above, were a clear personal attack. Maybe not worthy of an arbcom case but inappropriate nonetheless.--] (]) 10:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: If you can parse the English gramatical structure, you'll know they are not a personal attack. You continually rearranging the words to make it look like I said something 180 degrees different than what I said is not convincing to me. I don't stoop to personal attacks, and I find your continual fucking with my words to make it suit your needs to be more of an attack, so stop. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Ok, let's try some analysis, I've put some excerpts of Panda's statement here for all to see: {{tq|I hate to say it, but everything you have done related to that article meets the definition of a ], and that's not a good thing.}} - so here, you accuse the IP of being a troll. For what? For creating a single well formed, detailed, meticulously argued move request based on application to policy. If only all of our trolls behaved like this one! Then we have {{tq|You're on a one-IP single-minded crusade, and abusing process and people in the process.}} Accusing the IP of being on a crusade for what, exactly? Oh, right, nominating a page to be moved, once. For this the IP is accused of "abusing people." - which people, exactly? Finally, {{tq|Yes, your statements were indeed sexist, misogynist (yeah, pretty much synonyms), pointy, and yanking our collective chain. I personally couldn't believe in 2014 that there were still people with 1930's-type thinking.}} Now the IP is accused of making sexist, misogynist, pointy statements, yanking-of-collective-chains, and of having 1930's thinking - yet Panda declines to even provide diffs of such "sexist" statements! Did the IP say "Sarah Brown is the property of her husband"? No, the IP simply formulated a move request to a title that had long standing consensus behind it, with years of previous move requests '''agreeing with it''', and a great number of editors in good standing who also saw NO PROBLEM with said title,a title which was only recently overturned. Panda thinks we're all misinterpreting this - maybe the claim is "I didn't call the IP sexist, I said the IP made sexist statements" - Panda, where I come from, it's basically the same thing, and you're trying to weasel your way out of it instead of simply apologizing. Otherwise, we could sneakily couch all personal attacks like that, and say things like "Bill made racist comments" and "Bill's last post was blatantly homophobic" or "Bill's move request was sexist", "Bill's thinking is from the 1930s" etc. ] says "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.", and Panda's statements were both insulting and were disparaging of the editor's person, motives, and behavior on wiki. Panda, if you actually want to be helpful next time, here is a tip - don't call someone's statements "sexist" as if you hold the truth of "sexism" and everyone else who disagrees is simply wrong, instead try it like this: "While I assume good faith and you clearly spent time in framing a very reasonable and policy based move request, SOME people here now believe that the proposed title is sexist, so it may be better to brainstorm other options rather than pursuing this one"--] (]) 11:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::One further point - I really wonder if Panda knows what misogynist means (he apparently thinks it's a synonym of sexist). In my dictionary, misogyny is hatred of women. Let that sink in. HATRED OF WOMEN. The Independent ran an article 18 months ago whose title was "Sarah Brown, wife of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, appointed director of Harrods" . I did a further search of around 35 reliable sources, all from the past 3 years, and at least 17 described or disambiguated her in EXACTLY the same way - e.g. as the wife of Gordon Brown - either in the title or the lede. We have here an IP who simply proposed the title be '''Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)''', and this is equated with hatred of women. How is that is perfectly acceptable, not even commented upon, usage in dozens of reliable source that demonstrates how Sarah Brown is disambiguated - see ], becomes "misogyny" here? I think the abuse of this word misogyny itself is the real problem, as it trivializes REAL misogyny, including misogyny that can be found right here on the wiki. I'm not trying to argue the move here, I'm simply pointing out that especially admins should know better than to throw around hateful, insulting words without thinking about the reaction that might cause.--] (]) 11:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Rathfelder has submitted the following ban appeal on their talk page and asked me to copy it here: | |||
| ::::::::: Oh good, the old "pull it out of context to make it read the way I want". Anyone who reads the ''entire exchange in its entirety'' will see exactly what was said and meant. I was clearly advising him of how his ''edits'' came across, and ''how to amend his unblock request to match them'' because he clearly was not putting 1+1 together. The core concept of ] is to discuss the ''edits'' not the ''editor'' - and I discussed the ''appearance'' of the edits. Your efforts to pull new meaning from what I said is appalling <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:46, 14 May 2014 (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> | |||
| ::::::::::Panda, I simply focused on the most offensive parts of your statement, which can be read in its entirety here: . No context was lost in the quotes I pulled above, and those are your exact words. You didn't discuss "appearance" of edits, you said the edits '''were''' sexist and misogynist, tout court. You also accused the IP of being a troll, of being on crusade, of abusing people, and of having 1930s thinking. You're just trying to wikilawyer your way out of it. A simpler path would be to say "I could have framed those comments in a more appropriate manner, and I'm sorry". Also to be clear, I'm perfectly willing to accept per AGF that you DONT believe those were personal attacks, and that you HONESTLY believe you were trying to be helpful. However, they were '''seen''' as personal attacks by both the recipient and myself as an observer, so that may cause you to question whether you were really able to skate around the icy lake of NPA, or perhaps you dipped your toe in a wee bit. --] (]) 11:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :::::::::::<span style="font-size:88%">'''Small Comment''': It's funny to see you here defending somebody from accusations of misogyny after our recent discussions --] (]) 12:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)</span> | |||
| :::::::::::"I simply focused on the most offensive parts of your statement" kinda means "I cherry-picked the part I didn't like and made a big deal about it" to most of the rest of us, I'd wager. Your observations regarding the IP and its interactions are not exactly unbiased either, as you share the same point-of-view on the naming matter. This "I'm just an observer" stuff is bupkis. ] (]) 12:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Conditional support''' - If there's been no socking ''during'' the ban. ] (]) 17:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: Obi-Wan, I realize that you are defending @131 who you believe was treated unfairly. But no sanctions will result from this complaint, it clearly has no support from admins here at ]. Also, repeating your arguments about the RM will not affect the title of ], that subject is, for the moment, closed. I think you need to ] here because nothing positive will come from this discussion which has become the airing of grievances which has already occurred in the ARBCOM request. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 12:56, 14 May 2014 (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) | |||
| ::::::::::::: You're right. The OP didn't present even 1 side of a story, but combined 2 unrelated stories. You dropped by and presented your partially complete side of one of the 2 stories, including your own spin. 2 incomplete stories does not a story make. The reality is and always has been that my comments on their talkpage were INTENDED to help them to address their unblock comments. They were not framed as a violation of ] - they were framed as a guide to help them meet ]. I appreciate your defense of them, but your defense was an attack on an ''ally'' in that case, and you've simply continued the attacks above. IMHO, that's never been helpful to the OP, but merely gave them tools to go down the wrong path...which is actually what has happened, as is evidenced by this thread and others. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:34, 14 May 2014 (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) | |||
| * '''Comment''' Pointy and inappropriate ] at its best: the IP user's jump from the admin noticeboards to its request for arbitration, which was declined, then back to the admin noticeboards. It needs to cease attempting to ], as does the apparent continued ] by a small handful of users also heavily involved in the move discussion around the title of one article. No admin was prepared to lift the 1 week block previously imposed on the IP user by JzG, and as I said during the block review at the same admin noticeboard discussion, the block is entirely reasonable. In fact, the phenomemon I described in my first sentence merely justifies some of the comments made about the IP and reinforces why they are not untrue. I fail to see how the IP user can reasonably believe that it will not be blocked again if it doesn't find a more useful way to contribute to the project. I '''propose the thread be closed and the IP is given a final warning''' that it will be blocked for a much longer term if it continues on this path. ] (]) 17:09, 14 May 2014 (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) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| *: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) | |||
| *'''Support'''; willing to allow this editor another chance, hoping they'll understand that the community's tolerance is pretty much gone for any future problems. Rathfelder, if this is successful, when you're finding {{xt|articles in English wikipedia which need amendment}}, I'd advise making it your default setting to open a talk section ''before'' making edits if there's any possibility the edit could be objectionable to anyone. ] (]) 15:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Long term disruption of physics articles by IP == | |||
| *'''Support'''. The arguments to maintain the ban seem to be mostly "He did some really bad stuff". I agree that he did. Personal attacks are bad. Socking is bad. Using wikipedia to prosecute real-life battles is bad. But I'm concerned about statements such as {{u|Hemiauchenia}}'s "insufficient contrition and reflection" (although they are certainly entitled to express that opinion). We're not looking for self-flagilation here, nor are we looking for great works of literature as apologies. Our criteria for re-entry into the community isn't "Has never done anything really bad". It's "Understands what they did that was bad and has given credible assurances that it won't happen again", and I think we have those. {{u|Robert McClenon}} says "Sometimes it takes a long time to regain trust". Which is true, but this has been a bit over two years. That's a long time in my book. And it's not like they've gone away for two years and come back out of the blue; they've been contributing productively on other projects, so we have tangible evidence that they're capable of producing good work. ] ] 16:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:People implicitly understand that Jytdog will probably never be unbanned from Misplaced Pages because his act of phoning up a fellow user he was in conflict with was a severe and inexcusable breach of decorum. I think that Rathfelder's breach was on par with that of Jytdogs. People using their position on Misplaced Pages to write attack pages of living people is a huge violation of Misplaced Pages's standards. It's not just some minor misconduct like youthful vandalism or minor socking where someone can just brush it off as "whoopsie, my bad" and be relatively easily unblocked. Stuff like this brings the whole encyclopedia into disrepute. ] (]) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Appealing April 4 2024, indefinite WP:CUP ban and indefinite 1-nomination GAN limit == | |||
| 3 months ago, I came to ] via an ANRFC request that I closed ] | |||
| {{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) | |||
| That RFC was plagued by a good deal of CU confirmed socking and COI involvement. Since that time IP editors claiming to be ] have repeatedly been re-inserting the disputed content into various articles (] ) , and making repeated ]s on the talk pages - including comparing wikipedia and various editors to Nazis (humorously, this one accuses me of being a sock of {{u|Jimbo Wales}}) because we won't let him claim credit for this idea). The articles are now medium term semi protected, and the talk pages have been short term protected multiple times, but each time it expires, the IPs come back. | |||
| :'''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) | |||
| The polemics also accuse various people of being politically involved in the Physics community which is why we won't let him claim credit. It may be that there is politics preventing Winterberg from getting credit for an idea, but that is not a problem for Misplaced Pages to solve. There are not reliable sources saying that he discovered the idea. | |||
| :'''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". ] ] 19:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose'''. Appealing early on the basis that you won't be able to sign up to do the thing you were banned from doing is certainly a unique take. ♠]♠ ] 21:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ==Requesting info== | |||
| {{collapsetop|unrelated to actual disruption, but background may be helpful to understand why Winterberg might not be getting credit in the physics community}} | |||
| {{atop | |||
| The Nazi and Einstein references are especially ironic since Winterberg accused Einstein of plagiarism of relativity, and has come to the defense of multiple alleged Nazis. | |||
| | 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) | |||
| ] | |||
| :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. ] ] 21:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ]] | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Please Help Me! == | |||
| This rather blunt irony could indicate someone attempting to impersonate Winterberg, or he is just very tone deaf. | |||
| {{collapsebottom}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| This has now resulted in significant time wasting by myself {{u|Paradoctor}}, {{u|rolf h nelson}}, multiple admins {{u|Callanecc}} {{u|Ohnoitsjamie}} {{u|Drmies}}. If you look at the history page of the articles or their talk history, there is basically no activity that isn't related to this dispute in the last 3 months. Can something more permanent be done? The range of IPs involved is not very large, can we get a rangeblock? Or permanent protection of these articles/talk pages? (Diff of most recent polemic yesterday, repeated above ) ] (]) 16:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{confirmed}} to {{np|Bhairava7}}. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 16:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| {{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) | |||
| : |
: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) | ||
| : This will probably be one of his students. Neither they nor he seem able to understand that Misplaced Pages is not the place to Right Great Wrongs. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::On multiple occasions the IP has claimed to be winterberg either in their prose, or in their "signing", but of course that does not prove anything it could well be impersonation or proxying (edit summary on this last one) ] (]) 18:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: It is not surprising that a warring editor would claim to be Winterberg because, to those not familiar with Misplaced Pages's policy on ], they assume it would give their arguments in editing disputes more weight. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 11:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== BAG nomination == | ||
| Hi! I have nominated myself for ] membership. Your comments would be appreciated on the ]. Thanks! – ] <small>(])</small> 14:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Please could someone look at the Requests for Page Protection.. there are requests there from 02:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC). Thanks, ] (]) 21:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == I need help from an admin - Urgent == | |||
| :Yes - I've done a few. If someone could do some that'd be great. ] (] '''·''' ]) 11:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{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. | |||
| == ] and the education program == | |||
| Many thanks, | |||
| There is a discussion at ] relating to ] of editors involved in the ] that may be of interest to admins. ] (]) 02:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 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 == | |||
| == 2014 Latakia Offensive == | |||
| {{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: | |||
| ] is persistently edit warring over the last few weeks on the article ] to include a controversial statement regarding the supposed "continuation of the ]" in this article. This user is misusing references to support this statement, with one reference being a deadlink, and one reference even specifically describing such a statement as a 'hoax'.. This user has recently taken to deleting sources that have been added. This is an a notable example I believe of ], ] and ]. Please can someone intervene to make sure wikipedia policy is being applied correctly? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| {{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 == | |||
| First, I am not the only one reverting user 94.197.120..., several other editors (at least three) have also reverted his removal of the sourced information at the article page along with its sources (this can be checked by the edit history of the article) in the same time period. I reverted him maybe once or twice over a period of several days, other times he was reverted by the other editors (who he also promptly reverted). Second, I am highly offended by his accusation that I am misusing references to support a statement regarding the supposed "continuation of the ]" in this article, which I myself did not edit into the article. The previous editor used even more inflamatory language, which I watered down for sake of compromise with another editor who did not like it and was in an edit war with that other editor. After I watered it down their edit war stopped. Further, the anonymous user used in-proper language during the removal of information ALONG with its SOURCES, calling in the edit summary ether us for inserting it or those that stated the information ''childish warmongering'' (violation of Misplaced Pages: Civility). Lastly, the sentence does not state in any way a genocide or massacre occurred during the offensive as user 94.197. is making it out. The full paragraph, properly per the sources, states that the flight of civilians and Turkish involvement during the rebel assault on the Armenian town ''has lead some to compare the offensive with and view it as the massacre of Armenians that occurred during the Armenian Genocide''. Those ''some'' in the sources being the Armenian president (), multiple US Congressmen () residents of the town themselves () and other notable personalities. I would think calling the statements of the Armenian president and US congressmen childish warmongering shows a high level of non-neutral POV. As for the broken link (which was most likely broken during the reverts) he could have just asked for it to be fixed like this . And again, they were not comparing any killings to the Armenian genocide, instead they were comparing the flight of the Armenians to the forced evacuations of the Armenians during the genocide. I have now watered down the statement even more for sake of compromise that they were comparing the displacement to the exodus that occurred during the genocide, not to any killings. In any case, the comparisons to the Armenian genocide were notable enough and frequent enough in the news that in some form they need to be presented in the article on the offensive. Pushing one singular POV for the removal of the properly sourced information would not be acceptable in any way per Misplaced Pages's policy on neutrality. So if anybody was engaged in an improper edit war it would be user 94.197.120.... I would be gladly open to a dialogue with him on proper compromise wording of the text, but he has shown no sign of such desire. I was even thinking of reporting the issue myself to an administrator for possible protection of the page from un-registered users. But since he has raised the issue for me, I would like to formally ask what proper course over the situation could be done, or what compromise solution could be found? As for his allegation that I have taken to deleting sources that have been added I was also offended. Accidental removal of a source or two during the reverts is possible, but intentional no! Regards! ] (]) 22:59, 15 May 2014 (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…'' ] ] 04:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Weird glitches == | |||
| ::@] here is another CFA imposter for you. Cheers! ] ] 05:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I indeffed {{User|CFA (AWB)}}. ] (]) 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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| == Proposed community ban of Marginataen == | |||
| Every link is underlined. Is this is a glitch? Please remove it, you're ruining Misplaced Pages. The links don't need to be underlined.--] (]) 18:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Misplaced Pages is ] and does not display advertisements on articles. If you see advertisements, or links that aren't in the ], then something at your end must be placing them. Some ]s or ] may do it. A plugin called Codec-C is known to do it although it is marketed as needed to play videos. Your computer may be infected with ] - consider using anti-malware software. You may be using an Internet access point (such as public Wi-Fi networks at some hotels or cafes) which injects ads into all kinds of web pages. ] (]) 22:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::And before you do anything else, go to ] and make sure "always underline links" is unchecked... ] (]) 22:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::This person isn't logged in, so s/he can't set preferences. ] (]) 22:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{userlinks|Marginataen}} | |||
| == Admin help at UTRS == | |||
| 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) | |||
| Some help reviewing blocks at ] would be appreciated. The appeals are piling up and I can't review all of the cases awaiting review (as the blocking admin, or having declined previous requests). The last reviewed appeal was by me 24 hours ago and there are 17 appeals outstanding. Mops at the ready! --]<sup>]</sup> 22:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Remind me where the list of appeals is located. I'm an admin, but I usually don't look ''for'' unblock requests. — ] ] 05:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{reply to|Ponyo}} I knocked 10 out. {{reply to|Arthur Rubin}} They are on UTRS .--v/r - ]] 06:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks {{U|TParis}}. There are still 6 appeals outstanding if anyone's game.--]<sup>]</sup> 15:43, 16 May 2014 (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"> ‥ </span>]</span> 06:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Arthur Rubin admin bit == | |||
| :'''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) | |||
| {{archive top|result=As there is no recent action that is being complained of, closing. ] | ] | ] 19:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::20 more edits after the AN notice. ] 18:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| How is Arthur Rubin still an admin? I've never seen an admin with a longer block log, who is subject to an ArbCom topic ban, and who has VIOLATED that ArbCom topic ban resulting in a week-long block. I would like to open a discussion on the fitness of Mr. Rubin as an admin. Thank you. ] (]) 16:47, 16 May 2014 (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. ] (]) 09:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : That discussion cannot be held here. RFC/U/Admin <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support'''. Might considering a RFC on Meta to globally ban Marginataen in the future. ] (]) 10:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Don't ] the newbies, Panda. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:53, 16 May 2014 (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) | ||
| : |
:'''Support'''. Per proposal. --] (]) 15:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Support'''. Don't waste the community's time. ♠]♠ ] 16:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::DP is basically correct. ] is the proper venue for this. The latest block was five months ago, and I'm not aware of any recent activity that would require urgent action regarding his administrator privileges. ] has help on starting the RFC/U process. If there ''are'' some recent problems that require attention, then that should be brought up (though ] may be a better place for that than here). And yes, chances are that the IP is an experienced editor (who may or may not have a registered account) who is posting anonymously in complaining about an administrator. Which shouldn't be prejudicial, I understand wanting anonymity in this situation. -- ''']'''] 17:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment:''' It might be a good idea to block the known sockpuppets of Marginataen that are not already blocked: {{u|Tamborg}}, {{u|Bubfernr}}, and {{u|LatteDK}}. There may be others that I have missed. ] (]) 16:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I think the IP is basically admitting to evading a block. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support.''' <s>I'm not sure how to deal with this. I guess Marginataen is honestly trying to contribute and collaborate, but...</s> Case in point regarding "I didn't hear that": Remsense recently ] Marginataen to stop mass-tagging articles. Three hours later, Marginataen ]: ''"Yes, I'll stop mass adding templates"''. And yet another hour later, Marginataen added these templates to ] ] articles. It seems that Marginataen didn't understand what Remsense said. P.S.: ...and Marginataen keeps ]. Hopeless. Block. — ] (]) 18:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::JzG! How dare you bite the newbies!!! Have you looked at the IP editing history???? You need to AGF!--] 18:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Just because an IP is aware of how Misplaced Pages functions doesn't mean that they are evading a block. I also don't read a thing in their post that would suggest they are admitting to anything. ]<small> (])</small> 18:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Please read ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
Latest revision as of 19:48, 19 January 2025
Notices of interest to administrators| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
- For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
- To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
- If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
- Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
- For administrative backlogs add
{{Admin backlog}}to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. - Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
- If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use
{{RfC closure review}}
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussionOpen tasks
Centralized discussion| Administrators' (archives, search) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 | 358 |
| 359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 | 365 | 366 | 367 | 368 |
| Incidents (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 1157 | 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 | 1165 | 1166 |
| 1167 | 1168 | 1169 | 1170 | 1171 | 1172 | 1173 | 1174 | 1175 | 1176 |
| Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 | 481 |
| 482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 | 491 |
| Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
| 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 | 337 |
| 338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | 345 | 346 | 347 |
| Other links | |||||||||
| V | Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 67 | 68 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 21 | 26 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 70 | 71 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- 4 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 10 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 19 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 9 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 36 sockpuppet investigations
- 19 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 3 Fully protected edit requests
- 0 Candidates for history merging
- 1 requests for RD1 redaction
- 108 elapsed requested moves
- 1 Pages at move review
- 17 requested closures
- 23 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 15 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:
That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock, which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ECR violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of block evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as preventative of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-OFFER unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is banned, and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like Draft:Krupets.) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here. ... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an OFFER unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.
- Support per above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse one account proviso. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive#18 April 2024. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would Support with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of WP:LOUTSOCK. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they seem to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. The Kip 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. X (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. This has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, this has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. Fram (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support User seems to have recognized what he did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. JayCubby 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Weak Support, the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Completely support an unblock; see my comment here when his IP was blocked in April. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see clear evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like this may well be on notable competitions, but with content like
On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.
, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the most recent en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC) - Currently oppose; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ Lindsay 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ahri Boy: Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ahri Boy: Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "Next as working for magazines he also contributed to book"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Come on – it's been nearly seven years since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think saying that
I will never use multiple accounts anymore
and that he wants tomake constructive content
would indicate thatthe purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.
BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. Ahri Boy (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think saying that
- But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And he admits that he was
too focused on quantity, rather than quality
, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused onmass-creating non-notable stubs
. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And he admits that he was
- S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to start over. Frank Anchor 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. KatoKungLee (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Fram and PMC. —Compassionate727 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Question: Is SvG the same person as Slowking4? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by Dirk Beetstra. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose basically per JoelleJay, particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get WP:AUTOPATROLLED without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). FOARP (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since WP:NSPORT was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.
Support. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- @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 onmass-creating non-notable stubs
." This should assuage any doubt in the mind of the reviewing administrator. Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC) - 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)
user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation of WP:NPA violation, unfounded vandalism allegation
I have indefinitely blocked Uwappa per WP:NLT. Whilst the legal threat pointed out by multiple editors may be very vague, it certainly is designed to have a chilling effect, and Uwappa has confirmed this with this addition to the section. Quite apart from that, we have persistent edit-warring, meritless claims of vandalism against others, and there is a limit to which an editor who thinks all of this is a big joke can be allowed to waste everybody else's time. They can explain themselves in an unblock request if they so desire. Black Kite (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
repost from archive:
The content disagreement behind this report is trivial in the overall scope of Misplaced Pages (although the articles affected are subject to WP:MEDRS), but the editor behaviour is not. My reason to bring this case to ANI is that user:Uwappa rejects some basic principles of the project: WP:BRD means that a bold edit may be reverted to the status quo ante and goes on to say don't restore your bold edit, don't make a different edit to this part of the page, don't engage in back-and-forth reverting, and don't start any of the larger dispute resolution processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.
Despite having been reminded about BRD after their first immediate counter-revert, they responded to the reversion to the sqa with another counter-revert and, after another editor reinstated the sqa, counter-reverted again. At no stage did they attempt to engage in BRD discussion. Both I and the other editor attempted to engage with them at their talk page: Uwappa characterises my explanation as a personal attack. On another page, Uwappa reverted an edit where I suppressed the questioned material template, declaring it "vandalism" in the edit summary. I recognise the rubric at BRD that says BRD is optional, but complying with Misplaced Pages:Editing policy § Talking and editing and Misplaced Pages:Edit war is mandatory
but Uwappa has done neither.
I consider my escalating this to ANI to be a failure of negotiating skill on my part but, while Uwappa refuses to engage, I am left with no choice. Allowing a few days for logic to intervene has not been fruitful. With great reluctance, because Uwappa has made valuable contributions, I have to ask that they be blocked until they acknowledge and commit to respect the principles that underlie BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN.
Diffs: (all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 )
- 11:10 (UTC), 25 December 2024: Uwappa replaces {{Body roundness index}} with a substantially changed new version
- 13:39, 25 December 2024: JMF (me) reverts to the previous version, with edit summary "sorry but this version is not ready for release. I will explain at talk page."
- 13:55, 25 December 2024: JMF opens Template talk:Body roundness index#Proposed version 4 is a step too far, reverted for further discussion at template talk page (and leaves notifications at the talk pages of the articles that invoke the template).
- 14:08, 25 December 2024: Uwappa responds minimally at template talk page.
- 14:27, 25 December 2024: Uwappa counter-reverts to their new version of the template, no edit summary.
- 14:39, 25 December 2024 JMF reverts the counter reversion with edit summary "see WP:BRD: when BRD is invoked, the status quo ante must persist until consensus is reached"
- 14:45, 25 December 2024: Uwappa counter-reverts the template again, no edit summary.
- 14:45, 25 December 2024: at User talk:Uwappa#Bold, revert, discuss, JMF advises Uwappa of the BRD convention.
- 17:38, 25 December 2024: Zefr contributes to BRD debate.
- 17:53, 25 December 2024: At Uwappa's talk page, JMF notifies Uwappa of edit-warring using {{uw-editwar}} with edit summary "I advise strongly that you self-revert immediately, otherwise I shall have no choice but to escalate."
- 19:50, 25 December 2024 At Waist-to-height ratio, JMF comments out invocation of the template, with edit summary "use of template suspended pending dispute resolution . See talk page."
- (a series of reverts and counter reverts follow, in which Uwappa alleges vandalism by JMF. Neither party breaks 3RR.)
- 20:23, 25 December 2024 At their talk page, Uwappa rejects the request to self-revert and invites escalation. Edit summary: "go for it".
- 16:19, 26 December 2024 user:Zefr reverts the counter-reversion of the template to re-establish sqa
- 09:57, 27 December 2024 Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template.
- 09:59, 27 December 2024 Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also User_talk:Uwappa#Edit_warring for escalation in progress.".
- 11:05, 27 December 2024 JMF reverts to sqa again, with edit summary " rv to consensus version, pending BRD discussion. That is now also a WP:3RR violation." My 3RR challenge was not valid as reversion was outside the 24-hour window.
- 11:26, 27 December 2024 At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing.
- 13:04, 27 December 2024 At their talk page, Uwappa alleges WP:NPA violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit.
---
- 10:51, 29 December 2024 At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI.
- 14:17, 29 December 2024 Uwappa replies to refuse de-escalation.
As of 11:48 (UTC) on 30/12, the live version of the template is the one that has consensus support. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, Uwappa hasn't edited on the project in 12 hours so it's pretty sage to assume they haven't seen this complaint yet. I'd like to hear their response and whether or not they are willing to collaborate before passing any judgment. Very through presentation of the dispute, easy to follow, so thank you for that. Liz 20:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that is why I felt it important to make clear that our time zones are very widely spaced, which makes collaboration difficult in the best of circumstances. When they do see it, I would expect they will take some time offline to polish their response before posting it – and consequently it is likely to be as long again before I respond. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Reposted above from archive, see User_talk:Uwappa#c-JMF-20250105190300-Uwappa-20250105161700
JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page:
- You escaped sanction because there were too many more egregious cases in the pipeline and it is a first offence. ANI does not adjudicate on content disputes, only on behaviour and compliance with fundamental principles. The evidence against you was really unarguable; I have seen quite a few cases and I know how they play out: if it had reached a conclusion, you would have been blocked until you acknowledged that you had gotten carried away in the heat of the moment, that you understand and accept WP:EPTALK, WP:EW, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN, and that from now on you commit to respecting them. I strongly advise that you take the message anyway. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mate, sorry I was late for the escalation party. End of the year was a madhouse here, both in business and with social activities.
- I was very happy you did escalate and will be happy to reply now that I have spare time available for WP. My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.
- Would you like me to repost your escalation? Uwappa (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I strongly advise that you read Misplaced Pages:No legal threats before you write another line. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You escaped sanction because there were too many more egregious cases in the pipeline and it is a first offence. ANI does not adjudicate on content disputes, only on behaviour and compliance with fundamental principles. The evidence against you was really unarguable; I have seen quite a few cases and I know how they play out: if it had reached a conclusion, you would have been blocked until you acknowledged that you had gotten carried away in the heat of the moment, that you understand and accept WP:EPTALK, WP:EW, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN, and that from now on you commit to respecting them. I strongly advise that you take the message anyway. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I am so sorry I was late to join this party. End of the year was a bit too hectic, did not leave much spare time for fun activities like WP.
user:Liz What would you like me to do now? Uwappa (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was not clear on your talk page, and it's even less clear here since you did not repost your response to JMF's last line there. You do explicitly retract the apparent legal threat that was made? - The Bushranger One ping only 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did not make a legal threat. Uwappa (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Uwappa: your reference to your "business legal team" could certainly be construed as a veiled one, at the very least. You are being asked to clarify by either confirming or retracting this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.
is either a legal threat or indistinguishable from one. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- No it is not a legal threat. It is about "WP rules and regulations", not about law.
- To who would this be a threat?
- Which law?
- In which country?
- Uwappa (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why would a legal department be involved? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It certainly looks like a legal threat. M.Bitton (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Uwappa. Why would a legal department be involved? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wow, I am glad you asked.
- to have a bit of fun, take a break from the normal, pretty serious work. It will be like kids in a candy store.
- It will be fun for me too. I can't wait to get going with this once the pandemonium calms down.
- The accusation "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage" is utterly wrong.
- Uwappa (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not at all experienced in the legal world, but I don't think any professional legal team that you're paying money towards would ever be excited to save you from a website "like kids in a candy store". Tarlby 22:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wow, I am glad you asked.
- Why would a legal department be excited about you being reported on Misplaced Pages unless you're planning to use them in some way? Tarlby 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I suspect, from context, that Uwappa was trying to suggest they would have assistance of a professional team in interrogating rules and regulations. But "I have the spend to wikilawyer this more than you can" isn't really all that much better than an outright legal threat. Between that and this edit what surprises me is that they're not blocked yet frankly. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- No it is not a legal threat. It is about "WP rules and regulations", not about law.
- I did not make a legal threat. Uwappa (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- and just to throw some more fuel on the bushfire, you have just accused me twice more of vandalism.03:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC), 08:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would say that for Uwappa to read this AN filing, reply to it (including something which could well be taken as a legal threat), and then immediately go back and revert the template for the fifth time (with an edit-summary of "Revert vandalism again", no less) shows a serious lack of self-awareness of the situation. Black Kite (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Putting aside the possible legal threat, if Uwappa's business legal department is involved it seems likely to be a cause of WP:PAID or at least a WP:COI which really should have been declared which doesn't seem to have happened. This also means Uwappa shouldn't be editing the article directly. Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It’s hard to see a paid or COI element to the behaviour at {{Body roundness index}}. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is fairly weird, but I can't see any reason a business legal department would have any interest unless the editor's activity relates to their business activity. Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I expect it’s just empty talk to get an upper hand in the dispute. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. It is night where Uwappa is now, but my inclination is to see what reaction there is when they restart editing. If it is another revert or a lack of discussion, a block (or at least a prtial block) is indicated. Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Black_Kite, how do you know where I am? Are you spying on me, disclosing personal information?
- Anybody in the room who can answer my 3 questions?
- Reverted vandalism 3rd time in 24 hours. Anybody curious about what the vandalism is?
- Anybody in the room that wonders why I had to do the repost? Isn't that odd in combination with "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process"? Did anybody read my reasons for being late to this party?
- Did anybody read User_talk:Uwappa#Bold,_revert,_discuss and User_talk:Uwappa#Notice_of_reference_to_ANI?
- Did anybody spot any incompleteness in the accusations?
- Anybody interested in my to answers to the accusations?
- Uwappa (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Black_Kite, how do you know where I am? Are you spying on me, disclosing personal information?
- Indeed. It is night where Uwappa is now, but my inclination is to see what reaction there is when they restart editing. If it is another revert or a lack of discussion, a block (or at least a prtial block) is indicated. Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I expect it’s just empty talk to get an upper hand in the dispute. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is fairly weird, but I can't see any reason a business legal department would have any interest unless the editor's activity relates to their business activity. Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It’s hard to see a paid or COI element to the behaviour at {{Body roundness index}}. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Putting aside the possible legal threat, if Uwappa's business legal department is involved it seems likely to be a cause of WP:PAID or at least a WP:COI which really should have been declared which doesn't seem to have happened. This also means Uwappa shouldn't be editing the article directly. Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- JMF above said you were in Australia and I had no reason to disbelieve him. If you aren't, it's irrelevant really, I was just pointing out that you may not edit for a few hours. No-one here is required to answer your questions, but I will; the point was that you invoked something that could be a legal threat
My business legal department is pretty exited about it ... can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.
You say that isn't a legal threat, well fine, but you haven't explained what it was. Meanwhile, you're still edit-warring on the template and claiming that other's edits are vandalism, which they clearly aren't, which is why you can no longer edit it. Have I missed anything? Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) - Again, that was either a legal threat or actions indistinguishable from a legal threat in an attempt to cause a chilling effect. When called on it you have continually Wikilawyered instead of straight-up saying "no, that was not a legal threat and I am not involving any legal actions in this". So to make it very clear: you need to clearly state that or be blocked per WP:NLT. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- JMF above said you were in Australia and I had no reason to disbelieve him. If you aren't, it's irrelevant really, I was just pointing out that you may not edit for a few hours. No-one here is required to answer your questions, but I will; the point was that you invoked something that could be a legal threat
And just to add to the excitement, Uwappa has just repeated their allegation of vandalism against me and reverted to their preferred version of the template for the sixth time.16:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) (Their edit note adds 3rd time in 24 hours: are they boasting of a 3RR vio? Zefr undid their fourth attempt, I undid their fifth attempt, but possibly they misread the sequence.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed. I have pblocked them indefinitely from the template, and reverted that edit myself so that no-one else is required to violate 3RR. Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous.
.An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.
— WP:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule - Suggestion: Add the following calculator to WP:3RR:
- Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous.
3 is less than three. is equal to three. is more than three.
-
- From WP:EW;
Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring
. Which this quite obviously does, especially as you've reverted twice whilst this report was ongoing. Frankly, you're quite fortunate it was only a partial block. Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- From WP:EW;
- To admins, please WP:ABAN Uwappa from further work on the calculator template for the body roundness index and waist-to-height ratio, and from further editing and talk page input on those articles. Uwappa has done admirable extensive work, but the simple calculator is finished and sufficient as it is. Uwappa has created voluminous WP:TLDR/WP:WALLOFTEXT talk page discussions for articles with under 50 watchers and few talk page discussants; few editors would read through those long posts, and few are engaged.
- In recent edits on templates, Uwappa reverts changes to the basic template as "vandalism". No, what we're saying is "leave it alone, take a rest, and come back in a few years when more clinical research is completed." Zefr (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- This was closed, but...Uwappa's reply to their block was explictly a legal threat. Suggest revoking TPA. @Black Kite: - The Bushranger One ping only 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Kansascitt1225 ban appeal
Appeal successful. There were some murmurings requesting a topic ban from Kansas, but nothing approaching consensus. Of course, Kansascitt1225 would be well-advised to be careful not to go back to the behaviors that led to a block in the first place. But in the meantime, welcome back. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am posting the following appeal on behalf of Kansascitt1225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki), who is considered banned by the community per WP:3X:
(keeping it short for WP:TLDR) Hi Misplaced Pages community, it has been over 1 year since I edited on Misplaced Pages without evading my block or breaking community rules. I would like to be given another chance to edit. I realized that my blocking was due to my behavior of creating multiple accounts and using them on the same page and creating issues during a disagreement. I was younger then and am now able to communicate more effectively with others. I intend to respect community rules and not be disruptive to the community. I was upset years ago when I mentioned Kansas City’s urban decay and it was reverted as false and I improperly reacted in a disruptive way that violated the community rules. The mistake I made which caused the disruptive behavior was that I genuinely thought people were reverting my edits due to the racist past of this county and keeping out blacks and having a dislike for the county. I also thought suburbs always had more single family housing and less jobs than cities. In this part of the United States a suburb means something different than what it means in other parts of the world and is more of a political term for other municipalities which caught me off guard and wasn’t what I grew up thinking a suburb was. Some of these suburbs have lower single family housing rates and higher population density and this specific county has more jobs than the “major city” (referenced in previous unblock request if interested). This doesn’t excuse my behavior but shows why I was confused and I should have properly addressed it in the talk pages instead of edit warring or creating accounts. After my initial blocking, I made edits trying to improve the project thinking that would help my case when it actually does the opposite because I was bypassing my block which got me community banned to due the automatic 3 strikes rule. I have not since bypassed my block. I’m interested in car related things as well as cities and populations of the United States and want to improve these articles using good strong references. Thanks for reading. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
References
- https://slate.com/business/2015/05/urban-density-nearly-half-of-america-s-biggest-cities-look-like-giant-suburbs.html.
{{cite web}}: Missing or empty|title=(help)
- (mildly involved) Support. I gave feedback on an earlier version of their ban appeal. This is five years since the initial block. Five years and many, many socks, and many, many arguments. But with no recent ban evasion and a commitment to communicate better, I think it's time to give a second chance. -- asilvering (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per asilvering and WP:SO. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Five years is a long time. Willing to trust for a second chance.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ideally I'd want to see some indication that they don't intend to right great wrongs as the issue seems to be rather ideological in nature and I don't see that addressed in the appeal. I also don't love the failure to understand a lot of issues around their block/conduct and their inability to effectively communicate on their talk page and on their unblock request from November. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Would a topic ban from Kansas-related topics help? This was floated as a bare minimum two or so years ago. -- asilvering (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not that concerned by the RGW issue. Their communication on this appeal has been clear, they responded to my feedback regarding their unblock request, and they've indicated they'll not edit war and seek consensus for their edits. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five? In any event it's been a long time since they tried to evade. I'm leaning toward giving a second chance but I'd really like them to understand that walls of text are not a good way to communicate, that they need to post in paragraphs, and that Misplaced Pages is not a place for righting great wrongs. FOARP (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five?
ssssshhh. -- asilvering (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- Response from KC:
voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)Yes I can write in paragraphs and list different ideas in separate paragraphs instead of a giant run on sentence.
I wasn’t trying to right great wrongs but noticed the contrast of the definition of suburban on Misplaced Pages and these communities being described as suburban (meanwhile some of these suburbs verifiably having lower residential to job ratio than the city and also a higher overall population density with some suburbs gaining population during the day due to commuters coming into them). This is essentially why on my case page It says I feel as tho something had to be “fixed”. I thought my edits were being removed simply because people didn’t like this place or some of its past so I felt as tho I was simply being purposefully misled which caused me to not follow proper civility.
I just wanted to clarify that these places weren’t only residential and were major employment areas that they sometimes have a lower percentage of single family homes. This to me was always the opposite of what suburban meant, atleast what I learned during grade school and what it says on Misplaced Pages. That’s where the confusion came from. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Six years is a long time, and they have shown growth. I do not think what is actually happening here is righting great wrongs, instead they assumed bad faith and things went downhill from there. I think their concerns of
Jackson county being THE central county of the metropolitan area
(which Misplaced Pages deems urban)when you can see in the census reference here there are actually 6 central counties
(which Misplaced Pages deems suburban) is reasonable. I researched it, but found the concerns are inconsistent with urban area page which provides the definition thatAn urban area is a human settlement with a high population density and an infrastructure of built environment. This is the core of a metropolitan statistical area in the United States, if it contains a population of more than 50,000.
An urban area is the most urban area compared to its surroundings, even though its surroundings are quite dense. I hope this helps. Kenneth Kho (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)- I add that their concerns that suburban designation misleads people seem to have merit. It is not the suburban designation that misleads people though, but the definition of suburban itself on the suburban article seems to be misleading. I know this is not a place to discuss content, but discuss conduct. But some insight into content can help resolve problems. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
ftools is back!
I am proud to announce that I have become the new maintainer of Fastily's ftools, which is live here. And yes, this includes the IP range calculator! JJPMaster (she/they) 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: DreamRimmer is now also a maintainer. JJPMaster (she/they) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- My congratulations/condolences. Buffs (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- So, will ftools be renamed or not? Congratulations. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Import request
A list without citations or an indication that it meets WP:NLIST is not going to be imported here. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can you import, List of characters in brawl stars from simple Misplaced Pages. I created the page there. — Cactus🌵 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I suppose you mean this page, which you didn't create at all though, and which is completely unsuitable for enwiki as it stands, being unsourced and lacking all indication of notability. Fram (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, they did create the page. JJPMaster (she/they) 15:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fram, oh, okay — Cactus🌵 09:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Tulsi (unblock request)
User unblocked. arcticocean ■ 12:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Tulsi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Blocked (indef) on 3 April 2024 (9 months ago) by Rosguill during an AN thread (archived thread) for undisclosed paid editing
- Subsequent unblock request was also considered at AN before being declined (archived thread)
Tulsi has now submitted an unblock request which I am copying:
Dear Sysops,
I sincerely apologize for my past actions, which were problematic and deceptive. I fully understand the concerns raised, and I deeply regret my involvement. On April 3, 2024, my account was blocked by Rosguill in relation to undisclosed paid editing associated with the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive361 § DIVINE and Tulsi: COI/UPE/quid-pro-quo editing, association with threats and harassment. However, I want to clarify that my involvement in these matters was minimal, with only minor interactions in the past. I have never written articles for payment, and I do not support paid editing.
The issues in question occurred in 2020 or 2021, prior to the block. At that time, I admitted my conflict of interest (COI) and disclosed it on the relevant article talk pages. Following discussions, my global and local rights were removed, but the block was not enforced until two years later. Many of the articles in question were deleted, so I did not find it necessary to disclose anything further. Moving forward, I have no intention of creating or editing COI-related articles. However, if I am ever in a situation where I am required to contribute to such an article, I will ensure full disclosure on the article talk page and submit it for review, as I did with the article Talk:Ghero.
While I respect Rosguill’s decision to impose a block after the two-year gap, I understand that a block serves to prevent disruption rather than punish. I have learned valuable lessons from this experience, and my contributions over the past two years reflect this growth. In this time, I have created over 80 articles, all without any undisclosed paid editing or COI involvement. Additionally, I have contributed to patrolling, as seen in the Twinkle and Draftify logs, and I have reported several violations on WP:UAA.
I acknowledge that I was not fully familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies in the past, but I have since taken the time to understand them better. I have been an active and committed user since October 2014, with significant contributions across various Wikimedia projects. I have also served as a sysop on Wikimedia Commons, Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki, and the Maithili and Nepali Wikipedias.
I am requesting an unblock because I am fully committed to abiding by all the established policies moving forward, and I am eager to contribute here in a constructive manner. Please kindly allow me a second chance.
Thank you for your consideration. I humbly request your reconsideration and the restoration of the editing privileges on my account on English Misplaced Pages.
Sincerely,
Having had discussions with the blocking admin, we would like to seek community comments on the unblock request.
Tulsi was blocked after UPE allegations that had been outstanding for around 2 years essentially caught up with them. They have now attested to having never edited for pay, which was the question they originally failed to answer twice (first thread, second thread), leading to the block. In the unblock request, they give a sincere undertaking not to engage in any more UPE.
They have created several dozen articles about Nepalese politicians but these seem to be innocuous. I have identified only a handful of articles where Tulsi could have edited for pay. Given the amount of other contributions Tulsi has made, it would be appropriate to give the benefit of the doubt. arcticocean ■ 15:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I cannot find the link for "A related meta-wiki discussion". killer bee 15:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've deleted those words. I had decided not to include them in my post, but accidentally left them in. For interest, the discussion was this one: m:Requests for comment/Tulsi advanced permissions and UPE. arcticocean ■ 15:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per WP:SO. I will AGF that Tulsi will keep his promise not to engage in any COI editing going forward. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Question: We are all volunteers here, so the applicant's comment
if I am ever in a situation where I am required to contribute to such an article
(emphasis mine) is worrisome within the context of UPE/COI. Could they, or someone else for that matter, provide some clarification? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)- I assume "required" is just poor phrasing and refers to circumstances similar to the example provided in the same sentence you quote. In any event, the second part of the sentence states
I will ensure full disclosure on the article talk page and submit it for review
(emphasis added). That promise is enough for me. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I assume "required" is just poor phrasing and refers to circumstances similar to the example provided in the same sentence you quote. In any event, the second part of the sentence states
- Support, we should generally give a second chance to users who have greatly and fundamentally changed in several months. Given that the user acknowledged the block and promised not to engage in undisclosed paid editing, not to mention that the user is trusted elsewhere, I see no reason to oppose. ToadetteEdit (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support I believe in their ability to address any concern in the future, given that they served as a sysop on Wikimedia Commons, Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki, and the Maithili and Nepali Wikipedias. Kenneth Kho (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support A second chance promises that Tulsi will not do highly undisclosed paid editing. I may partially support a topic ban on Nepalese politics against Tulsi. Ahri Boy (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Make the most of the second chance Buffs (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support I had already been kind of watcxhing the discussion on their talk page over the last few days, and agree with an SO unblock. Beeblebrox 23:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Abner Louima
Snow in the forecast. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I can't believe this article's AfD is still up and not closed as a WP:SNOW keep. The nominator has acknowledged his mistake out of ignorance. He was in middle school when the subject first became notable, and never heard of him. If the media, or God forbid, Social Media, discovers this nomination, it will do great harm to the reputation of the Misplaced Pages community as being collectively ignorant or much, much worse. I used to be an administrator, and would have closed this as keep. Please do something! Bearian (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Anybody can close an AfD as SNOW keep. That's the whole point of SNOW. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Snowed by me. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you!!! Bearian (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Snowed by me. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Request for Administrator Review of Repeatedly Declined Draft: Ario Nahavandi
Spam, spam, glorious spam. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear Administrators,
I am writing to request your assistance regarding my draft, Draft:Ario Nahavandi, which has been repeatedly declined over the past year despite my adherence to Misplaced Pages’s guidelines.
Over the course of several months, I have worked diligently to gather reliable, published, and independent sources, including magazine articles and other credible publications, that meet Misplaced Pages’s notability criteria. My most recent submission was declined in less than an hour—a timeframe that strongly suggests it was not even reviewed carefully or thoroughly.
This is particularly frustrating as I see numerous approved articles on Misplaced Pages that cite sources far less reliable or even completely broken. In contrast, my article contains verifiable references that adhere strictly to Misplaced Pages’s policies. This inconsistency feels unfair and raises concerns about bias in the review process.
I have followed all guidelines in good faith and cannot accept decisions that appear to be based on personal opinion rather than policy. It feels as though my article is being subjected to an unjust standard, especially when compared to articles that seem to bypass scrutiny. I genuinely wonder if this process is influenced by factors beyond content quality, as I have no means to “pay” for an article to be published, unlike some others.
I kindly request that an administrator reviews my draft with impartiality and provides clear, actionable feedback. Otherwise, I am truly exhausted by the repeated rejections and dismissals with no valid reasoning.
To provide context, here are some of the sources I included:
• https://www.nationaldiversityawards.co.uk/awards-2024/nominations/ario-nahavandi/
• Taurus Magazine (2024-11-19). "Ario Nahavandi". Taurus Magazine. 88: 7 – via www.magcloud.com
• 6x Magazine (2024-11-22). "Ario Nahavandi; The Persian Icon". 6X Magazine. 432: 6–7 – via www.magcloud.com
Thank you for your time and consideration xx
Lanak20 (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Administrators cannot override draft declines, and in fact the administrator toolset cannot be used to force content decisions. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 23:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- So who can I turn to for help? If administrators cannot assist in overriding the draft declines, to whom can I escalate this issue? I am deeply concerned that my article has been repeatedly declined without proper consideration of the sources I’ve provided. These sources are reliable, published, and fully comply with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines, yet they continue to be dismissed without even being properly reviewed.
- It’s becoming clear that the rejection process isn’t being carried out fairly. I can’t help but feel that my article is being judged based on factors other than content quality, especially when I see articles approved with far less solid references.
- I understand that the review process is based on policy, but when it seems clear that my draft isn’t being given the attention it deserves, I need to know where I can seek help to ensure fairness.
- I kindly ask for your guidance—if administrators cannot intervene, who can I turn to for proper support in getting this article reviewed fairly?
- Thank you for your time. Lanak20 (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:TEA. This is where you appeal problems with submissions of drafts. You should read the WP:NPEOPLE and WP:BLP carefully. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Lanak20: I actually just went over your sources. They're all malformed at best and unusable at worst. What is your connexion to Nahavandi? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 00:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've blocked the OP as a spam-advertising-only account. I should add that it's pretty obvious they've used other accounts to promote this person, I believe most recently as of last October.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist Edit Restriction Appeal
Unanimous consent after 36 hours to lift the restriction. Primefac (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A bit over a year ago, with near unanimous support, I appealed a TBAN from GENSEX - receiving in its place the following sanctions 1RR restriction in both the GENSEX and AMPOL topics; is limited to 0RR on articles for organizations/activists who are affiliated with anti-transgender activism or gender-critical feminism, broadly construed; and has a PBAN from Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull.
Previous discussions are linked there. I am now requesting that my restrictions be dropped entirely because I have grown considerably as an editor, both since my initial TBAN when I'd just turned 19 and since the appeal.
I translated Transgender history in Brazil (having originally wrote it on eswiki during my TBAN) and made it my first GA. I uploaded multiple colorized photographs of transgender historical figures to commons I improved LGBTQ rights in New York and wrote articles for famous trans activists Cecilia Gentili and Carol Riddell. I also cleared up serious BLP violations at Aimee Knight and rewrote the article. I also helped expand Trans Kids Deserve Better and wrote Bayswater Support Group. I improved Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy and conversion therapy. I improved gender dysphoria in children. I rewrote and considerably expanded WPATH as well as Gender Identity Development Service. I expanded the article on the Cass Review. I wrote the article on the 1970 semi-governmental report Evaluation of Transsexual Surgery. I expanded the articles on Stephen B. Levine and Kenneth Zucker. I rewrote Detransition to follow WP:MEDRS and use systematic reviews instead of primary studies. Most proudly, I wrote Transgender health care misinformation and took it to GA - this is particularly relevant as a key part of the original TBAN discussion was whether my commitment to removing misinformation from Misplaced Pages was a case of either WP:RGW or following WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE.
I believe the restrictions impair my ability to edit productively. I generally edit with 1RR regardless of sanctions. With 0RR, as Red-tailed hawk noted at my previous appeal "they can wind up restricting the sorts of partial reverts that are often a healthy part of the ordinary editing process." With 0RR, I am unable to engage in the BRD cycle properly and always second-guessing whether a partial edit to a recent edit counts as a revert or not. It also prevents me reverting drive-by SPA/IP povpushing. I don't plan to ever edit KJK's article again, but I believe that my record of neutral constructive editing shows the PBAN is no longer preventative or necessary. In the highly unlikely event I ever see a reason to edit it in future, I know my edits would be subject to heightened scrutiny which I'd welcome.
I appreciate your consideration. My best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Based on YFNS's activity since the original tban, I don't see any reason to believe that restrictions are necessary going forward. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Welcome back comrade. Ahri Boy (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support based on their editing activity between TBAN and last year, as well as between the sanctions and now. Good work, and a great example of how this restorative process is supposed to work. May you inspire other misguided people to a path of restoration. TiggerJay (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Snow Support Kenneth Kho (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support. To me YNFS comes across as a very responsible editor and I believe these restrictions are no longer warranted. HenrikHolen (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support I remember the original ban happening due in large part to canvassing on twitter, the fact that any restrictions remained in place thereafter strikes me as a deep miscarriage of justice. Snokalok (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Query Does your reference to BRD mean that you undertake to follow it in the future? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Enthusiastic support YFNS is a perfect model of an editor who is an asset to Misplaced Pages. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support A well worded appeal, worth giving another chance. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support This is a convincing and sincere appeal. Cullen328 (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support, Welcome. ~🌀 Ampil 02:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support as they have convincingly demonstrated change. TarnishedPath 02:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support I supported and still support the original restrictions, and the later now appealed restrictions. I think YFNS's case has shown that an editor can come back from the brink successfully and am happy that happened. Nil Einne (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Copyvio Problem
Hey all, I believe that these three diff should be redacted as copy vio's, thanks. There are several sentences which are directly lifted from the sources. Some one more experienced should likely have a look through the revision I restored as well. I didn't spot anything, but I may have missed something.
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear, I don't think that @YatesTucker00090 is really at any fault here.
- Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Kingsmasher678 please see {{copyvio-revdel}} on how to tag copyvios for attention. Nthep (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Lardlegwarmers block appeal
Essentially unanimous consensus to not unblock. RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Lardlegwarmers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I blocked Lardlegwarmers yesterday for one week for a violation of their community topic ban from COVID-19. This was about this edit, although I subsequently noticed this one as well. LLW has asked me to copy their appeal here. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement from Lardlegwarmers
I have only been very active editing Misplaced Pages for about one month, even though my account is older. I was blocked for pushing a minority POV in the talk page for Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory, which I understand. For context, this issue wouldn't have even come up at ANI except that there was this very old account making borderline uncivil comments constantly, and I took them to ANI myself and it boomeranged. One thing that I learned from that experience is that Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement, and that I am probably not going to be the one to fix it. Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed; my edits were in good faith and I was really just attempting to talk it out with the other editors who did not agree with me. But I understand that the norm in this space is to walk away if there isn't any uptake of my ideas or take it to dispute resolution instead of continuing to try to convince people. The current ban is for making a comment on an AE thread, not a Covid-19 article. I was on the page for a totally unrelated reason and noticed that a user I recognized from the Covid thread was being discussed. My comment was mostly about user behavior and reflecting on the underlying dispute itself, not Covid-19. Also, on my user page I quoted Larry Sanger discussing his view on Misplaced Pages's approach to Covid-19 , which I'd assumed was permitted because it's my own user page and it's really a comment about the state of Misplaced Pages as a whole. The admin who blocked me, @Tamzin, blanked it from my user page. If the community won't let me keep that quote on my user page, then fine, we'll leave it removed, but I wish they would have just asked me to remove it and described why instead of editing my user page. A block for this stuff seems harsh. Thanks.
References
Statement from Tamzin
Excerpting my comment on their talkpage:-- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)Usually we only warn someone on their first topic ban violation. However, in your case, the fact that both violations occurred within hours of the ban being imposed, and that they were belligerent rants treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground, made me judge that a short block would more clearly communicate just how far you are from what is considered acceptable conduct. Even if you didn't understand that the ban applied outside articles, you should have understood that the community found your editing about COVID disruptive, which should have been reason enough to not make those edits.
Discussion among uninvolved editors
- This is clearly a topic ban violation - and it came less than a day after it was imposed. Even if assuming in good faith that they didn't know it was a topic ban violation, their unblock request shows not only that they don't understand what they did wrong, but they attempt to justify it with statements such as
Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed
which is borderline a personal attack (veiled insult that others weren't being grownups);which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement
which is confirming they still don't understand why they were topic banned nor why they were blocked for violating it; and quoting Larry Sanger's fringe theory promoting comments on their userpage after their topic ban. To summarize, I have no confidence that the user understands what they did wrong, and I would go so far as to say the user attempting to skirt the edges of their topic ban and supporting another user trying to promote fringe theories on Misplaced Pages merits an indefinite community ban. TLDR: Oppose unblock and ultimately would support indefinite ban due to the flagrant violation, lack of understanding, and no belief that after the 7 days is up they will not go straight back to trying to right what they percieve as a great wrong. I won't be the one to propose that, however. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC) - I don't see how an unblock is possible when Lardlegwarmers clearly still doesn't understand what a broadly construed topic ban means. To be clear, there's no need to ask the "community" whether you can keep your topic ban violation. The only hope for you to be able to obey it is if you are able to decide yourself, especially after you've been told by an admin. While we do try to educate instead of just blocking, the "community" isn't here to help you understand the limits of your topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Should clarify that despite what I said above, I'd weakly oppose extending the topic
banblock to indefinite at this time. While I'm not hopeful Lardlegwarmers is going to be able to obey it given what they've said, I think it's fine to give them rope after thebanblock expires and apply normal escalating blocks. Since we're already here, perhaps this will somehow help them understand that yes the community requires you to apply it broadly on anything to do with COVID-19 throughout Misplaced Pages. They should consider this very short rope though and notably the next time they feel they need to ask the community whether they're violating their topic ban when they are, it might be the last time. Nil Einne (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- Sorry mixed up ban and block above twice, now fixed. Nil Einne (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Should clarify that despite what I said above, I'd weakly oppose extending the topic
- Oppose unblock as the user looks to have no intention of following Misplaced Pages guidelines with their request. It is only a week and will give a change to think about how to change. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock. It truly takes some chutzpah to cite a Signpost piece authored by the admin who blocked you to support the proposition that you're being railroaded. Weak support for an indef because that's what Lardlegwarmers seems to be speedrunning. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock. The topic ban was on the topic of COVID-19, broadly construed, not the topic of COVID-19 directly in articlespace. And the topic ban was violated, not just within less than a day, but within three hours of it being imposed. On top of that the unblock request could be a case study for WP:NOTTHEM. I won't call for an indef yet, but when the block expires Lardlegwarmers should bear in mind that any further violations of the topic ban will be their last. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- No unblock - Basically per Lardlegwarmers: they don't appear to understand why they've been blocked. An indefinite block seems very likely in this editor's future and we certainly should consider cutting out the middle-man and just skipping to it, but I'd like to give them at least some chance here to understand why they were blocked. FOARP (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock - While I usually support giving editors WP:ROPE to demonstrate improvement, this case warrants a longer wait. The user acknowledges pushing a minority POV and failing to disengage per WP:DISPUTE norms, but their justification suggests a lack of understanding or acceptance of policies like WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NOTHERE. Their off-topic comment in an AE thread, despite knowing the sensitivity of such spaces, and the policy-violating content on their user page, further reflect ongoing disruption. I recommend they take time to reflect and gain a better grasp of Misplaced Pages's collaborative culture before requesting an unblock again. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 11:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock. I agree that absent change from this user an indefinite block is likely. For their benefit, if you're the subject of a topic ban, broadly construed, about COVID-19, you need to be editing in an entirely different topic area. Think of something that you're interested in--television shows, football, English gardens, science fiction books? Take a week and think on it. Mackensen (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock. What is there left to say? This conduct feels like appellant's purpose is use Misplaced Pages as a battleground and to soapbox their views rather than to build the encyclopedia-- to remake Misplaced Pages as they think it should be. My feeling is that a week won't be nearly enough. The railroad comment is appallingly full of not understanding that their conduct is not acceptable in a collaborative project. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- PS: What Tamzin said in her statement above. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whilst I don't believe user will be able to change their approach, I feel an indef would be premature for now. We should give them a chance to mend their ways. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- PS: What Tamzin said in her statement above. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- An account that exists only to push a particular POV across several articles is topic banned, violates that topic ban immediately, and posts a battlegroundy unblock request that thoroughly misses the point. Whoever closes this should be considering indef, not an unblock. — Rhododendrites \\ 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock this specific response
Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement
is indicative of their viewpoints and why they're not ready to contribute. They continue,my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed
. These demonstrate that they still do not get it, and rather project their self-perspective is that they are actually a victim of people who are abusing the rules against them. . I proffer that this is going to be a consistent problem until they acknowledge that they were violating policy. Zero indication that they know how to positively contribute, just perhaps a vague inference that they'll avoid getting in trouble -- because -- we'll I'm not entirely sure they've communicated what they will do differently, but rather simply say thata block for this stuff seems harsh.
TiggerJay (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- Notwithstanding the harsh situation I presented above, to be clear I oppose indef for now. A new user should have the opportunity to overcome early (while significant) setbacks, which is what TBANs are designed to encourage. I am encouraged by things like YFNS corrective behavior in a prior AN discussion, and can only be hopeful and AGF that might apply to LLW here. We need more passionate, subject matter experts, as contributors to this project, but they absolutely must contribute positively and following established PGs. TiggerJay (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock and support an indef. I am pretty confident in saying that this is where we will be heading after this block ends. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock, clear violations of the topic ban. Don't oppose indef, but I'd like to at least give him the chance to figure out exactly what we expect going forward. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support block, oppose unblock, oppose indef - this is a topic-banned newbie's first violation, in the heat of the moment after the restriction was imposed. Tamzin's block was the appropriate response. The unblock request is wholly inadequate, but jumping straight to indef for this sort of violation is a pretty extreme overreach. If they go back to violating their sanction after this block expires, then let's talk community ban, but they should be given the opportunity to edit constructively while respecting the restriction. Ivanvector (/Edits) 16:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock, oppose indef...however... I am sympathetic to their point of view and their general "right" (we don't really have rights here on WP) to post their opinion on a subject, even one as contentious as COVID-19. I think the blanking of the user page is a step too far. We shouldn't be in the business of deleting negative opinions about Misplaced Pages; while the statement was in reference to COVID-19, it doesn't mention it within the claim and is more a critique of Misplaced Pages at large and mass media than its relation to COVID. I would let the statement on their user page stand/restore it. Larry Sanger's statement is not a fringe theory, it is a reasonable opinion. There were loads of statements/claims about COVID/its origin/mandates/treatment/vaccines that, despite their widespread implementations and presentation as "the science", later turned out to be misleading or untested conjecture (examples: no studies on masking effectiveness with a large population vs the coronavirus, 6 foot spacing, lying to the American public about wearing masks because health care professionals needed them more, lab leak theory, military connections to the Wuhan Institute, US funding of WI, etc). HOWEVER, civil discourse is essential. That means that discussions about COVID were fraught with battlegrounds and bludgeoning. As such, we have additional restrictions for COVID discussions and other contentious topics and LLW needs to follow them. LLW did not do so and has shown a consistent flaunting of these restrictions and a weeklong block is a reasonable start. In summary, the quote isn't unreasonable to leave on their user page (give them that latitude), but a weeklong block for the other behavior should stand. Buffs (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- They added two comments to their userpage. Both were critical of Misplaced Pages. One was also critical of Anthony Fauci and other aspects of the US government's COVID response. I removed the latter. It doesn't matter whether Sanger's opinion is fringe or not; what matters is that he was talking about COVID. I would be quite the hypocrite to remove something from someone's userpage just for criticizing Misplaced Pages, as I have a fair bit of that on my own userpage. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's some pretty big overlap there in criticism of Fauci and how it is handled on Misplaced Pages. Again, I don't feel THAT is a significant violation of COVID editing restrictions (beyond the fact that they did it despite such an editing restriction). Anyone can completely skip over it if they wish. @Tamzin: playing devil's advocate for a moment, what if I published the same thing on my user page? Would it be ok? Would it be ok if I posted it on LLW's user page (as long as LLW was ok with it, of course)? I realize we're getting in the weeds of a "what-if..." but if so, what's the substantive difference between me putting it on a user page and LLW doing the same? Buffs (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you posted it to your userpage, it would be fine (although not that constructive), because you are not topic-banned from COVID. If you posted it to their userpage, that would be WP:PROXYING for a banned editor, since I'd struggle to believe you have an independent reason to think that particular quote belongs on that particular page. If you really want to fight the removal from the userpage, feel free to create a subsection here, but I stand by the removal. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not fighting the removal per se. Just wondering where the boundaries are and if it's wise to have such a boundary. Buffs (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The boundary is WP:TBAN. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 19:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not fighting the removal per se. Just wondering where the boundaries are and if it's wise to have such a boundary. Buffs (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Buffs: In the realm of hypothetical I would presume that if that quote had been on LLW user page for a long time, in a sea of content, pre-existing AN, then it might even still be up today. However, on the other hand, to post that after the TBAN was imposed is nothing other than what can be seen as abject defiance to the ban. But beyond that, it simply violates plain language of the ban, as it applies to
all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic
, so I proffer that Tamzin is clearly in the right here. To your charged statement about if you were to post the same thing to your user page, prior to your statement here and presuming you were not under a TBAN, it would not be questioned one iota. However, as a response to this discussion, it could be construed (but not technically violating) the principles of WP:PROXYING and I would caution against it. Moreover, you reinstating it on LLW talk page would be a far closer in the proximity of violating PROXYING. TiggerJay (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- The fact that the comment only came after the topic ban is key here. I'm fairly sure I've seen several cases where there's something on an editor's user page which is covered by a topic ban but which no one has said or done anything about because it was there from before the topic ban. In fact I'm fairly sure I even remember a case where someone asked specifically if they could modify or remove something on their user page which related to their talk page which was technically under the topic ban (probably gensex). I think this was allowed especially since it related to their personal life rather than some comment on something, although they were told just this once is best. There might have even been a case where an editor wanted to do some more editing or formatting of something under their topic ban and was either denied or told only this once. IIRC, there was also an editor who was happy to be able to finally change someone on their userpage covered by their topic ban once it was lifted. A topic ban is a topic ban. I'd note that if someone makes an extremely constructive edit to an article that is not covered by WP:BANEX we still treat this as a topic ban violation, although it's something much more beneficial for the project than an editor being able to repost random ramblings about Misplaced Pages they want to share. Nil Einne (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you posted it to your userpage, it would be fine (although not that constructive), because you are not topic-banned from COVID. If you posted it to their userpage, that would be WP:PROXYING for a banned editor, since I'd struggle to believe you have an independent reason to think that particular quote belongs on that particular page. If you really want to fight the removal from the userpage, feel free to create a subsection here, but I stand by the removal. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's some pretty big overlap there in criticism of Fauci and how it is handled on Misplaced Pages. Again, I don't feel THAT is a significant violation of COVID editing restrictions (beyond the fact that they did it despite such an editing restriction). Anyone can completely skip over it if they wish. @Tamzin: playing devil's advocate for a moment, what if I published the same thing on my user page? Would it be ok? Would it be ok if I posted it on LLW's user page (as long as LLW was ok with it, of course)? I realize we're getting in the weeds of a "what-if..." but if so, what's the substantive difference between me putting it on a user page and LLW doing the same? Buffs (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- They added two comments to their userpage. Both were critical of Misplaced Pages. One was also critical of Anthony Fauci and other aspects of the US government's COVID response. I removed the latter. It doesn't matter whether Sanger's opinion is fringe or not; what matters is that he was talking about COVID. I would be quite the hypocrite to remove something from someone's userpage just for criticizing Misplaced Pages, as I have a fair bit of that on my own userpage. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock, oppose indef - The topic ban violation was clear cut. Let's hope Lardlegwarmers will read a bit about how to avoid topic ban violations, or else indef block is not too far for them. Lorstaking (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock, extend block indefinitely - Lardle should try to demonstrate good behavior on another wiki for six months before asking for a SO. Let's hope that this user should handle contentious topics carefully in the future. Ahri Boy (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock but no reason to indef, a block has already been imposed. If the user continues to violate the TBAN, than a longer block might be warranted. JayCubby 02:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Comments from involved editors
- Going to open a new subsection here since I've made comments to Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory two weeks ago. I wish I could say I was surprised that this ended in tears but that would be untrue (though I did have some hopes the comment a month ago indicating they were aware pro-fringe POV-pushing was sactionable was a signal they were intending to modify their behaviour). As bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez points out, making thinly veiled attacks is not exactly the type of thing looked favourably upon in an unblock request. Nor is making polemical statements on one's user page, whether within the scope of the ban or not, likely to convince the community of one's inclination and ability to be a productive editor. Lardlegwarmers, if you do really want to return to editing, especially if you want to appeal your topic ban in 6 months or a year, I would strongly advise reading Misplaced Pages:Guide to appealing blocks and following the advice there, especially WP:NOTTHEM. Complaining about Hob's conduct won't help you here, because the block (and it's a rather short one) and ban are about you, not Hob. Given your comment that
apparently two wrongs make a right
, I had hoped that you were already also considering your own behaviour, but I would like to make it very clear: taking the role of one of the "wrongs" to address someone else's "borderline uncivil" behaviour is not itself considered acceptable behaviour. Whether Hob crosses the line is on them, but what you do is entirely on you. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC) - As I was involved in the discussion to topic ban LLW I think I count as an involved editor. With that said I would discourage an early lifting of this block, which seems appropriate considering that LLW's response to the topic ban was to immediately violate the topic ban. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, perhaps LLW wasn't aware of this, but people who aren't uninvolved administrators aren't generally supposed to put comments into the "results" section of an AE filing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was there.. Three thousand ye-- No. More like one, two days ago. I seriously believe Lard Leg Warmers is one of two situations: 1: WP:CIR and unable to understand the concepts of medical science as if they were a Facebook mother invested in "essential oils" and "holistic medicine" rather than trusting medical and scientific experts; 2: WP:NOTHERE and simply f
**king with us for no good reason and leading us around, and around, and around, and around, and around the bend because they get a rise out of it. Either way, my advice: don't get led around the bend, advise indef block for either WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE. BarntToust 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- BarntToust, those kinds of personal assumptions about their character are unnecessary to this discussion. Instead of speculation on who they are elsewhere, let's just focus on their behavior on Misplaced Pages. Liz 06:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lardlegwarmers' statement clearly shows that they have learned little from the sanction. They should demonstrate such before there is any lifting. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Usage of 'Notable people' vis-a-vis 'Notable person' in section headers
This is not an administrative issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the course of editing numerous articles, I have come across the header featuring 'notable people' when there is only one person and have therefore modified the grammar.
I recently had another editor come behind me and revert one such edit on the grounds that things have always been done this way, regardless of the number of notables for a given locale, which makes little sense to me. Is this really policy? Hushpuckena (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems like a question for WP:MOS, not WP:AN as it doesn't involve administrator actions. AN isn't a general Help forum for questions about editing. You could even try asking at the Teahouse or the Help Desk. Liz 19:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Reporting Administrator Abuse
I'm going to do the OP a favor and close this with no action against them. Essentially, the OP's misbehavior was pointed out by Acalamari and the OP is trying to present it as Acalamri's misbehavior. If another administrator thinks sanctions against the OP are warranted, that's up to them.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Acalamari is abusing his moderator powers in order to post unconstructive comments on talk pages, specifically when we were talking about if we should delete the US 2028 election or not, he said "that Drumpf supporters want there to be no more elections so they can remain in power forever doesn't mean we adhere to their delusions by deleting articles here". This is clearly unconstructive, and treating the talk page as a forum. I didn't know he was a moderator when I was removing his comment, and now he left all of these messages on my page and is saying I'm the real vandal here. TopVat19sEver (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- So there's two things here.
- First, TopVat19sEver, you removed other users comments from a talk page (not allowed). A user voicing their opinion is not vandalism, not in the slightest. If you have a problem with what another user has said on the talkpage, rather than removing their comment (which is only allowed in very specific situations), you should bring it for discussion at an appropriate noticeboard, or preferably ask them to change their own comment.
- Second, Acalamari, could you please refrain from calling people "Drumpf supporters" and casting aspersions on the reasons for nominating an article for deletion? While you're entitled to your opinions, that's borderline (at best) incivility, especially when you call them "delusional".
- If both users agree to accept what they did wrong here and move forward, I don't think any further action is necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm newer to Misplaced Pages, I understand what you are saying, my train of thought was, "this comment looks like vandalism, vandalism on Misplaced Pages is removed, therefore remove". I didn't know that they don't do that for talk pages. Thank you my friend. TopVat19sEver (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Vandalism has a very specific definition on Misplaced Pages - see this page for more information on what is not vandalism. Merely calling people names and/or being uncivil, while against the rules, is not vandalism. There are proper processes for handling other rule violations (such as asking someone to edit their own comments, or asking a noticeboard for help) such as those, but they are decidedly not vandalism. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok thank you for telling me TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Vandalism has a very specific definition on Misplaced Pages - see this page for more information on what is not vandalism. Merely calling people names and/or being uncivil, while against the rules, is not vandalism. There are proper processes for handling other rule violations (such as asking someone to edit their own comments, or asking a noticeboard for help) such as those, but they are decidedly not vandalism. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm newer to Misplaced Pages, I understand what you are saying, my train of thought was, "this comment looks like vandalism, vandalism on Misplaced Pages is removed, therefore remove". I didn't know that they don't do that for talk pages. Thank you my friend. TopVat19sEver (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Where are the diffs? M.Bitton (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is a baseless complaint. Ater not editing for months, the OP refactored an AfD that was closed last November. Acalamari rightly warned them for doing that.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, but at the same time, I think TV19E has a right to be unhappy that Acalamari, an administrator and bureaucrat, was able to cast aspersions and call people names without it being called out at the time as far as I can see. They went about it the wrong way (removing the comment), but that doesn't mean there isn't room for discussion of that comment. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nope. First, it doesn't rise to the level required of this noticeboard, and, second, it's not at all timely.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be blunt, Acalamari didn't even tell the editor when they initially reverted back in November (while the discussion was open) where they could discuss further/report if they felt the comment was not appropriate. I'm not suggesting sanctions against Acalamari at all. But to tell a new editor "someone broke the rules and since you didn't report it in the proper way at the time because nobody told you how, they're allowed to break the rules" is clear biting the newbies. I think all that's necessary is an apology from Acalamari - TV19E has already explained that they were mistaken as to it being vanadalism. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nope. First, it doesn't rise to the level required of this noticeboard, and, second, it's not at all timely.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't edit for a few months because I have to do other things. I was just scrolling around I don't even remember what I was doing and I saw he put it back, I didn't know he was a mod, and it also said you can't edit archived talk pages, which he did, so I reverted his edit. TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not true. You modified a closed AfD. Acalamari rightly reverted your edit of an archived discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just said, he is the one who modified a closed AfD, which is not allowed, then I reverted it not knowing he is a moderator TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- He didn't modify a closed AfD. His comment was readded while the discussion was still open, because you removed it in violation of the very few circumstances where you are allowed to remove another editor's comment. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh okay this is my mistake then I thought it was after the AfD was closed my bad TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wait hold on, I just looked at it again. He added back his comment after the result was SNOW. On the page when he re added it, it said do not edit the page. TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- You removed Acalamari's comment as vandalism with the edit summary "subhanAllah". You had no right to do that. Acalamari restored it, which even though the AfD was closed, they had the right to do in the circumstances.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/2028_United_States_presidential_election_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1257014612 Take a look, this is his edit. When he re added his comment, on the page in red it said Do not edit the page TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The comment never should've been removed in the first place. It's within the spirit of the rules to readd a comment that you improperly removed, even if the discussion had been closed in the meantime. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- He didn't modify a closed AfD. His comment was readded while the discussion was still open, because you removed it in violation of the very few circumstances where you are allowed to remove another editor's comment. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just said, he is the one who modified a closed AfD, which is not allowed, then I reverted it not knowing he is a moderator TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not true. You modified a closed AfD. Acalamari rightly reverted your edit of an archived discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, but at the same time, I think TV19E has a right to be unhappy that Acalamari, an administrator and bureaucrat, was able to cast aspersions and call people names without it being called out at the time as far as I can see. They went about it the wrong way (removing the comment), but that doesn't mean there isn't room for discussion of that comment. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) There's no admin abuse here as no admin tools have been used. In case you missed "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below" with the bright red "Please do not modify it" at that AfD, I'll repeat the instructions here - don't modify archived discussions.-- Ponyo 22:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was saying Admin abuse because of the fact that he is able to keep his comment on the page when even if he is violating the rules. I'm not a moderator so I can't do anything about. Now I just learned from that guy that they don't remove comments even if its vandalism, now I know. But thats why I reported it here you know. TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- He is the one who edited the closed AfD. This was one of the reason why I reverted his edit. TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's very hard to work out what's happening without the presence of diffs. M.Bitton (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
without the presence of diffs
. But Ponyo and I have contributed, so you're in the presence of greatness; isn't that better than diffs? :p --Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- Tiggerjay is bowing down in great humility before such greatness never before seen in this universe. Now.... where is the trout? TiggerJay (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Who am I to disagree with the Jedi? M.Bitton (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, I've looked into this. And...surprise surprise, TopVat19sEver was the one who origially removed Aclamari's !vote while the AfD was still open . Yes, about a day after the AfD was closed, Aclamari reverted this removal , which is technically "editing a closed AfD" but I would say they were entirely within their rights to revert a bad removal. And now, suddenly, today, two months later, as their first edit after having done that improper removal, TopVat19sEver goes back to the AfD and removes Aclamari's !vote again , which Aclamari - entirely rightfully - reverted , and then TopVat19sEver comes here to cry "admin abuse", when no administrative abilities were used at all in this whole mess. Could Aclamari have used more moderate language in their initial !vote? Yeah maybe, but it was no violation at all, and the only thing needed here is a WP:BOOMERANG or at least a {{trout}} for TopVat19sEver. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Ban appeal from Rathfelder
- Rathfelder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Community banned in November 2022 for sockpuppetry, vote-stacking and undisclosed COI writing of a BLP attack page
- Appeal in January 2023 declined by the community
- Second appeal in October 2023 not submitted for review by the community for not complying with WP:GAB
Rathfelder has submitted the following ban appeal on their talk page and asked me to copy it here:
I realise that what I did was wrong - more wrong than I thought it was at the time. The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur. I accept that I was wrong to create sockpuppets and I apologise. I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that. I did that really because I was trying to defend the work I had done for the Socialist Health Association for the previous 20 years. I did a lot of edits on that page, but they were, until the last few, about the history of the organisation, mostly adding to its list of distinguished members - largely before I was involved with it, and mostly before I was born. They were not at all controversial. I was unfairly sacked and my opponents started using Misplaced Pages against me. The row got into the media. I accept that I should not have done that. I should have resisted the temptation to use Misplaced Pages in the dispute.
I have spent 2 years working on Simple English and Wikimedia. I have not set up any sockpuppets or edited anything where I had conflicts. I plan to continue with Wikimedia, as there is plenty there to keep me busy, but I would like to be able, in particular, to add pictures to articles - now I have found my way round the enormous Wikimedia resource. I also sometimes come across articles in English wikipedia which need amendment.
Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Conditional support - If there's been no socking during the ban. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 wikivoicewith 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Support; willing to allow this editor another chance, hoping they'll understand that the community's tolerance is pretty much gone for any future problems. Rathfelder, if this is successful, when you're finding articles in English wikipedia which need amendment, I'd advise making it your default setting to open a talk section before making edits if there's any possibility the edit could be objectionable to anyone. Valereee (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. The arguments to maintain the ban seem to be mostly "He did some really bad stuff". I agree that he did. Personal attacks are bad. Socking is bad. Using wikipedia to prosecute real-life battles is bad. But I'm concerned about statements such as Hemiauchenia's "insufficient contrition and reflection" (although they are certainly entitled to express that opinion). We're not looking for self-flagilation here, nor are we looking for great works of literature as apologies. Our criteria for re-entry into the community isn't "Has never done anything really bad". It's "Understands what they did that was bad and has given credible assurances that it won't happen again", and I think we have those. Robert McClenon says "Sometimes it takes a long time to regain trust". Which is true, but this has been a bit over two years. That's a long time in my book. And it's not like they've gone away for two years and come back out of the blue; they've been contributing productively on other projects, so we have tangible evidence that they're capable of producing good work. RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- People implicitly understand that Jytdog will probably never be unbanned from Misplaced Pages because his act of phoning up a fellow user he was in conflict with was a severe and inexcusable breach of decorum. I think that Rathfelder's breach was on par with that of Jytdogs. People using their position on Misplaced Pages to write attack pages of living people is a huge violation of Misplaced Pages's standards. It's not just some minor misconduct like youthful vandalism or minor socking where someone can just brush it off as "whoopsie, my bad" and be relatively easily unblocked. Stuff like this brings the whole encyclopedia into disrepute. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:45, 19 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)
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:
- File:AL-Cattlemen-2022-approved-passenger-768x376.jpg
- File:AL-Ducks-Unlimited-2022-768x370.jpg
- File:AmateurRadAZ.jpg
- File:AppalachianTN.jpg
- File:Acplate.jpg
Further comment: The above TN file - File:AppalachianTN.jpg - is covered by the TN.GOV "linking policy" and can be found here. So this Misplaced Pages image file is still not licensed appropriately, although I have no idea what the correct Misplaced Pages licensing would be.
I will notify the editor who downloaded these files that I have opened a discussion here. Well, now that I have taken it this far, the editor in question is: Brian.S.W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). However, the above image files might be too stale to be considered for any action. I leave that up to the Admins. If you look on their talk page, they have previously been blocked for copyright violations. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
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 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 meta:Help:Two-factor_authentication#Recovering_from_a_lost_or_broken_authentication_device for details. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bhairava7 / Aarav200, please contact ca
- 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)
- 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)
Done 
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)
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)
|
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)
- 20 more edits after the AN notice. Northern Moonlight 18:28, 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)
- Support. Per proposal. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Don't waste the community's time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: It might be a good idea to block the known sockpuppets of Marginataen that are not already blocked: Tamborg, Bubfernr, and LatteDK. There may be others that I have missed. HappyBeachDreams (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support.
I'm not sure how to deal with this. I guess Marginataen is honestly trying to contribute and collaborate, but...Case in point regarding "I didn't hear that": Remsense recently asked Marginataen to stop mass-tagging articles. Three hours later, Marginataen responded: "Yes, I'll stop mass adding templates". And yet another hour later, Marginataen added these templates to two more articles. It seems that Marginataen didn't understand what Remsense said. P.S.: ...and Marginataen keeps going. Hopeless. Block. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)