Revision as of 19:14, 3 December 2015 view sourceThewolfchild (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers51,928 edits →Block of Thewolfchild← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:34, 19 January 2025 view source JJPMaster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Rollbackers11,136 edits →User:TWC DC1: Closing discussion (DiscussionCloser v.1.7.3-8) | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
<!-- Adds protection template automatically if page is semi-protected, inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. --><noinclude>{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp|small=yes}}}}{{Pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}} __NEWSECTIONLINK__{{Template:Active editnotice}} | |||
|algo = old(7d) | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |
|counter = 368 | ||
| |
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d | ||
| |
|maxarchivesize = 700K | ||
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |||
| maxarchivesize = 700K | |||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |||
|minthreadsleft = 0 | |||
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
}}{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude><!--S | |||
| minthreadsleft = 3 | |||
}} | |||
<!-- | |||
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | ||
|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | ||
Line 19: | 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> | |||
--><noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure}}</noinclude> | |||
==Open tasks== | |||
<noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}} | |||
{{Administrators' noticeboard archives}} | |||
{{Clear}} | |||
{{Admin tasks}} | |||
__TOC__ | |||
</noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove--> | |||
== Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request == | |||
== Community discussion regarding disruptive edits to Heathenry-themed articles == | |||
{{archive top|status=no consensus|result=This has been open for more than a month, much longer than most ban appeals, and it is basically deadlocked, both in numbers and valid arguments. This is therefore closed as not having consensus, which defaults to the block remaining in place. ] ] 21:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}: | |||
{{tqb|I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: ] and ] (note that the two other accounts –- ] and ] -- at ] was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me. | |||
Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (], ], ]) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at ]). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see ]). I have created over 900 pages (see ]), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance ], ], ], ] or the event ] that is barely mentioned at the English ]. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see ] and ]. | |||
I propose a community-discussion with regards to implementing a topic ban on User:Thor Lives that would prohibit them from contributing to articles broadly related to Paganism, and more specifically to the Pagan religion of ]. This is to deal with the fact that they are responsible for ] on topics of this nature, perhaps motivated by ] (a typically right-wing, ethnic-oriented form of Heathenry). More specifically they have a) carried out a range of disruptive edits to the Heathenry article entailing damage to the article and attacks on other editors, b) usurped the GA process to further their aims, and c) created a coat rack article. | |||
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 ].}} | |||
During August and September they were particularly active on the Heathenry page, where they engaged in repeated ], acted against two consensus decisions (by both renaming the article to their chosen title and adding disputed material ), deleted text that was sourced to (academic) reliable-references because they didn't like what it had to say , and repeatedly added citations to non-reliable references in order to push possibly fringe views, meanwhile erroneously insisting that primary sources should be used . On the talk page and elsewhere they engaged in ] , made false allegations of sock puppetry , actively misrepresented the actions and arguments of their critics | |||
] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
and engaged in ] . Throughout, I was forced to resort to RfCs and temporary blocks on editing the article to prevent the disruptive behaviour. | |||
:'''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 == | |||
After their disruptive editing on the Heathenry page was thwarted by myself and other editors, Thor Lives focused his attentions on the ] page, which, , has basically been formed into a ] in which Thor Lives has repeated many of the problems that were raised over at Heathenry (adding non-reliable references, pursuing an 'insider' Odinist agenda etc). | |||
{{archive top|result=I have indefinitely blocked Uwappa per ]. Whilst the legal threat pointed out by multiple editors may be very vague, it certainly is designed to have a chilling effect, and Uwappa has confirmed this with addition to the section. Quite apart from that, we have persistent edit-warring, meritless claims of vandalism against others, and there is a limit to which an editor who thinks all of this is a big joke can be allowed to waste everybody else's time. They can explain themselves in an unblock request if they so desire. ] 22:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
repost from archive: | |||
The content disagreement behind this report is trivial in the overall scope of Misplaced Pages (although the articles affected are subject to ]), but the editor behaviour is not. My reason to bring this case to ANI is that ] rejects some basic principles of the project: ] means that a bold edit may be reverted to the '']'' and goes on to say {{tq|don't restore your bold edit, don't ] to this part of the page, don't engage in ], and don't start any of the larger ] processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.}} Despite having been reminded about BRD after their first immediate counter-revert, they responded to the reversion to the ''sqa'' with another counter-revert and, after another editor reinstated the ''sqa'', counter-reverted again. At no stage did they attempt to engage in BRD discussion. Both I and the other editor attempted to engage with them at their talk page: Uwappa characterises my explanation as a personal attack. On another page, Uwappa reverted an edit where I suppressed the questioned <s>material</s> template, declaring it "vandalism" in the edit summary. I recognise the rubric at BRD that says {{tq|BRD is optional, but complying with ''']''' and ''']''' is mandatory}} but Uwappa has done neither. | |||
Most recently, when earlier this week, Thor Lives nominated himself as reviewer (despite having never reviewed a GAN before) and from his comments it was apparent that he simply wanted to use this process as a platform to try and force his (previously rejected) ideas onto the article. Pointing this out to him, I terminated the GAN and re-nominated it. However, he again presented himself as a reviewer, at which I had to terminate yet again, and re-nominate for a third time. This pattern of disruptive editing has been going on for at least four months now, and is having a real detrimental effect on these Paganism-themed articles and a draining impact on the constructive editors working to improve them. Accordingly, I think that we need to have a community discussion about how to deal with this problem, with my suggestion being that a topic ban might be needed. ] (]) 13:39, 11 November 2015 (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 ]. | |||
===Initial discussion=== | |||
:Two comments, and I'll ignore everything else. (1) All GA reviewers have to start somewhere, but GA reviewers must be "unaffiliated" with the article; if you've previously been active in the article and/or its talk page, you have no business reviewing it for GA. If you keep it up, you need to be sanctioned. (2) The two outing diffs aren't outing; he's saying basically "From your editing, it looks like you're this guy". If he were outing you, he would say "Hello, name", not "Hello, name (or one of his acolytes)". Looking at a user's contributions and guessing thereby at the identity of its owner isn't fundamentally different from identifying sockpuppets by behavioral evidence (both are ]), although of course it can be done in a harassing manner. No comment on whether it's non-outing harassment. ] (]) 14:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::I can't see anything about outing? Am I missing something? Otherwise I think it is time for a sanction, three attempts to usurp the GA process following a history of edit warring should be enough. The coat rack article really needs to be nominated for deletion. ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 14:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Are you saying that you see no evidence of outing in Midnightblueowl's links, or you're confused about my comments? If the former, I agree. If the latter, look for the word "serious" (it only appears once in this section, as of now) and follow the diffs immediately after it. ] (]) 14:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::ThorLives' opened a conversation with me starting with "Hello, Mark Ludwig Stinson (or one of his acolytes)", and continued with "you seem to be Mr. Stinson or one of his followers". That seems like a clear attempt to establish my 'real world' identity (correctly or not, it doesn't matter) and thus a breach of our anti-Outing policy. As says, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment... Personal information includes legal name... Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts". ThorLives tried to identify my 'real life' identity and make it public here on Misplaced Pages. That seems like a contravention of the Outing policy to me, but I appreciate that other editors here might disagree with me on that. Either way, it is merely one component of a much wider campaign of disruptive editing, the evidence for which is abundant. ] (]) 15:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::I concur that it's a clear example of attempted outing. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 15:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::(ec). I stand to be corrected if it was more than just a wild accusation. Thor seems to throw out accusations based on assumptions about people who oppose his view. I didn't take that too seriously. So no evidence of outing (the former Nyttend). The overall point is that we have a very disruptive editor here - there is the need for some sanction of restriction ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 15:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::: With regard to our outing policy, I'm not sure that it really matters whether it was a wild accusation or a more concerted and deliberate attempt; either way, it was a contravention of the policy. The intent behind it is not of particular importance, imo. However, I certainly concur with your latter point, Snowded; the issue of outing is not the main issue here but merely one aspect of a wider problem which needs to be dealt with through sanctions. ] (]) 15:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Not sure where Thor got the idea that you're Stinson; your times-of-editing patterns are in line with your claim to be in western Europe, and they're quite bizarre for someone who . Acolyte isn't made impossible by geography, but it's a stretch unless you've declared such a thing. Either way, it's obviously not some private information; he's guessing from your editing patterns. Meanwhile, if I'd looked at the GA reviewing more carefully before commenting, I may well have blocked for that alone, although (by itself) intentionally messing up the GA process is no grounds for an informal topic ban (e.g. "Make more edits in this field and you'll be blocked") or an outright indefinite block; you'd have to have a discussion like this one. No support because I don't feel like investigating enough to support, but definitely no opposition. ] (]) 16:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::{{ping|Nyttend}} would you therefore perhaps support separate action to deal specifically with the GA disruption issue that is independent to the wider debate surrounding a topic ban to deal with the persistent disruptive editing problem? ] (]) 17:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::It depends. If your proposal passes, there's no need for separate action. However, sanctions are definitely needed somehow, so definitely supporting sanctions for the GA only, if the same thing isn't accomplished for other reasons. ] (]) 17:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::If I may, I shall divide this section into two then; one to deal specifically with the GAN issues, and one to deal with the possible topic ban. That way editors such as yourself can contribute to the former without having to commit themselves to the latter. ] (]) 17:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
'''Diffs:''' ''(all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 ) '' | |||
===GAN specific sanctions=== | |||
* : Uwappa replaces {{tl|Body roundness index}} with a substantially changed new version | |||
As per the discussion above involving ] and ], this section is being established to deal with the proposal that ThorLives face sanctions specifically for their actions over at the GANs for ]. It is not a place to debate the response to their wider pattern of disruptive editing, which will be dealt with separately in a different section below. Any editor may contribute to either section or both. ] (]) 17:41, 11 November 2015 (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." | |||
*Hesitant to do this, as it's a potential distraction from the potentially bigger issue. I was suggesting GA-related sanctions basically as a backup to the other: if sanctions are warranted for the heathenism issue, the GA-related issue will be trivial, while if they aren't, we can deal with the GA after that. Let's just stick with the side suggestions that Snowded and I have made, along with others' similar suggestions if they get made. ] (]) 17:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
* : JMF opens ] at template talk page (and leaves notifications at the talk pages of the articles that invoke the template). | |||
:*Okay, I am happy to put this discussion on ice for the time being. ] (]) 17:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
* : Uwappa responds minimally at template talk page. {{midsize|] ]}} | |||
* : Uwappa counter-reverts to their new version of the template, no edit summary. | |||
* JMF reverts the counter reversion with edit summary "see WP:BRD: when BRD is invoked, the status quo ante must persist until consensus is reached" | |||
* : Uwappa counter-reverts the template again, no edit summary. | |||
* : at ], JMF advises Uwappa of the BRD convention. | |||
* : {{u|Zefr}} contributes to BRD debate. | |||
* : At Uwappa's talk page, JMF notifies Uwappa of edit-warring using {{tl|uw-editwar}} with edit summary "I advise strongly that you self-revert immediately, otherwise I shall have no choice but to escalate." | |||
* At ], JMF comments out invocation of the template, with edit summary "use of template suspended pending dispute resolution . See talk page." | |||
** (a series of reverts and counter reverts follow, in which Uwappa alleges vandalism by JMF. Neither party breaks 3RR.) | |||
* At their talk page, Uwappa rejects the request to self-revert and invites escalation. Edit summary: "go for it". | |||
* ] reverts the counter-reversion of the template to re-establish ''sqa'' | |||
===Proposed topic ban=== | |||
*'''Support''' Topic Ban from Heathenry, religion and anything remotely related. ] (]) 15:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support as nominator''': My recommendation would be a topic ban on Heathenry, all forms of modern Paganism, and ancient/medieval Germanic society (three subjects closely interlinked with Odinism). ] (]) 15:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' check ], Odin has made suggestions that were upheld on the talk page, not all of them , to be sure, but some of his contributions were positive. Also, he seems to be having the same problem a lot of researchers have when they first come to Misplaced Pages, I'd hate to seem him T-Banned over it, rather, if he'll accept a mentor, he could learn and become a positive contributor.] 16:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:*With respect Kosh, I disagree. It was not claimed that ThorLives' edits were 100% negative, because they aren't: he is not ] and no doubt wants to "improve" the encyclopedia as he sees fit. However, the patterns of constant, recurring disruptive editing are very clear, and surely that cancels out any meager positive contribution that he has made? At what point does some small positive contribution redeem both the damage to the articles themselves and all the stress and annoyance caused to constructive editors who have to make repairs and put up with abusive remarks as they do so? (You note that he has "made suggestions that were upheld on the talk page" but from what I can see the ''only'' time this happened was when he recommended in passing that we add more information about ] into the article, which I myself endorsed. Everything else has been non-constructive at best, often disruptive, and sometimes abusive). ] (]) 17:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:*Moreover, I disagree with your presentation of him as a newcomer who just needs a bit more gentle guidance in how to use Misplaced Pages. He has been an active user since at least November 2011, which is more than enough time to learn the ropes and gain an understanding of policy. Further, if you read through that talk page, related user talk pages, and the page edit summaries, you will see that he has been made aware of how his actions contravene policy ''again and again and again'' (by myself and others). We keep linking him to the specific policies and explaining what he has done wrong and how to avoid it next time, but we're just being ignored; this can be seen for instance in his repeated attempts to incorporate primary sources by Odinist authors into both this article and related ones (namely his coatrack at ]), despite the fact that we have repeatedly explained ''how and why'' this is against our reliable sourcing policy. I could cite multiple other examples, but I don't want to bore you. He just doesn't appear to care about adhering to Misplaced Pages's policies, as is reflected in such statements as "." Frankly, I don't see how someone who has no interest in learning how Misplaced Pages operates and who is repeatedly disruptive is going to change their tune all of a sudden and become constructive and civil. ] (]) 17:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::*To be fair, it is okay to use primary sources in an article on the primary source if they are being used appropriately to reflect what it is the primary source believes. However from taking a quick look at the talk page Thor is not doing that. ] (]) 17:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' topic ban per nominator. ] (]) 20:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' as an infrequent contributor to the article, and a witness to ThorLives' repeated efforts to impose his personal views on the article. ] (]) 07:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' topic ban per nom and recommend mentorship. ] (]) 00:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' topic ban unless editor agrees to mentorship ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' topic ban. I've been musing over this for a couple of days, and the more I have looked at this, the more sure I have become that ThorLives is a problem editor. His claims to be an academic in this field are (I am around 90% sure) a lie, which strikes me as ] and a clumsy attempt to have others protect him and help him push his view. His battlefield mentality, disrespectful behaviour (insisting on calling MBO "he" despite her frequent polite requests to the contrary is, alone, problematic), wikilawyering (see the "outing" discussion below, for example), continual refusal ] and abuse of Misplaced Pages processes (edit warring, GA nominations) are typical of POV-pushers. He does not seem to be here to improve Misplaced Pages, which is regrettable, as he does have at least some knowledge of the subject matter to which he is contributing; with a clearer understanding of Misplaced Pages policies and, most importantly, a more respectful attitude towards other Wikipedians, he could have been in a position to make very valuable contributions to this area. ] (]) 09:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' a regrettable but necessary topic ban on the editor in question. I've looked into this and, after seeing a number of their edits to the page in question, I've seen enough. The editor in question is exhibiting all the typical characteristics of a POV editor pushing their own personal non-neutral, non-academic, and in this case, right-wing views. The fact that they are averse to the policies of Misplaced Pages is particularly disturbing. Their disruptive edits speak for themselves. On the other hand, I am familiar with the nominator ], whom I have worked with off an on here on Misplaced Pages over a period of many years (we have written a few Featured Articles together) and, after seeing a number of their edits to the page in question, am reassured of her usual high-quality ethics and expertise. ] (]) 14:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
* Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template. | |||
It has been four days since this debate opened (and two since anyone new cast a vote), and we now have eight votes in support of a topic ban and one in opposition. That seems pretty conclusive, and accordingly I think that we should administer a topic ban on ThorLives, preventing him from editing articles on Heathenry and broadly related topics (which would include articles on contemporary Paganism, related forms of religion, and Germanic society more widely). As I understand it, that would include banning him from changing redirects or posting on talk pages, GANs, peer reviews, and FACs related to those subjects (particularly as ThorLives has used GANs and talk pages as a place to edit disruptively). However, is it premature to bring this to an end and enforce the sanction after so few days? If not, it there an administrator who might bring this about (or can any editor do it)? ] (]) 19:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
* Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also ] for escalation in progress.". | |||
:You could request a closure ], perhaps. ] (]) 17:54, 16 November 2015 (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's a good idea. I have just done so. ] (]) 21:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
* At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing. | |||
* At their talk page, Uwappa alleges ] violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit. | |||
--- | |||
*'''Oppose/Alternate restriction''' The editor has made some useful contributions. I suggest they be page-banned from ] but not its talk page, and topic banned from the subject of Midnightblueowl. ] (]) 20:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
* At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI. | |||
**With respect ], what are those useful contributions? The only example that I can see is a single comment recommending that we could expand our coverage of Heathen beliefs about Ragnarok in the article. And even if you believe that there are a few more, how do these outweigh the constant disruptiveness? Does 5% constructive behaviour counterbalance 95% disruptive behaviour? Further, I don't see how a page ban would help at all; the editor has shown that they are also disruptively editing on other related articles (such as their coatrack at Odinism) as well as on related Talk Pages and GANs. A page ban that purely protects one particular article would offer little benefit and would not deal with the fundamental problem at all. It would be like trying to deal with a freshly severed limb by applying a band aid. A topic ban is completely necessary. ] (]) 22:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
* Uwappa replies to refuse de-escalation. | |||
As of 11:48 (UTC) on 30/12, the live version of the template is the one that has consensus support. --] (]) 11:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' The Heathenry article is quite good. The Odinist coatrack borders on being unreadable. The Heathenry talk page also displays an editor that simply doesn't get RS or consensus and seems unwilling to learn it. One also has to question the claimed expertise of a supposed academic that is unaware that Germanic refers to historic peoples who shared Germanic languages and a certain commonality in culture as opposed to modern day Germany. ] (]) 05:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Well, Uwappa hasn't edited on the project in 12 hours so it's pretty sage to assume they haven't seen this complaint yet. I'd like to hear their response and whether or not they are willing to collaborate before passing any judgment. Very through presentation of the dispute, easy to follow, so thank you for that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
'''Update as of 18 November''': A week has now passed, and we now have nine votes in support of a topic ban and two in opposition. At the risk of being accused of launching an ''ad hominem'' attack, it may be pertinent and of interest to users here that ThorLives is also currently being investigated for sock puppetry , including the use of a sock puppet to continue their edits to ] and thus avoid further scrutiny of the ThorLives account. ] (]) 12:04, 18 November 2015 (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 ] | |||
::What a coincidence! Holtj has been dormant since 2008, magically reappears the day after ThorLives' last edit, and carries on right where ThorLives left off, even mentioning him by name on the talkpage: "''''".--] (]) 02:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page: | |||
===ThorLives' response=== | |||
::::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) | |||
If I am violating some wikipdia policy, I send my regrets. Frankly, as a sixty-five year university professor, I am rather confused by all of the various rules and regulations. | |||
:::::Mate, sorry I was late for the escalation party. End of the year was a madhouse here, both in business and with social activities. | |||
:::::I was very happy you did escalate and will be happy to reply now that I have spare time available for WP. My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations. | |||
:::::Would you like me to repost your escalation? ] (]) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::I strongly advise that you read ] before you write another line. ] (]) 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
{{od}} | |||
I am so sorry I was late to join this party. End of the year was a bit too hectic, did not leave much spare time for fun activities like WP. | |||
] What would you like me to do now? ] (]) 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
I do know academic content, however, and at various times I have tried to prevent wholesale changes that one person was making to articles connected to Germanic neopaganism. All of my attempted edits to Germanic neopaganism have been reversed by (]) Midnightblueowl. Also, when I attempt to act in defense, he repeatedly tries to have me banned or blocked. (I believe this is the fourth time he has attacked me. ) | |||
:It was not clear on your talk page, and it's even less clear here since you did not repost your response to JMF's last line there. You do explicitly retract the apparent legal threat that was made? - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::I did not make a legal threat. ] (]) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::@]: your reference to your "business legal team" could certainly be construed as a veiled one, at the very least. You are being asked to clarify by either confirming or retracting this. -- ] (]) 08:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::{{tqq|My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.}} is either a legal threat or indistinguishable from one. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::No it is not a legal threat. It is about <b>"WP rules and regulations"</b>, not about law. | |||
::::* To who would this be a threat? | |||
::::* Which law? | |||
::::* In which country? | |||
::::] (]) 09:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 12:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::It certainly looks like a legal threat. ] (]) 14:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::@]. Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::Wow, I am glad you asked. | |||
::::::* to have a bit of fun, take a break from the normal, pretty serious work. It will be like kids in a candy store. | |||
::::::* It will be fun for me too. I can't wait to get going with this once the pandemonium calms down. | |||
::::::* The accusation "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage" is utterly wrong. | |||
::::::] (]) 22:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I'm not at all experienced in the legal world, but I don't think any professional legal team that you're paying money towards would ever be excited to save you from a website "like kids in a candy store". ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 22:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::Why would a legal department be excited about you being reported on Misplaced Pages unless you're planning to use them in some way? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::I suspect, from context, that Uwappa was trying to suggest they would have assistance of a professional team in interrogating rules and regulations. But "I have the spend to wikilawyer this more than you can" isn't really all that much better than an outright legal threat. Between that and what surprises me is that they're not blocked yet frankly. ] (]) 17:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
I have made many complaints on the talk page, but the main problem is neutrality. The article, as presently constituted, draws almost exclusively from the work of left-wing Norse pagans, many (like Dr. Snook) have been expelled from mainline groups such as the Asatru Folk Assembly. I attached a tag challenging the neutrality of the article, but it was deleted by the same person who rewrote the entire article and then nominated the piece as a "good article." | |||
: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) | |||
The present article also contains many errors of fact. I would correct them, but my edits on this article have all been deleted by the person who rewrote it. Example: the word for one of the souls is typically hugr--not hugh. (Norse pagans use Old Norse terms) | |||
I have also complained when the article was renamed Heathenry. The neutral term is Germanic neopaganism. Stephen McNallen, an American Asatru leader, avoids "heathen" because in the "public mind" it means an "ignorant, superstitious, or uncouth person." Stephen A. McNallen. Asatru: A Native European Spirituality. Runestone Press. 2015. p. 2 ISBN 0972029257. | |||
* 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) | |||
Likewise, Dr. Michael Strmiska, a pagan who studies the subject, made this observation: "I prefer Norse-Germanic Paganism as a catch-all term that covers all relevant bases and slights none." | |||
*:Putting aside the possible legal threat, if Uwappa's business legal department is involved it seems likely to be a cause of ] or at least a ] which really should have been declared which doesn't seem to have happened. This also means Uwappa shouldn't be editing the article directly. ] (]) 14:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::It’s hard to see a paid or COI element to the behaviour at {{tl|Body roundness index}}. — ] (]) 14:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:::It is fairly weird, but I can't see any reason a business legal department would have any interest unless the editor's activity relates to their business activity. ] (]) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::::I expect it’s just empty talk to get an upper hand in the dispute. — ] (]) 14:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::::: Indeed. It is night where Uwappa is now, but my inclination is to see what reaction there is when they restart editing. If it is another revert or a lack of discussion, a block (or at least a prtial block) is indicated. ] 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::::::], how do you know where I am? Are you spying on me, disclosing personal information? | |||
*::::::* Anybody in the room who ]? | |||
*::::::* Reverted vandalism 3rd time in 24 hours. Anybody curious about what the vandalism is? | |||
*::::::* Anybody in the room that wonders why I had to do the repost? Isn't that odd in combination with "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process"? Did anybody read ]? | |||
*::::::* Did anybody read ] and ]? | |||
*::::::* Did anybody spot any incompleteness in the accusations? | |||
*::::::* Anybody interested in my to answers to the accusations? | |||
*::::::] (]) 16:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::::* JMF above said you were in Australia and I had no reason to disbelieve him. If you aren't, it's irrelevant really, I was just pointing out that you may not edit for a few hours. No-one here is required to answer your questions, but I will; the point was that you invoked something that could be a legal threat {{tq|My business legal department is pretty exited about it ... can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.}} You say that isn't a legal threat, well fine, but you haven't explained what it ''was''. Meanwhile, you're ''still'' edit-warring on the template and claiming that other's edits are vandalism, which they clearly aren't, which is why you can no longer edit it. Have I missed anything? ] 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::::* Again, that was either a legal threat or actions indistinguishable from a legal threat in an attempt to cause a ]. When called on it you have continually ] instead of straight-up saying "no, that was not a legal threat and I am not involving any legal actions in this". So to make it very clear: you need to clearly state that or be blocked per ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
And just to add to the excitement, Uwappa has just repeated their allegation of vandalism against me and reverted to their preferred version of the template for the ''sixth'' time. (Their edit note adds ''3rd time in 24 hours'': are they boasting of a 3RR vio? {{u|Zefr}} undid their fourth attempt, I undid their fifth attempt, but possibly they misread the sequence.) --] (]) 17:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Regarding banning me from the topic, I am a professor who lectures and writes on the topic. Indeed, Midnightblueowl even uses me as a source in her edits! I would identify myself, but Midnightblueowl seems to be a belligerent person. | |||
* 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=]}}. | |||
For the record, I have never tried to block or ban him. --] (]) 00:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:* Suggestion: Add the following calculator to ]: | |||
{{calculator|id=edits|type=number|steps=1|size=3|default=3|min=0}} | |||
--] (]) 00:34, 12 November 2015 (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've made it quite clear to you that I use female gender pronouns, ThorLives. You can convince yourself that I'm a man and that my profile is a total ruse all you want, but at least show me the respect of using the pronouns that I ask you to use. It is basic courtesy. Further, while your statement that you have "never tried to block or ban" me might be quite correct, it also brings up an important point: I have not done anything to warrant being blocked or banned. Conversely, you have. | |||
::* 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. | |||
:As for ThorLives' claim that he has been cited by me, I can see that not a single one of the academics whom I have referenced in the Heathenry article fit the profile of a 65-year old male Odinist who works as a university professor. Not one. This, coupled with several observations made by both myself and Bloodofox , cast ''strong doubt'' as to the claimed academic credentials of ThorLives. An academic with a specialism in the subject matter would not make the basic errors of fact that ThorLives has made. They would be accustomed to structuring their argument in a logical and well-thought out manner, which is quite the opposite of ThorLives' rambling, disjointed, and poorly written style of commenting. They would be intelligent enough to master the comparatively simple rules and regulations of Misplaced Pages in a short period of time. If well acquainted with the field of religious studies, they would not make such an erroneous claim as "" (ever heard of the ], ], or ]?). They would surely be more likely to refer to colleagues like Michael Strmiska and Jennifer Snook as "a religious studies scholar" or "sociologist of religion" respectively, rather than as "a pagan who studies the subject" and a "left-wing Norse pagan". Further, I very much doubt that they would condemn the citation of some of their colleague's publications simply because these individuals were "left-wing". | |||
: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 == | |||
:All in all, ThorLives has not exhibited ''any'' trait that I would associate with an established, older academic and university professor; instead, they have exhibited many traits that I would associate with a (possibly quite young) individual who has little or no familiarity with academia beyond perhaps reading a few scholarly books or, at best, a basic undergraduate course. It would certainly not be stretching the imagination to suggest that the ''"I'm an older university professor with a PhD"'' claim which ThorLives has repeatedly employed is simply a ruse to gain recognition as an intellectual authority from other Misplaced Pages editors. I can't help but suspect that there might be some relevance to a in which they declared that they admired editors who used "cunning" and "disinformation trick" on Misplaced Pages. After all, what better way to try and gain kudos on an encyclopedia than to declare "" ] (]) 12:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{atop green|result=Appeal successful. There were some murmurings requesting a topic ban from Kansas, but nothing approaching consensus. Of course, ] would be well-advised to be careful not to go back to the behaviors that led to a block in the first place. But in the meantime, welcome back. <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 19:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
::Well, let's be fair. A PhD isn't worth the paper it's printed on unless the person holding the degree gets to beat you on the head with it like a weapon in every discussion. ] (]) 03:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
I am posting the following appeal on behalf of {{user21|Kansascitt1225}}, who is considered banned by the community per ]: | |||
(keeping it short for WP:TLDR) Hi Misplaced Pages community, it has been over 1 year since I edited on Misplaced Pages without evading my block or breaking community rules. I would like to be given another chance to edit. I realized that my blocking was due to my behavior of creating multiple accounts and using them on the same page and creating issues during a disagreement. I was younger then and am now able to communicate more effectively with others. I intend to respect community rules and not be disruptive to the community. I was upset years ago when I mentioned Kansas City’s urban decay and it was reverted as false and I improperly reacted in a disruptive way that violated the community rules. The mistake I made which caused the disruptive behavior was that I genuinely thought people were reverting my edits due to the racist past of this county and keeping out blacks and having a dislike for the county. I also thought suburbs always had more single family housing and less jobs than cities. In this part of the United States a suburb means something different than what it means in other parts of the world and is more of a political term for other municipalities which caught me off guard and wasn’t what I grew up thinking a suburb was.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://slate.com/business/2015/05/urban-density-nearly-half-of-america-s-biggest-cities-look-like-giant-suburbs.html}}</ref> Some of these suburbs have lower single family housing rates and higher population density and this specific county has more jobs than the “major city” (referenced in previous unblock request if interested). This doesn’t excuse my behavior but shows why I was confused and I should have properly addressed it in the talk pages instead of edit warring or creating accounts. After my initial blocking, I made edits trying to improve the project thinking that would help my case when it actually does the opposite because I was bypassing my block which got me community banned to due the automatic 3 strikes rule. I have not since bypassed my block. I’m interested in car related things as well as cities and populations of the United States and want to improve these articles using good strong references. Thanks for reading. ] (]) 04:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{reflist-talk}} ] (]/]) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
To be clear, every edit that I ever made to ] was deleted by Midnightblueowl. Usually, the deletions were immediate. (Normally, I was simply adding references.) Because I had no edits to the page, I thought I could comment on his nomination of the article as a "good article." --] (]) 20:31, 12 November 2015 (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) | |||
*'''Support'''. Five years is a long time. Willing to trust for a second chance.] (]) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* Ideally I'd want to see some indication that they don't intend to ] as the issue seems to be rather ideological in nature and I don't see that addressed in the appeal. I also don't love the failure to understand a lot of issues around their block/conduct and their inability to effectively communicate ] and on their ]. ] (]) 00:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:Would a topic ban from Kansas-related topics help? This was floated as a bare minimum two or so years ago. -- ] (]) 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:I'm not that concerned by the RGW issue. Their communication on this appeal has been clear, they responded to my feedback regarding their unblock request, and they've indicated they'll not edit war and seek consensus for their edits. ] (]/]) 00:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five? In any event it's been a long time since they tried to evade. I'm leaning toward giving a second chance but I'd really like them to understand that walls of text are not a good way to communicate, that they need to post in paragraphs, and that Misplaced Pages is not a place for righting great wrongs. ] (]) 16:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:{{tq|Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five?}} ssssshhh. -- ] (]) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:] from KC:{{tq2|Yes I can write in paragraphs and list different ideas in separate paragraphs instead of a giant run on sentence.{{pb}}I wasn’t trying to right great wrongs but noticed the contrast of the definition of ] on Misplaced Pages and these communities being described as suburban (meanwhile some of these suburbs verifiably having lower residential to job ratio than the city and also a higher overall population density with some suburbs gaining population during the day due to commuters coming into them). This is essentially why on my case page It says I feel as tho something had to be “fixed”. I thought my edits were being removed simply because people didn’t like this place or some of its past so I felt as tho I was simply being purposefully misled which caused me to not follow proper civility.{{pb}}I just wanted to clarify that these places weren’t only residential and were major employment areas that they sometimes have a lower percentage of single family homes. This to me was always the opposite of what suburban meant, atleast what I learned during grade school and what it says on Misplaced Pages. That’s where the confusion came from. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}} ] (]/]) 02:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' Six years is a long time, and they have shown growth. I do not think what is actually happening here is ], instead they ] and things went downhill from there. I think ] of {{tq|Jackson county being THE central county of the metropolitan area}} (which Misplaced Pages deems urban) {{tq|when you can see in the census reference here there are actually 6 central counties}} (which Misplaced Pages deems suburban) is reasonable. I researched it, but found the concerns are inconsistent with ] page which provides the definition that {{tq|An urban area is a human settlement with a high population density and an infrastructure of built environment. This is the core of a metropolitan statistical area in the United States, if it contains a population of more than 50,000.}} An urban area is the most urban area compared to its surroundings, even though its surroundings are quite dense. I hope this helps. ] (]) 22:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:I add that their concerns that suburban designation misleads people seem to have merit. It is not the suburban designation that misleads people though, but the definition of suburban itself on the ] article seems to be misleading. I know this is not a place to discuss content, but discuss conduct. But some insight into content can help resolve problems. ] (]) 11:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
{{abot}} | |||
== ftools is back! == | |||
Question: So a person (Midnightblueowl) can hijack and article, rename it (the neutral term is Germanic Neopaganism, not heathenry), delete the edits of everyone else, and nominate his own article as a good article, and then ban someone who complains about the quality of the article? | |||
I am proud to announce that I have become the new maintainer of Fastily's <code>ftools</code>, which is live ]. And yes, this includes the IP range calculator! ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
If that is the rule, I can respect it, but it looks rather unfair. --] (]) 20:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:{{like}} -] (]) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:My edits are being totally misrepresented here. Similarly, ThorLives has omitted key details regarding these events in order to present their own actions as innocent and constructive, which they demonstrably weren't. All of the information that I deleted on the Heathenry article was either a) un-referenced, b) referenced using non-reliable primary sources, or c) otherwise referenced inappropriately (for instance using sources about pre-Christian belief systems to support claims being made about new religious movements). As policy dictates, it therefore required removal. Further, I did not unilaterally change the page name from "Germanic neopaganism" to "Heathenry" but rather (at the suggestion of another editor) initiated an RfC discussion on the subject, which resulted in a group consensus to move the article name to that most commonly used in academic reliable sources. Thor Lives then embarked on an edit war to restore his favoured title until multiple un-involved editors stopped him. | |||
:Note: {{no ping|DreamRimmer}} is now also a maintainer. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:My congratulations/condolences. ] (]) 15:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:So, will ftools be renamed or not? Congratulations. ] (]) 02:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Hence, claiming that I have "hijacked" the article and am somehow a problematic editor is frankly preposterous and is simply a tactic to divert attention from Thor Lives' own disruptive actions and total disregard for policy and consensus building. Similarly, his claim that he is being threatened with a ban simply for "complain about the quality of the article" is again flagrantly (and, I believe, deliberately) ignoring the real reason why sanctions are being sought against him, which have been laid out ever so clearly. Once again, he is knowingly playing the innocent, presumably in the hope that this well help him to evade sanctions so that he can go right back to his disruptive editing ways. ] (]) 21:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Import request == | |||
Several new points (before I leave.) | |||
{{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> | |||
This is quickly becoming a wiki version of "Gresham's Law," that the bad will always drive out the good. (In other words, it appears I will be forced out.) | |||
:I suppose you mean , which you ''didn't'' create at all though, and which is completely unsuitable for enwiki as it stands, being unsourced and lacking all indication of notability. ] (]) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Well, they create the page. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::], oh, okay<span id="Cactusisme:1736586978195:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 09:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</span> | |||
{{abot}} | |||
== Tulsi (unblock request) == | |||
After Midnightblueowl hijacked Germanic Neopaganism, I started to make extensive edits on ]. Notice the wide variety of sources used. Notice also the neutrality of the aricle. Midnightblueowl in his Heathenry article mentions Odinists only to discredit them as "racists,"(the word Americans use), but not all Odinists are white separatists. | |||
{{atop green|User unblocked. ] 12:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
* {{userlinks|Tulsi}} | |||
* Blocked (indef) on 3 April 2024 (9 months ago) by ] during an AN thread (]) for undisclosed paid editing | |||
* Subsequent unblock request was also considered at AN before being declined (]) | |||
Tulsi has now submitted an unblock request which I am copying: | |||
Midnightblueowl claims he used neutral academic sources only. Again, because he is not widely read in the field, he seems not to know that virtually ALL of his sources are pagan professors (including me.) Snook, Strmiska, Harvey, Blain, and so forth are pagans. Because professors tend to be liberal, they are all leftist. For proper balance, he must use other sources. | |||
{{talk quote block|Dear Sysops, | |||
--] (]) 22:18, 12 November 2015 (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. | |||
:Again, I've asked that you please use female pronouns when referring to me; in doing the precise opposite, you are quite clearly setting out to annoy and offend, once again reflecting a total lack of respect for your fellow Wikipedians. Of course I am aware that many of the academics operating within Pagan studies are practicing Pagans (including Snook, Strmiska, Harvey, and Blain) as all make that clear within their publications, and the fact that I have included virtually every academic study on Heathenry ever published in the sources of the Heathenry article testifies to the fact that I am fairly well read within that field (it should be noted that in no way, shape, or form has ThorLives demonstrated anywhere near the same level of academic reading). Similarly, if you check my edits, you will see that in no way did I mention Odinists merely to call them "racists"; your claim to that effect is demonstrably false. | |||
:Moreover, if you want editors to compare the articles on ] and ] for themselves, then I would be happy for them to do so. They will see that the former is informative and well constructed; the latter poorly written and messy. The former is based on an exhaustive use of almost all academic publications on the subject; the latter has been put together using whatever unreliable references ThorLives happens to favour. The former is a useful article that will benefit those interested in the subject; the latter is simply a coatrack. Perhaps most importantly, I believe that the former will be recognised as a Good Article for its adherence to Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies; the latter makes a total mockery of those, serving simply as a platform for ThorLives' own perspective on the religious movement to which he belongs. ] (]) 22:53, 12 November 2015 (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 ]. | |||
Midnightblueowl wrote: ''As for ThorLives' claim that he has been cited by me, I can see that not a single one of the academics whom I have referenced in the Heathenry article fit the profile of a 65-year old male Odinist who works as a university professor. Not one'' | |||
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. | |||
Trying to "out me" here? Is that not a violation of the wiki rules you are always citing? | |||
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. | |||
As for the "65-year old male Odinist who works as a university professor," I confess I altered some details to protect myself. (Age, gender, or both?) Midnightblueowl has engaged in threatening behavior, so I cannot chance that he would use information about my identity to attack my books or my reputation. | |||
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. | |||
I have never tried to have him banned. I have never threatened him. His behavior (as this banning attempt demonstrates) has been belligerent. | |||
Thank you for your consideration. I humbly request your reconsideration and the restoration of the editing privileges on my account on English Misplaced Pages. | |||
Indeed, perhaps the prudent thing would be for me to leave wikipedia. | |||
Sincerely, | |||
Cheers! --] (]) 22:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
] ] 14:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
Having had discussions with the blocking admin, we would like to seek community comments on the unblock request. | |||
:Erm... no, I'm not trying to out you nor threaten you. At no point did I state that "You are Mr X", "I think that you are Mrs Y", or "all signs point to you being Mr P" and I most certainly didn't say that "I'm going to find you off-Misplaced Pages and harass you there by tarnishing your reputation". All I stated was that the claims that you made – that you were a 65 year old university professor with a PhD whose publications were cited in the Heathenry article – were ''demonstrably not true'' because none of the cited authors fitted that description, and that moreover your wider actions have cast strong doubt on your claims to having any substantial academic background at all. In effect, you were making false claims in order to bolster your credibility in the eyes of other Misplaced Pages editors, and I called you out on it. That's not outing. Maybe in the 'real world' you really are an author, perhaps writing Odinist books and articles in non-academic contexts, and perhaps even being something of a notable within the Odinist community. If so, good for you. I have absolutely no interest in harassing or upsetting you as a fellow human being in any way, shape or form; my sole focus has been in preventing you from disruptive editing ''here at Misplaced Pages'' so that the encyclopedia can progress and improve under the care of constructive contributors. Outside of the encyclopedia, it's a different ballpark, and a different game. ] (]) 23:01, 12 November 2015 (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. | |||
== Edit request backlog == | |||
They have created several dozen articles about Nepalese politicians but these seem to be innocuous. I have identified only a handful of articles where Tulsi could have edited for pay. Given the amount of other contributions Tulsi has made, it would be appropriate to give the benefit of the doubt. ] 15:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
The list of ] is at an all-time high of 130 requests; also, the list of ] is also abnormally high, currently at 101. Any assistance in clearing the backlog is highly appreciated. There's another reason for urgency: while some PR editors initially comply with Misplaced Pages's COI editing protocol by making a talk page request, after weeks of silence they assume that their edits must meet our guidelines owing to the lack of objections, and make the edit themselves. Closer scrutiny by the community would probably have disallowed such changes. Many of the articles with pending COI edit requests are already littered with promotional material, and in the wake of the Orangemoody scandal, we should be doing all we can to clean up. Thanks, ] (]) 02:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*I cannot find the link for "A related meta-wiki discussion". <span>]]</span> 15:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== ] MassMessage == | |||
**I've deleted those words. I had decided not to include them in my post, but accidentally left them in. For interest, the discussion was this one: ]. ] 15:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' per ]. I will AGF that Tulsi will keep his promise not to engage in any COI editing going forward. ] (]/]) 16:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* '''Question''': We are all volunteers here, so the applicant's comment {{tq|if I am ever in a situation where I am '''required''' to contribute to such an article}} (emphasis mine) is worrisome within the context of UPE/COI. Could they, or someone else for that matter, provide some clarification? ] (]) 19:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*: I assume "required" is just poor phrasing and refers to circumstances similar to ] provided in the same sentence you quote. In any event, the second part of the sentence states {{tq|<em>I will ensure full disclosure on the article talk page and submit it for review</em>}} (emphasis added). That promise is enough for me. ] (]/]) 21:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''', we should generally give a second chance to users who have greatly and fundamentally changed in several months. Given that the user acknowledged the block and promised not to engage in undisclosed paid editing, not to mention that the user is trusted elsewhere, I see no reason to oppose. ] (]) 20:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' I believe in their ability to address any concern in the future, given that they served as a sysop on Wikimedia Commons, Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki, and the Maithili and Nepali Wikipedias. ] (]) 21:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:'''Support''' A second chance promises that Tulsi will not do highly undisclosed paid editing. I may partially support a topic ban on Nepalese politics against Tulsi. ] (]) 05:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Hey all, | |||
*'''Support''' Make the most of the second chance ] (]) 23:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' I had already been kind of watcxhing the discussion on their talk page over the last few days, and agree with an SO unblock. ] ] 23:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
{{abot}} | |||
== ] == | |||
I'm planning on sending out the mass-message sometime next week, once the voting for ArbCom has started. IF anyone wants to opt-out, please do so ASAP at ]. The message is at ] - please let me know if this can be improved at all! For the Election Committee, ] (]) 07:19, 18 November 2015 (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) | |||
== Challenging ISIL community sanction == | |||
::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 == | |||
I motion to '''challenge ]''' with respect to ] in general, and the ] article and directly related articles in particular. These community-imposed sanctions were progressively expanded starting from, if I understand things correctly, arguably-related ArbCom-imposed ] sanctions, first ] and then ], by allowing the "broadly construed" specification to let discussions with little participation ratify the broadening of scope. | |||
{{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. | |||
I am not sure this really qualifies as "community consensus" for community-authorized sanctions, or even if community-authorized discretionary sanctions are a reasonable thing, but even if it does and they are, I believe this claimed '''consensus can be challenged''' on the grounds that less than a dozen editors formed it, while on ] a comparable number of editors impugned it or objected to the application of the sanctions. | |||
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. | |||
In fact, this '''sequence of events''' happened on the article's talk page: | |||
* the ] of the Syria sanctions that they were in effect | |||
* I on the ground that keeping the recent high-traffic article under a strict ] policy would discourage editors such as myself | |||
* ] under | |||
* There was , as well denouncing that the "broad construction" of these sanctions makes their scope indefinite | |||
* I about receiving an 1RR warning notice shortly after I had to the sanctions, as a perceived act of intimidation fro mediting (the sender later it was not, but I still think that's the practical effect, especially given the notice allows subsequent blocking without further warning) | |||
* Proponents of the sanctions , regardless of the presence or absence of any template | |||
* ] again the sanctions template with an explanation, although it was again pointed out that sanctions would apply anyway; but Fuzheado that the most important immediate outcome was to stop scaring editors away | |||
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. | |||
Although the various '''points against the sanctions''' (at least on the particular article) were repeatedly stated in some of the above-linked diffs, I will make a summary: | |||
* The community had created a decent working dynamic on the article without 1RR enforcement | |||
* This is a current-events article with issues that are not primarily Syria and ISIL-related | |||
* The potential for block with two reverts may have a chilling effect, when it's hard to follow the fast and often spurious edits | |||
* Almost all editors involved at this point would be unable to revert without risking an immediate block, except for drive-by editors | |||
* It's not an article among the ones in contention from the original and subsequently widely expanded ArbCom case | |||
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. | |||
It is certainly due to my bias, but the points '''for''' the sanctions I could read basically amounted to: | |||
* They were approved before | |||
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. | |||
Therefore, I ask you to '''consider the following two questions''': | |||
# Shall ] continue to apply unchanged on articles like ] where there are arguably '''exceptional circumstances''' and a '''locally shared opposition''' to actively applying them? | |||
# Shall the current "broadly constructed" '''scope''' of these sanctions undergo new scrutiny and possible narrowing, considering it was previously expanded with little community input? | |||
# Shall the sanctions '''continue to exist''' at all? | |||
To provide context, here are some of the sources I included: | |||
My use of emphasis above is to underline the salient points of this motion as I recognize it is a relatively long read. ] (]) 18:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Comment''' - the ] sanctions ARE NOT related with WP:ARBPIA. There is similarity in concept, but that is it.] (]) 18:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::I thought, by reading ], that the Syrian sanctions were created because there was uncertainty as to whether the ARBPIA sanctions applied to the Syrian war (they were applied in that way, but then successfully challenged). If I'm mistaken, can you clarify? ] (]) 18:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::I believe that to be correct. What it seems happened was gradual de facto broadening of scope, caused by the slippery "broadly construed"-type language that is often used. Some administrators originally applied the ARBPIA sanctions to Syrian Civil War stuff, thinking that stuff related in a "broadly construed" manner. This became confusing, so specifically for the Syrian Civil War, which was then that mirrored the ARBPIA remedy. Following this, with the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and their entry into other fields, administrators began applying the SCW community sanctions to all ISIL-related articles, on the basis of a "broadly construed" connection to the Syrian Civil War. For this reason, I requested a clarification at AN, whereby the relevant administrators confirmed that they believed that this linkage was correct. ] — ] 18:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::That is my understanding, too. I read that the first community discussion was started {{tq|"to determine whether there is consensus to continue the restrictions in effect as community-based restrictions"}}, the restrictions in effect being the impromptu 30-day ones made by ArbCom after the ARBPIA sanctions were deemed to have been incorrectly applied as the disputes did not {{tq|"fit the general category of Arab-Israeli disputes"}}, so it seems to me the restrictions are very directly related. ] (]) 19:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::I'm one of the people behind the installations of Syrian Civil War sanctions. Originally, the community demanded a sanctioned regime for Syrian Civil War articles and some administrator incorrectly applied ARBPIA, even though there is no direct relation. Then i asked to clarify this and answer the demand of the community by creating SCW sanctions and not trying to bend other sanctions. Syrian Civil War sanctions were then initiated following a community motion, with a wide consensus. Later, without my involvement another group of users expanded the SCW sanctions also to ISIL with the intervention of ArbCom. This is how SCW&ISIL sanction regime was created. If you ask me - it works great: much less edit-warring as a result.] (]) 22:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::But possibly also much less ''editing'', at least on articles like the one in question where sanctions can have a chilling effect. This is my greatest concern. ] (]) 22:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
A similar problem is happening on ]. There is less and less controversy over ISIL, with pretty much everyone saying they are bad. The exceptions are punk trouble maker editors and/or johadists who come along and put pro-ISIL propaganda in. Any post I've made saying the sanctions apply should only be interpreted as affirming their existence, not as necessarily my support for them continuing. ] (]) 00:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
* '''Support''' pulling back on over-application of the "discretionary sanctions" that are "broadly constructed," as prescribed in the ] guidelines. With no disrespect to the original folks who implemented them – the fact that we cannot even agree on whether it is an Arbcom or WP:AN edict should give us a clue that the entire situation is not very well understood or constructed. Also, only a small number of users were involved with that discussion that has massive impact across EN.WP's 5 million articles. We should open up the discussion for better context. | |||
• https://www.nationaldiversityawards.co.uk/awards-2024/nominations/ario-nahavandi/ | |||
: A summary of the main conflict as described above: | |||
:* For breaking news articles, it is extremely problematic to have the pall of the discretionary sanctions hanging over the page, which amounts to a ] being imposed on an article in flux. Whether it is intended or not, it creates a low tolerance, "assume bad faith" climate where it is very easy to accidentally run afoul of the guidelines, and wind up as a user block. | |||
:* If we consider the ] page, which was the #2 most visited page last week, you get lots of visitors and even returning editors. You also have a number of admins monitoring the page. The vast majority of the article is not about the Islamic State per se, and instead hosts a lot of experienced Wikipedians trying to sift fact from fiction in the news cycle. Things were going fine, until the discretionary sanctions template was put at the top, and then a flurry of accusations about 1RR started to fly. It turned into a wiki circular firing squad. | |||
:* Out of ], I removed the template and proposed that we do away with the hair-trigger application of ]. There was generally positive response from the editors on that page that it was removed. There was another exchange of adding the template to Talk, and subsequent removal by me. | |||
:* That's we are now. I offer that it's a very bad mismatch to try to impose remedies suited for long form historical articles onto fast-moving, obliquely-related current events articles. I'm assuming good faith by believing that there was a decent rationale (with limited scope) for the discretionary sanctions, but I think this is a classic example of ], and we should have a chance to fix the overly broad application of this. -- ] | ] 18:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Two points. First of all, there is no question of "agreement". These are community sanctions, not ArbCom sanctions, even though ArbCom was briefly involved at the start. That's crystal clear. Secondly, you must understand that we are ]. Our job here is not to write articles as if we were covering breaking news. All of our articles should be in a "long form historical" style. Slowing down editing on a controversial current events article is something to be applauded, not rejected. Finally, I wonder whether you oppose the 1RR or the discretionary sanctions, or both? Perhaps the 1RR could be pulled back, whilst maintaining the discretionary sanctions. ] — ] 21:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Comment''' - It's broadly , not constructed. That's the extent of my competence in this area, and of my contribution to this discussion. ] (]) 19:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' removing the sanctions. Yes, the presence of discretionary sanctions and the 1RR restriction might slow down editing. That's a good thing. Per RGloucester's comment we are not a news wire service, we're an encyclopedia. We can approach the subject calmly and thoughtfully. And the restrictions will prevent the usual nonsense that occurs with high traffic, current event articles.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 06:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:And, uh, to try and argue that this article is NOT Syria or ISIS related is... um.... disingenuous, to put it nicely.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 06:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' As per VM. The argument that it is preventing rapid updates on current events is not a bad thing. Likewise arguing that this is not Syria/ISIS related is... interesting to say the least. ] (]) 08:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' – Having thought about it more, I have to oppose any proposal to pull back the community sanctions (1RR and DS) in this area. Frankly, this topic area is one of the most fraught on Misplaced Pages. The sanctions have shown to be effective in preventing disruption across SCW and ISIL articles for years. We should thank the administrators who have worked to quicly enforce these sanctions, as well. There is no reason to provide an exception for this one article, which is ISIL-related, and attracts the same kind of controversy as at all the SCW & ISIL pages. Pulling back the sanctions across all SCW and ISIL pages would undoubtedly be detrimental. I imagine that if the sanctions were pulled back, we'd end up with an ArbCom case for this topic area in future, and that's something we want to avoid, no? I have worked on plenty of articles under DS and 1RR, and have never had any problems contributing. As I said above, we are not a newspaper, and have no need to be rapidly updating content as if we were. Encouraging talk page discussion, encouraging editors to think about what they add to such an article, that's a good thing. We want verifiable historical analysis, not every little bit of yellow press. For all these reasons, I must certainly oppose any revocation of the authorisation of these sanctions. ] — ] 15:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' – it's been working fine as-is. Don't reinvent the wheel. ] (]) 21:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
• Taurus Magazine (2024-11-19). "Ario Nahavandi". Taurus Magazine. 88: 7 – via www.magcloud.com | |||
*'''Comment''': here are a couple of examples of these sanctions being directly used to have a chilling effect: , . These imply that there won't be, at least from the part of those editors, any discerning on whether there is an actual edit war in progress or just ''any'' technical violation of 1RR (coming from partial or unrelated reverts, for example), something which had been used as that the sanctions would only be applied when really deserved. I'm not sure I want to risk my editing privileges over people trying to make a ] by reporting every possible thing... ] (]) 22:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:These can't be "chilling effects" since "chilling effects" refer to ... effects. What you are linking to is just reminders to editors not to edit war. Since you've been reverting and edit warring on that article like crazy I can see how you'd find that objectionable.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 07:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::''Report me then''. I am the third most prolific contributor to the article and I strongly suspect most editors respect the work I have done there. I'm not sure the same can be said about you, because (sorry, I mean "shortly after", who am I to imply causal links?) they again with the agreement of many other editors (even though you ). You have previously accused me of having a ] attitude, but I'm not entirely sure how you can affirm that while keeping a straight face. ] (]) 15:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*I agree with User:Fuzheado and User:LjL. There is no evidence that these sanctions are needed or have any beneficial effect. Considering the emotive nature of the subject, editing there has been remarkably collegial over the past week. On general principles, the idea of accepting this sort of ] from a body with such a poor reputation as ArbCom has, is a terrible one. Misplaced Pages is not a ], and should not be encouraged to become one. --] (]) 11:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' the motion. The SCW&ISIL sanctions are an excellent tool to reduce edit-warring and stabilize articles, as already proven in the past.] (]) 18:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
• 6x Magazine (2024-11-22). "Ario Nahavandi; The Persian Icon". 6X Magazine. 432: 6–7 – via www.magcloud.com | |||
*'''Requesting help''' with this matter, as ] is "totally not causing chilling effects" on me by sending me about an article that didn't even have a 1RR warning template anywhere, in a totally ]Y fashion (I did self-revert as requested, by the way, but I cannot accept this bullying - I'm doing nothing wrong). Further explanation at ]. ] (]) 21:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
**What exactly is anyone suppose to "help" you with? The fact that I'm warning you - which is doing you a favor because I could just report you - again for reverting repeatedly on the article? On both the Paris-attacks related articles you have been reverting people left and right, in flagrant breach of 1RR in order to basically enforce your ] version. Also saying that the article "didn't even have a 1RR warning template anywhere" is disingenuous (i.e. its an attempt at ] and ], almost as silly as the claims that these articles have nothing to do with Syria and ISIS (when the text under dispute is specifically about Syrian refugees) - you are perfectly aware that discretionary sanctions and 1RR are in force on these articles because... wait for it, wait for it, wait for it: '''You filed this freakin' motion!'''. Are you really trying to pretend that you did not know that 1RR applies to an article for which you're <u>challenging</u> the existence of the 1RR restriction? Seriously? <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 21:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
***Marek, in that particular instance you are most definitely gaming the system. Drop it, please: consensus was well against you for inclusion of that material before you began lawyering to get your way. - ] (]) 21:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
****What are you talking about? How am I "gaming the system"? I am disagreeing with LjL. Disagreeing with someone is NOT "gaming the system".<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 22:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*****Umpteen people have disagreed with you about the Polish issue in umpteen threads. Certainly, it is true that WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote but it seems to me that after several "losses", you then opted to lawyer towards your goal. The thread ] appears to be the pertinent one. Dammit, even you acknowledge that you got the articles mixed up - many of us have done that, no problem, but to then lawyer about it as a means to remove the material just seems weird. You that the material was more useful in the very article where you have subsequently invoked these sanctions to remove it after failing to achieve that aim by other means. I can understand you getting the two mixed up, and , but to then try to lawyer it in your favour just seems like gaming to me. Maybe it isn't, but that's how it looks. - ] (]) 01:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I did not "invoke the sanction" to remove it. The presence of the sanction and my opinions about the content are not related. Also, if by "umpteen" you mean ONE then yes. And obviously the issue here is that this is a recent events article which means that what was relevant at one point in time may not be relevant a few days later. But really, content issues are not the topic here.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 04:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::You have been doing this removal at two articles, even though you thought it was valid at one per my diff. Numerous people have opposed you, which means more than ONE. - ] (]) 09:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
******] is what the consensus actually looks like (though I've selected some statements by the people involved but there were many more, as this has spanned several sections). Not wanting to bring the content dispute here, but third parties looking at this need to know how things stand in term of ], ] and ]: Volunteer Marek removes statements against staggering consensus, and when I reinstate them (without even removing his further integrations at all), he asks me to self-revert because of claimed 1RR violation. ] (]) 02:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
********You filed this motion to remove the 1RR restriction on the article. You then hijacked your own thread by asking for "help" (not sure what that is, looks like either a canvassing for reverts or a request for a spurious block) in a specific situation. This sort of makes it clear that you really don't care about the 1RR restriction per se but are rather trying to find a way to circumvent it in this particular instance so that you can enforce your ] version of the article through edit warring. Which makes this motion a textbook example in making proposals in bad faith.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 04:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*********1) No, the motion was about the ''other'' article, not the "Reactions" article, which is even less tied to ISIL 2) ] isn't a thing when reporting thing on the general forum for the relevant topic 3) I made it already clear in this motion that application of the sanctions on the particular article ''is'' in contention, so you're not discovering anything new 4) as to ], you're the one still insisting to have it your way against clear consensus against you 5) I'm at my wits' end with you because ''you'' seem like a textbook example of hard-to-deal-with bad faith. ] (]) 15:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
Thank you for your time and consideration xx | |||
* '''Oppose''' per RGloucester and Volunteer Marek. If edit warring is still going on, then it is way too early to vacate these sanctions. The MMA topics are an excellent example of how sanctions can quiet down editors and really push them to discuss. There wasn't a time back in 2012-13 where not a week went by without a MMA complaing on AN or ANI. Regulars at those boards have barely heard a peep from them once sanctions were enforced. ] (]) 01:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 23:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* '''Note''' - I don't know why I have made this motion given most of the people who were of the same opinion as me (and I know there were several) have steered very clear of it, but, for the record, is an example of the sort of non-constructive application of these overly strict rules that I'm worried about. The editor being reported is, quite obviously to anybody who has followed the evolution of the article involved, one of the top contributors and most constructive editors on it. Now he risks a block for reverting three unrelated, stupid edits. ] (]) 17:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::] of an article does not provide exemption from 1RR, and is in fact harmful to the development of articles. ] — ] 18:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Your claim of ] is completely unsubstantiated, unless by "ownership" you mean "having made many positive contribution to an article". ] (]) 21:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Administrators cannot override draft declines, and in fact the administrator toolset ]. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 23:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* '''Support''' = Revoke an overreach of the sanction system and restore commonsense because a few editors have used this to push their own agendas. ] (]) 04:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
::So who can I turn to for help? If administrators cannot assist in overriding the draft declines, to whom can I escalate this issue? I am deeply concerned that my article has been repeatedly declined without proper consideration of the sources I’ve provided. These sources are reliable, published, and fully comply with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines, yet they continue to be dismissed without even being properly reviewed. | |||
::It’s becoming clear that the rejection process isn’t being carried out fairly. I can’t help but feel that my article is being judged based on factors other than content quality, especially when I see articles approved with far less solid references. | |||
::I understand that the review process is based on policy, but when it seems clear that my draft isn’t being given the attention it deserves, I need to know where I can seek help to ensure fairness. | |||
::I kindly ask for your guidance—if administrators cannot intervene, who can I turn to for proper support in getting this article reviewed fairly? | |||
::Thank you for your time. ] (]) 00:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::]. This is where you appeal problems with submissions of drafts. You should read the ] and ] carefully. ] (]) 00:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::{{ping|Lanak20}} I actually ]. They're all malformed at best and unusable at worst. ] —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 00:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*I've blocked the OP as a spam-advertising-only account. I should add that it's pretty obvious they've used other accounts to promote this person, I believe most recently as of last October.--] (]) 00:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
{{abot}} | |||
== Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist Edit Restriction Appeal == | |||
=== Can someone please close the TP discussion === | |||
{{atop green|Unanimous consent after 36 hours to lift the restriction. ] (]) 14:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
Much of the above results from ] and a similar discussion elsewhere. Volunteer Marek is ''still'' . I have just reverted. Can someone please review that talk page section and close as they see fit, otherwise this could ping-pong in perpetuity. - ] (]) 08:35, 23 November 2015 (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 ]. | |||
== AfC submissions declined as blank or as a test == | |||
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. | |||
Most of the pages listed here are (speedy) deletion candidates. These are pages from ] and ] in draft or Misplaced Pages talk namespace. | |||
I appreciate your consideration. My best regards, ] (]) 01:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*tools.wmflabs.org/catscan2/catscan2.php?categories=AfC+submissions+declined+as+blank&ns=1&ns=1&doit=1 | |||
:'''Support.''' ] (]/]) 01:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*tools.wmflabs.org/catscan2/catscan2.php?categories=AfC+submissions+declined+as+a+test&ns=1&ns=1&doit=1 | |||
:'''Support'''. Based on YFNS's activity since the original tban, I don't see any reason to believe that restrictions are necessary going forward. ] (]) 06:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:'''Support'''. Welcome back comrade. ] (]) 06:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:'''Support''' based on their editing activity between TBAN and last year, as well as between the sanctions and now. Good work, and a great example of how this restorative process is ''supposed'' to work. May you inspire other misguided people to a path of restoration. ] ] 08:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:'''Snow Support''' ] (]) 14:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:'''Strong support'''. To me YNFS comes across as a very responsible editor and I believe these restrictions are no longer warranted. ] (]) 16:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:'''Support''' I remember the original ban happening due in large part to canvassing on twitter, the fact that any restrictions remained in place thereafter strikes me as a deep miscarriage of justice. ] (]) 23:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
'''Query''' Does your reference to BRD mean that you undertake to follow it in the future? ] (]) 14:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:'''Enthusiastic support''' YFNS is a perfect model of an editor who is an asset to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:'''Support''' A well worded appeal, worth giving another chance. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' This is a convincing and sincere appeal. ] (]) 00:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''', Welcome. ~] ] <sup>「] / ]」</sup> 02:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' as they have convincingly demonstrated change. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' I supported and still support the original restrictions, and the later now appealed restrictions. I think YFNS's case has shown that an editor can come back from the brink successfully and am happy that happened. ] (]) 04:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
{{abot}} | |||
== Copyvio Problem == | |||
] (]) 19:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
: They'll come up for G13 in a few months each. There's also a possibility (however small) that the editor returns and revises the page to make it useful. There are times where I've taken an incomprehensible mess and made it into a plausible draft, even based on not much more than the page's title. See ] for example. -- ] (]) 08:30, 19 November 2015 (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. | |||
== Edit filter RfC == | |||
Just a heads up that ] is now underway regarding an addition to the edit filter guideline, taking on board some feedback from the RfC for the recently updated page. Opinions welcomed. ] (]) 22:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 22:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Neelix Redirects - expediting closure and deletion == | |||
:To be clear, I don't think that @] is really at any fault here. | |||
Two points: | |||
:] (]) 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 == | |||
1. There are 50,000 redirects listed here with several thousand now in RfD. Various editors are working through the lists only to find many have been nominated already when one clicks on them. Given the consensus that many of these redirects are garbage, a number of admins have been speedy deleting redirects, but can we get some additional help quickly closing RfD's and deleting the redirects (even before the 7 days is up) so they go red on the lists. This way we don't have to spend time checking and rechecking ones that have been nominated and found to be deletion worthy? | |||
{{atop | |||
| result = Essentially unanimous consensus to not unblock. ] ] 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
}} | |||
* {{userlinks|Lardlegwarmers}} | |||
2. I want to confirm that redirected talk pages should be speedy deleted. For example: . Cause of that is the case, hundreds of Neelix redirected talk pages can be speedy deleted, which will shorten up the to do list for those of us sifting through his redirects. ] (]) 01:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
I blocked Lardlegwarmers yesterday for one week for a violation of ] from COVID-19. This was about ], although I subsequently noticed ] as well. LLW has asked me to copy their appeal here. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Yes, there is work to be done but the RfDs have to be consulted because often two or three redirects are kept while the rest are deleted. This also might be best if this was posted on ] where it's more likely to be seen by admins who can delete these redirects. <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 01:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement from Lardlegwarmers === | |||
::Yes, good point, which I was trying to make when I said "closing the RfDs". I'll move the post to AN. See also this discussion at RfD Thanks ] (]) 01:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
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. | |||
:I am against shoehorning the redirects into CSD categories that don't fit. That way lies a very dangerous precedent. If for these why not for others? Further, ] explains, in effect, why we should not use ] for 6-year-old redirects. ] (]) 03:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{talk reflist}} | |||
::He is redirect topic banned - can we use G5 creations of a blocked or banned user? ] (]) 05:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement from Tamzin === | |||
:::No - that would only apply to redirects created after the ban was imposed. — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 05:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
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) | |||
::::Neelix wins again!!!!!11112211lol111 ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 08:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
=== Discussion among uninvolved editors === | |||
::::: Just because you don't get everything you want ''this instant'' doesn't mean he won. Shrill ranting helps no one. It took him a decade to create this mess, it will take a few weeks to get rid of it and the more we do it systemically and in process, the more likely there won't be objections when we deal with the next editor (and there will be another editor). That said, we should follow process and list them in batches, probably by the page they are directed to. Note that the related changes page (Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Anomie/Neelix_list) tells you what's the issue. I'd suggest splitting the page into smaller subpages of maybe 1000 or so and just culling them systematically. -- ] (]) 08:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*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) | |||
:::::::Sarcasm goes right over your head, Rick. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 08:28, 19 November 2015 (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) | |||
:::::::: Sorry, I'm used to the World's Oldest people article debates where "lack of notability is not a reason for deletion" is repeatedly somehow a keep vote. -- ] (]) 08:32, 19 November 2015 (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) | |||
::There are chunked lists out there and some of us are systematically going through them. I started with the most numerous per target (399!) and worked my way down, but now switched to some more by type of problem. ] (]) 08:49, 19 November 2015 (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) | |||
:] was a bad decision, deleting some reasonable redirects. They should have been kept. The nom and the only voter don't seem to grasp that ] is not ], and that all the well-known Japanese stuff is indeed ]. They should be restored. ] (]) 09:48, 19 November 2015 (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) | |||
::Quite clearly wrong; I've restored all of them. Beeblebrox, would you mind explaining how trashing these is at all resembling facilitating a pagemove, un-shadowing images from Commons, or history merges? Please read Just Chilling's words and act likewise. ] (]) 12:16, 19 November 2015 (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) | |||
*I posted a parallel discussion about this at ANI yesterday and it has evolved into a proposal to explicitly state that Neelix-created redirects may be deleted under ] basically just so that the issue of which criterion to apply can be resolved (the rationale is more eloquent there). If you're following this thread, your eyes on the ] would be appreciated. Thanks. ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 20:44, 19 November 2015 (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 === | |||
== ] == | |||
* 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 == | |||
Right now, 1RR is enforced on this article. This affects my ability to correct errors done by other editors. Shall we make this article an exception and then go for 2RR instead? --] (]) 04:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{atop | |||
:I had a clear 4RR drafted up on George Ho as he was reverting against over a dozen other editors. (he does not accept the Russian/UK/US/Irish finding of a bomb). I did not submit it because it looked like he was stopping. ] (]) 05:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| result = This is not an administrative issue. ] (]/]) 20:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:: We got Russia's "confirmation" just to "verify" the Western states' hypotheses. Having news media and Misplaced Pages retell Russia's is bad enough, but that's news for ya. --] (]) 05:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
}} | |||
::: We have a policy on edit warring, and this policy makes no exceptions for being right. And that's for a reason because all people are different and they might have different concepts of "rightness", "truth", etc. based on their upbringing, beliefs, perception of reality and what they themselves want to believe, after all. That's why our editing process is based on consensus building among multiple editors through discussion, instead of reverting the heck out of it based on what individual editors like or dislike. ] (]) 03:29, 20 November 2015 (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. | |||
* {{pagelinks|Metrojet Flight 9268}} | |||
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) | |||
Since the Paris attacks a week ago, followed on Tuesday by the Russian investigators' determination that the flight was destroyed by a bomb, we have had a flurry of IP edits wanting to add that to the infobox as a final cause. I edit aviation articles a lot and that isn't usually how it is done; instead normal procedure would be to wait for an uninvolved determination. I am highly INVOLVED in editing that article, () and I skirted 3RR in restoring the uncertainty to the infobox as I believe is proper. We now have a reasonable compromise in the infobox but the unhelpful IP edits have continued. I requested semi-protection but the request has now sat there for a couple of days without action. I see from the archive that a previous request was declined by ] on the grounds that IPs were making useful edits and that semi-protection would prevent this. I don't see it like this so I just semi-protected the article myself in an ] moment. I realise that this breaks the letter of ] so I am raising it here for scrutiny by my peers. If anyone thinks it is better to unprotect the article I won't fight them. Or maybe someone else will take ownership of the protection? On a high-profile article like this the matter may be challenged so it's worth having a discussion maybe. Obviously if anyone thinks my actions demonstrate unfitness for adminship, I suppose we could go over to AN/I and I could tie myself to the ] there. What do others think? --] (]) 19:05, 20 November 2015 (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) | |||
:{{ping|John}} I've looked at that report at least ten times since you made it and each time decided the article should not yet be semi-protected. There's no clear consensus on the talk page and a compromise could have been worked out. I would have semi-protected if there was general consensus and the IPs refused to discuss. I was also going to semi-protect if we had a couple more disruptive edits today but a month's protection seems excessive. I'd be willing to take ownership of a two week semi based on disruptive editing. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{abot}} | |||
::Thanks, my impression is that a compromise has now been worked out and that this would be a good moment to semi-protect. None of the IPs have discussed the matter at all as far as I am aware. Two weeks would be fine with me as a compromise on protection. --] (]) 19:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Done. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::A wise move, I think. And also very wise words from ]. I agree wholly with John about "the final cause". Personally, I think the probability is 99.9%, but that's just a personal view. There is still an internationally-agreed legal process to be observed? So I find the use of that word "confirms" on the front page quite inappropriate, but I can't be bothered to make a fuss at the ITN talk page. At least with this protection we may avoid the flurry of IPs claiming a bomb was planted by Abdelhamid Abaaoud on his way back from Syria (well, ]). ] (]) 20:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Fine by me. The editing pattern looks different now than when the earlier request was made/declined. ] 20:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::I don't want to make a big deal about this, but from what I've seen the IPs and most logged in editors have been very constructive. The main problem is George Ho who has been very clear he puts no faith in the Russians. His anti-Russian bias is causing any conflict, and semi-protection only assists him in fighting for his position. ] (]) 20:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::: I searched past discussions to prove that I'm not anti-Russian. I am unsure whether this (]) helps. I still believe that governments can state dubious things. FBI can say it; so can Russian Federal Secret Service. Re-reading the article, ISIS has claimed responsibilities for many violent incidents, including this one, although some confessions might not be always true. And how and where can they buy and/or use computers to distribute ''Dabiq''? ] (]) 08:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::: Misplaced Pages does not run on what you believe, it runs on what reliable sources say. (Also, are you aware that ISIL is in control of two large, modern cities - Raqqa and Mosul - and has supporters in other more "civilized" places?) ]] 22:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Comment''' - just to clarify- the SCW&ISIL sanctions are relevant for 1RR on reverting registered editors. You can revert IPs as much as you like with no effect.] (]) 18:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Reporting Administrator Abuse == | |||
== Arbitration motion regarding Removal of Unused Sanctions == | |||
{{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) | |||
Resolved by ] of the Arbitration Committee, that: Every so often, it becomes reasonable to terminate sanctions that are no longer necessary, | |||
# Remedy 1 of the ] is rescinded; | |||
# Remedy 2 of the ] is rescinded; | |||
# Remedy 1 of the ] is rescinded; | |||
# Remedy 1 of the ] is rescinded; | |||
# Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while article probations for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal; | |||
#In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page. | |||
For the Arbitration Committee, --''']''' (alt / ] / ] / ]) 21:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
: Discuss this at: ''']''' | |||
:So there's two things here. | |||
== Google Relying on Misplaced Pages == | |||
:* 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) | |||
Google has, for the first time in two years, published their Search Quality Evaluator Guidelines. http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2015/11/updating-our-search-quality-rating.html | |||
{{Abot}} | |||
== Ban appeal from Rathfelder == | |||
The guidelines mention Misplaced Pages repeatedly (52 times) as a source of useful information. Those trying to maneuver to the top of Google will be here trying to engineer the right kind of content. Please consider familiarizing yourself with the above document, and watching for such activity. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks for that. This document talks about Misplaced Pages being used to help determine the reputation of websites and companies. It also talks about assessment of authority of Misplaced Pages articles based on the number of references included. Updated Misplaced Pages articles are more likely to have a better reputation. ] (]) 23:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
* {{userlinks|Rathfelder}} | |||
== Request to lift the topic ban of DrChrissy == | |||
* ] for sockpuppetry, vote-stacking and undisclosed COI writing of a BLP attack page | |||
* ] declined by the community | |||
* ] not submitted for review by the community for not complying with ] | |||
Rathfelder has submitted the following ban appeal on their talk page and asked me to copy it here: | |||
It is 6 months since my indefinite topic ban was imposed on the 20th May 2015. I am now seeking a lifting of this ban.{{ping|User:Awilley}} | |||
{{tqb|I realise that what I did was wrong - more wrong than I thought it was at the time. The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur. I accept that I was wrong to create sockpuppets and I apologise. I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that. I did that really because I was trying to defend the work I had done for the Socialist Health Association for the previous 20 years. I did a lot of edits on that page, but they were, until the last few, about the history of the organisation, mostly adding to its list of distinguished members - largely before I was involved with it, and mostly before I was born. They were not at all controversial. I was unfairly sacked and my opponents started using Misplaced Pages against me. The row got into the media. I accept that I should not have done that. I should have resisted the temptation to use Misplaced Pages in the dispute.<br> | |||
I have spent 2 years working on Simple English and Wikimedia. I have not set up any sockpuppets or edited anything where I had conflicts. I plan to continue with Wikimedia, as there is plenty there to keep me busy, but I would like to be able, in particular, to add pictures to articles - now I have found my way round the enormous Wikimedia resource. I also sometimes come across articles in English wikipedia which need amendment.}} ] (] · ]) 17:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*'''Conditional support''' - If there's been no socking ''during'' the ban. ] (]) 17:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Although the subject-area of my ban was initially confused, the locus relates to three subjects (1) alternative medicine, (2) ] and (3) human medicine articles. I have not edited any pages in these subjects or entered into discussions about them during the last 6 months. However, there was initially some confusion on my part whether the topic ban included my sandbox. It was subsequently pointed out how it did, which I accepted. At that time, it was unclear from the ] that personal sandboxes were included. Therefore, after realising the omission, I edited the policy article to specify this to improve the project and give more accessible and accurate future guidance for editors and administrators. | |||
*:In response to this, I ran some basic checks. There's no evidence of socking that I can see in the currently available data. ] ] 15:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::Are you permitted to say what time range the available data covers? The default is only 90 days isn't it? ] (]) 16:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:::Yes, the data available to me was for the past 90 days. ] ] 16:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*'''Question''' during the January 2024 unblock request Rathfelder said they would be willing to accept a restriction on editing articles related to BLPs or healthcare orgs. Are they still willing to accept those edit restrictions if they are un-banned? Furthermore, in January 2024 there was, at the time, no evidence of any further socking. Can we confirm that good behaviour has continued? ] (]) 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Throughout the last 6 months, I have been highly motivated to remain a responsible ] and contribute positively to the project whilst avoiding violating my topic ban. To ensure this, I have on several occasions contacted the (final) closing admin, ], e.g. here and another admin, ], to discuss my potential edits. | |||
*'''Support''' They have been a very productive contributor at the Simple English Misplaced Pages, and it has definitely been long enough for the ]. ] (]) 21:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:To opposers: Would a TBAN from BLPs solve the issues you mention? I understand why some may be hesitant to unban, but they have been a very productive contributor on other wikis. I think that they would be a productive contributor if we simply give them a second chance. ] (]) 16:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' as disingenuous. {{blue|The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur}}: obviously it's reassuring to hear this, but there is no acceptance of personal responsibility. "The circumstances made me do it" is not a defence, or explanation. Likewise, {{blue|I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that}} does not do the facts justice. Rathfelder literally socked ''in order'' to be able to call a real life opponent a "]", <s>in wikivoice</s> with a misattributed ] quote. Difficult to imagine an editor of >half a million edits not knowing attribution requirements for BLPs. In fact, on investigation, they obviously do, as the ] {{tl|BLP sources}} template indicates. If there's a Holy Trinity of wrong doing of things that damage the project the most, it's socking,vote stacking and deliberate BlP violations. These things are most dangerous to the project: they erode the trust between editors and the integrity of the consensus-driven decision making process and put WP at risk of at least public embarrassment if not a lawsuit. All of which Rathfelder did. All of which this appeal seems to attempt to explain away by "circumstances". I'm the first to offer rope when deserved, but such a glossing ban appeal, combined with it all happening only a couple of years ago, sets off more alarm bells than the Great Fire of London. There's no need for groveling, just an indication of self-knowledge and actual change. ] ] 12:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:I haven't yet looked into this enough to express an opinion, but I would point out that the "swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist" quote was attributed in text to ''The Times'', so was not in wikivoice. ] (]) 13:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::Thanks for drawing my attention; I've clarified my comment. ] ] 16:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' insufficient contrition and reflection on their frankly very serious misconduct. As Serial has said, they created an a attack page with very serious BLP vios using sockpuppets, you can't just handwave that away. ] (]) 12:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' - My opinion is that editing pages to attack one's real life opponents isn't something you can just come back from, especially when you abusively socked and votestacked in addition. Please stick to editing other Wikis. - ] ] 15:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' I don't often choose to comment on unblock requests but every day I come across past productive work done by Rathfelder when I'm working with categories which is how I'm familiar with their immense contributions to this project. They are responsible for a sizeable percentage of our category creation and have over a half million edits credited to this account. If it has been over a year since their last appeal (check), they haven't been socking (check), they have been productive on other Wikimedia projects (check) and they acknowledge their mistakes (check), then I believe they should be given another chance. It sounds like this was a specific incident in their life that happened several years ago that is unlikely to be repeated. Remember, indefinite is not infinite. And if you reject this appeal, I'm just wondering what exactly are you expecting to see in a future request that would lead you to accept it? Or is this indefinite block actually a forever block? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 18:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support'''. Serial Number 54129 points to the quote from the piece by Sarah Baxter as the most damning part of his evidence, but Baxter was deputy editor of ''The Times'' when she wrote the article, so it was reasonable to say that that newspaper said that. It may, of course, not be the best way to word things but we don't ban people for that. ] (]) 18:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:No, I point to far more tahn just that: I point to a refusal to adhere to neutrality in preference for an entire section reading like a hit piece; there were no redeeming features presented, or alternative interpretations suggested. Instead, a Jewish guy was literally called an antisemite, on Misplaced Pages, for Rathfelder's own ends. The quote from Baxter was merely an example, but the whole section was of that ilk. Correct, we don't ban people for poor expression. We ''do'' ban people for deliberately flaunting fundamental policy and attacking living people. It is also insufficient that they have done good work in the past, per {{u|Liz}}; it's not mitigating. Ironically their is a current arbcom case in which some of the most knowledgeable editors in the field are getting topic banned due to behavioral issues. The same principal applies here. ] ] 20:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' - The attack page, undisclosed COI, and sockpuppetry were serious offenses. Sometimes it takes a long time to regain trust. ] (]) 20:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*'''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) | |||
During the last 6 months, I have remained a highly productive editor, focusing primarily on animal behaviour and animal welfare articles. For example, I recently substantially re-wrote ] and started the article ]. I have also regularly contributed to other aspects of the project such as e.g. here | |||
*'''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 == | |||
I believe the fundamental reason for my attracting a topic ban was my lack of understanding ] as applied to alternative medicine. This meant I challenged the guidelines in what became a very pointy and tangential approach to editing Talk pages. I was trying to make the point that it seemed to me at the time, there was inconsistency in the way that sources were being considered as reliable or not. I have now fully acquainted myself with ], ] and ]. I recognise and accept my actions leading to the topic ban were disruptive to the project. I apologise and I pledge it will not happen again. | |||
{{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) | |||
Briefly, I believe my topic ban has prevented the topic area from being disrupted by myself for the last 6 months. During this time, I have reflected upon and learned why I caused this disruption in the topic area. I will adjust my future editing in the topic area to ensure I cause no further disruption. The topic ban has achieved its objective and I request it now be lifted.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 23:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:'''Oppose''' The utter cluelessness of this appeal is more than enough reason not to do this. I was going to write more but decided that coaching you on how to be less clueless is not in the project's best interest. You've been here long enough that you should be able to see for yourself how terrible this appeal is. ] ] 19:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*''Non-admin comment:'' I consider myself a Wiki-friend of DrChrissy, and I have conflicted feelings about this request. I have some questions for DrChrissy that I would be interested in having answered. First, do you really want to be able to edit in that topic area? If you can be productive editing in other areas, as I believe that you are, what good would come from you returning to edit about alt med etc? Second, there is a significant possibility that the GMO arbitration case, now in the proposed decision stage, will end up issuing a new topic ban, in the GMO topic area. How can you reassure the community, in that context, that it is really true that you have taken on board the lessons of the ban that you now ask to be lifted? --] (]) 00:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:'''Oppose''' and recommend we disallow any further appeals for another year. I'm concerned otherwise we'll just be back here in April. --] (]) 19:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:'''Oppose for now''' It's pretty clear that most people in that discussion were supporting an indef ban from the Cup, not an 8-month ban. This appeal doesn't address people's concerns with Tony's editing relating to the Cup, so should be denied. --] 19:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::My first thought when I read this was much like Tryptofish's. If your behavior outside the area of your first topic ban leads to a second topic ban, how can we believe that removing the first ban would be a good idea? ] (]) 01:06, 20 November 2015 (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== | |||
::(e/c)'''Comment by proposer''' Thanks for the format change Trypto. You raise an extremely good point. I actually do not want to make editing in-roads into the subjects covered by my topic ban. I have no plans to edit human medicine articles (the irony here is that I cannot recollect ever having substantially edited a human medicine page before - although I may have at some point). I also have very little motivation to edit alt.med articles, except where these relate to animals such as ]. I feel, however, I will become involved in ], but again as this relates to animals. I have not looked at the MEDRS/Talk page for many months. The last time I did, there were discussions to extend MEDRS guidelines to animals and perhaps other science pages. I feel I have something to contribute to these discussions, but please be assured, these will not be disruptive contributions. | |||
{{atop | |||
::So, why do I want the topic ban lifted? It is simply because I am totally, and completely fed up with looking over my shoulder whilst editing. There are several editors out there playing "gotcha" with me. Some editors have argued that because I have included content on the environmental toxicity of a substance to rats, this means I am making a comment on human health and therefore I have violated my topic ban. In reality, my reason for entering the content was that rats are often used as a model for the toxicity of a substance to other mammals in general. Other editors have effectively suggested that if I am using a source, I should count the words and if more of the words relate to human health rather than animal health, I am in violation of my topic ban if I use the source! Working under this extremely negative, microscopic surveillance has been totally exasperating for me and I wish to return to editing articles without such scruitiny of my editing. | |||
| result = {{u|Steve Quinn}} is {{itrout|trouted}} for bringing this to AN. ] (]/]) 21:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Regarding the current ArbCom case, I would like admins here to look at this diff, please. Note the first diff of apparent evidence at the PD relates to my behaviour well before the imposition of my topic ban and shows only a single reversion by me. The 2nd-4th diff in the PD also indicate just a single reversion on my part. I would argue this is not disruptive behaviour, but rather, indicates the topic ban I received here has helped me understand and develop a more balanced approach to engaging in such disputes. | |||
}} | |||
::<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 01:20, 20 November 2015 (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: | |||
*'''Strong oppose''' - DrChrissy's editing in other closely-released fringe areas has been combative and rife with obvious POV-problems. I see absolutely no benefit to the project in releasing him from any sanction they are currently under. Further, the reason given for wanting out from the ban "It is simply because I am totally, and completely fed up with looking over my shoulder whilst editing." Well, that's too bad, they shouldn't have edited in such a fashion as to be topic-banned - and the attitudes expressed 'All these editors are picking on me and looking over my shoulder monitoring my edits' does not bode well for non-combative editing should the ban be lifted. NO, just... no. ] (]) 01:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
# ] | |||
::I obviously do not see it in such absolute terms as you do. One possibility I am wondering about would be basically to leave the topic ban in place, but to carefully amend it, by revising it to decrease the ambiguities over where the boundaries are. Perhaps some veterinary topics could be designated as permitted within the ban. --] (]) 02:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
# ] | |||
*'''Support''' for editing pages related to animals such as Veterinary acupuncture. ] (]) 05:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
# ] | |||
*'''Support''' - the TB handcuffs DrChrissy from being the productive editor he could be in his area of expertise. It has become more like a punishment than a deflector of potential disputes and that hurts rather than helps the project. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 06:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
# ] | |||
# ] | |||
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) | |||
* '''Support''' – I agree with Atsme that unshackling DrChrissy is more likely to help the project than hurt it. --] (]) 07:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Strongly Oppose''' - I have to note ] a current case before Arbcom. Though it's possible they can change their positions before the close, right now it looks a whole lot like she's treading towards a topic ban in another area. I note the finding of facts here. This does not present much confidence to me.] (]) 11:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' DrChrissy did '''not''' violate his topic ban as Yobol suggests, DrChrissy was in fact banned<br>'' User:DrChrissy is topic banned from alternative medicine, broadly construed. To be clear, this includes alternative medicine for humans and animals, so Veterinary acupuncture does fall under the scope of this ban. Animal biology, behavior, health, and normal veterinary medicine does not fall under the scope of this ban so long as it does not intersect with alternative medicine topics such as acupuncture, homeopathy, TCM, energy medicine, faith healing, etc. DrChrissy is also topic banned from human medical articles and WP:MEDRS related discussions (in accordance with the previous close, and to reduce the possibility of conflict with the same group of users) '' <br>His ]. I'd say lift it. ] 12:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*I continue to think that the wisest course of action here is to better define the boundaries. Personally, I am very sensitive to the fact that it is unfair to DrChrissy to always have to look over one's shoulder. There is a difference between a user being required to be careful in adhering to a sanction, which is appropriate, and a user always having to worry about getting caught in a "gotcha", which should never deliberately be part of a sanction. If there are "gotchas", that doesn't constitute appropriate "punishment", but rather it reflects excessively vague writing of the sanction. | |||
: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) | |||
:So, @DrChrissy: Would lifting the prohibition on alternative veterinary medicine, while retaining the restriction on alternative human medicine, be helpful to you? If so, would you be willing ''not'' to get involved in MEDRS? How would you like to define the boundary with respect to things like animal studies such as that study about toxicity in rats? --] (]) 17:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{abot}} | |||
== Please Help Me! == | |||
::'''Reply from OP''' Trypto, thank you very much for this. I know you are trying to help. I could argue for or against your proposal, however, I feel this ultimately comes down to the question, if the alternative veterinary medicine area no longer needs protection, why does alternative medicine and MEDRS need further protection from me? Where are the edits to suggest these latter 2 of the 3 areas of the locus still need protection from me? I feel very strongly that accusations here such as "DrChrissy's editing in other closely-released fringe areas has been combative and rife with obvious POV-problems." by ] above should be supported by diffs or other evidence. Otherwise this may deteriorate into a drive-by shooting. | |||
::Just to indicate the difficulty of working with a topic ban on MEDRS, try explaining to a new editor mistakenly imposing MEDRS on an animal behaviour article with respect to primary and secondary sources without mentioning MEDRS! How can my inability to even point the editor in the correct direction possibly be beneficial to the project?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 18:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::I think that it's useful to discuss the boundaries in this way, rather than just jumping prematurely to a concrete proposal. I see better now what you are saying about MEDRS. Perhaps you should be able to refer to MEDRS and to cite its proper or improper use in veterinary or animal-related discussions, without actually editing the MEDRS page or its talk page, or making or discussing proposals about how to revise MEDRS. As for alternative human medicine, I too would like to see specifics. From ''both'' "sides". I'd like you to indicate specifically what kinds of edits you would like to be able to make there, and I'd like other editors to indicate specifically what edits you have made that they think have been disruptive. Then, let's see where we stand. --] (]) 18:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::I would like to make it clear that I have '''never''' edited ] and I see no reason why I would want to edit the main article in the foreseeable future. I have edited the talk page. At the time of my topic ban being imposed, there were discussions there about extensions of the MEDRS guidelines to include animals and veterinary science. I would contribute to these discussions - however, after having just looked at the Talk page, it appears these discussions are no longer ongoing. I would perhaps like to contribute positively in discussions where animals are used as models, particularly in behavioural studies and perhaps in zoonoses. Regarding alt.med articles, again I would like to edit where my knowledge of animal physiology, behaviour, and adequate design/controls for animal studies will benefit the article and the project. As I indicated in my OP, I have fully acquainted myself with ] and I would make edits fully compliant with these guidelines.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 20:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::OK, I'm pursuing this because I think it is becoming pretty clear that, no matter what, there will not be a consensus for a complete and unconditional lifting of the ban, so I'm trying to pin down something that would be better than nothing. I'm friendly to lifting the ban with respect to veterinary and animal-related topics. I think that, given what you just said, there may no longer be much reason for you to really be involved in the MEDRS talk page. Perhaps we can examine lifting the ban with respect to veterinary alt med (but not human alt med), and animal testing. --] (]) 21:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::I'm afraid I do not share your belief there will be no consensus for an unconditional lifting, unless contributors are allowed to make unfounded accusations against me without providing evidence. What is your evidence that MEDRS needs further protection from me? (Please note that animal testing is '''not''' part of my topic ban and never has been.)<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 21:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Oh, I don't have that kind of evidence myself, and I'm not claiming to. I'm just trying to discuss things, keeping in mind that this is not a vote. At this point, I'm going to step back and watch what other editors say. --] (]) 21:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' per Tryptofish, Yobol, and BMK. I see nothing that indicates the ban should be lifted at this time. That the editor wants such a ban lifted only 6 months later tells me they are chomping at the bit to start editing the topic banned articles immediately. And that tells me lesson not learned and disruption will once again likely be the result. If such is the case, what will the response be? An indef ban for the account rather than a topic ban alone? I don't see this request as a wise move on the requesting editor's part nor do I see that there won't be more problems for the editor down the road. The evidence just isn't there. More time has to pass, in my opinion. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 20:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::It is not my intention to reply to each and every posting here - I have learned from experience that such an approach is not looked favourably upon at WP. However, Winkelvi (who I believe I have never interacted with before) misinterprets my keenness to have the topic ban lifted. I have already indicated above my future editing intentions if the ban is lifted - I will not re-hash these, but will re-iterate there is no desire on my part whatsoever to rush into editing '''any''' of the areas I am banned from. Winkelvi, please AGF. My chomping at the bit is to allow me to edit more positively and comprehensively (note the example regarding MEDRS I gave above - this is just one example where the project is actually suffering from my topic ban). You say "The evidence just isn't there." - could you please tell me what evidence you would like to see?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 20:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Just as a follow-up - Tryptofish has not voted '''Oppose'''. He has actually made some very reasonable suggestions about a modified topic ban which are under discussion.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 21:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::I confirm that I have not yet really "voted" either way. --] (]) 21:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' - per Supports above, and DrChrissy's statement just above. Opposers are utterly unconvincing and appear to be grasping at straws. This is a noted content provider that has served their time, and is not intimidated by the experience. Bravo! ]]] 21:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' The editor is up for an ArbCom topic ban due to the same behavior that resulted in the current topic ban and people want to lift it? Makes no sense. Though I see a lot of the same names supporting here that are involved in said GMO case.] (]) 21:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*:{{ping|User:Capeo}} I have just left a message for User:Edgar181 below, but as you have posted a similar assertion, I will pose the same question to you. To help the closing admin understand your !vote, please could you state which is the "same behavior" you believe I was topic banned for and which you believe is now being looked at by ArbCom. What is your evidence for making such a statement, please?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 20:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::What is my evidence? Seriously? There's plenty over on the case pages themselves for those who want to peruse it. The same behavior would POV pushing and some edit-warring as well. ] (]) 21:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::Yes, seriously. You have still not provided evidence; you have simply said where evidence '''might''' be found. The case pages are enormous! You are proposing a huge time-sink for the closing admin to determine if your statement is legitimate and worthy of taking into account.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 22:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::Quick follow up - the PD presented only 4 diffs, all of which were related to only 2 interactions but clearly showed goading of me by one very notorious editor. The diffs contained only 2 reversions by myself, one in each interaction presented as "evidence".<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 22:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::''(Whipsers)'': Psst, DrChrissy, placing blame on another editor isn't helping you here. --] (]) 22:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Thanks Typto - heard and understood.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 23:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::I will indeed leave it to the closing admin to decide if my oppose is legitimate. Your history of conflicts in fringe areas is evident enough for them to see just from what lead to your current topic ban and the one soon to be imposed by ArbCom. ] (]) 21:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Please provide evidence of which "fringe" pages I have edited since my topic ban.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 16:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Since your topic ban? Not much, if any. Which was the point of the topic ban. If it ain't broken don't fix is my thought. ] (]) 20:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
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) | |||
*Let me start by saying I do believe DrChrissy is a good faith editor who genuinely has the best interest of Misplaced Pages's readers at heart. I would add that there were some problems with the original topic ban, namely that users agreed to a ban on "biomedical topics" without really defining what that term means, leading to some messiness when trying to impose and define the scope of the ban, which in turn led to far more after-discussion than should have been necessary for a simple topic ban. Because of these factors I am inclined towards leniency/AGF here. | |||
:{{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) | |||
:I'm not sure if the edit cited from August really constitutes a violation of the ban, but if it does I believe this was not intentional, and frankly I don't really feel like reviewing an entire arbcom case to see what's going on there. If arbcom feels a new, different sanction is warranted they are perfectly able to implement it, but I dislike the idea of denying this request because of an accusation there. As a former arb I am painfully aware of how many such accusations are made during cases, many if not most of which don't lead anywhere. I think we should give DrChrissy another chance, per ], which of course implies tht they also should understand that if they cause similar problems int he future the bar to re-imposing this ban will be quite low and there will be very little chance of getting it lifted again. ] (]) 22:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::I'm not sure I follow your logic here: the initial ban was not precise and had to be restated in more precise terms. That happened a '''''long''''' time before the edit in question, '''''plenty''''' of time for DrC to unserstand the boundaries of the ban; but even if we wanted to show DC some leniency because of the initial ban wording snafu, we've already done that: DrC was not blocked because of that edit. There's is absolutely no logical reason why an garble at the '''''beginning''''' of the ban, and a posssible boundary-pushing edit for which there was '''''no sanction''''' equals a lifting of the topic ban because the subject of the ban is tired of it. I will lay odds that the subject of '''''every''''' topic ban gets tired of it at one time or another.{{parabr}}Also, I do not agree that DrC has "the best interests of Misplaced Pages at heart." I think their editing shows that they have the best interests of their fringe POV at heart, and what they want for WIkipedia is to skew it in that direction. ] (]) 22:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::BMK, I am someone who would, if anything, would be pegged as having a POV opposite to what you ascribe to DrChrissy (not that I really do, but it is how I appear to be perceived), but I do not see DrChrissy the way that you do. And Beeblebrox, there are two separate topic bans involved here, and the one that is under discussion here at AN is not an ArbCom decision, but rather, a community sanction. --] (]) 22:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::Will somebody please tell me what my POV is in relation to this topic ban because I have no idea!<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 23:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::I think I may have worded that inelegantly, but I wasn't trying to say that you have a POV. I was saying that the editors who want the ban to remain, full stop, seem to think that you have fringey views or something like that. But I don't think the issue here is really about POV, so I'm sorry if that's become a distraction. --] (]) 23:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::Trypto, my reply was not really aimed at you. It was more aimed at BMK. His accusations are a mixture of vague, wishy-washy statements without providing any solid evidence. {{ping|User:Beyond My Ken}} What Fringe articles have I edited? How are my edits on those articles indicating I am pushing a POV? What is this POV? I think your reply needs to be very careful because as far as I know, it is not inappropriate to have a POV, but it is inappropriate to push a POV. Please provide evidence that I have been doing this since my topic ban.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 23:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{outdent}} Apparently I was also not sufficiently clear in my remarks. | |||
:{{ping|Beyond My Ken}}Note the seperate paragraphs. I was not intending to say that the ppossible topic ban violation was due to the earlier vagueries about it scope, just that it looks like a bit of a stretch and I do not believe it was intentional violation. | |||
:{{ping|Tryptofish}} I am well aware of which topic ban we are discussing. Some commenters here have suggested that because another tban is a possible result of an ongoing arbcom case, that means this one should not be lifted. I don't think the two should be linked in that manner. I'm not sure why you thought I was talking about the lifting the arbcom tban. (which if I understand the situation correctly doesn't actually exist at this time) ] (]) 01:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Sorry, I think I misunderstood what you originally said, to be referring to Arbs reviewing ''this'' topic ban. Never mind. But I think you are right about ROPE. --] (]) 01:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Strong Support''' Topic bans are silly and 6-month or more topic bans are ridiculous. DrChrissy is a good editor and he will either edit constructively or not in these areas. If not, there will be blocks and possibly a ban in the future. --] (]) 02:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Conditional support with alternate proposal''' I'm the admin who refined the wording of the current topic ban to what it is now, and I've been a point of contact when DrChrissy had questions or skirted the edges of the ban. I am encouraged that DrChrissy recognizes what the problem was with their editing 6 months ago, and though they have (in my view) been skirting the edges of the ban, I can also understand how it would be difficult to edit articles about animal medicine (their profession) without ever touching human medicine. Anyway, I think the topic ban has been a good thing overall for reducing drama so I'm hesitant to eliminate it completely. I would support, however, converting it to a voluntary "on your honor" topic ban, where DrChrissy promises to do their best to stay away from human medicine and MEDRS, but doesn't have to worry about being blocked if they mess up. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 05:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Awilley, thanks for your input here. As ever, your words are well considered and very helpful. First, I don't think I have ever edited a human medicine article (I may be wrong here and other editors should feel free to indicate this if I am) and I have no desire to begin doing this now. However, although I have absolutely no motivation to start posting to the MEDRS Talk page at the moment, I feel that I may have something to contribute if animal-related matters arise in the future. I have worked extremely hard to build my reputation and integrity here on wikipedia. If I was to promise to do my best to stay away from MEDRS Talk and then edited there at some time in the future, there is no doubt in my mind there would be postings along the lines of "DrChrissy - you broke your promise. You have little integrity". In your proposal, I would not be blocked for the edit, but I feel it would leave me open to abusive and inflammatory posts. One way around this would be for a voluntary ban to be time-limited to e.g. 4 weeks, after which I would be free to edit the entire site without question (of course, I would be adhering to the usual behaviour and PAGs expected of editors).<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 18:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::OK, how about this? You agree to stay off articles specifically about human medicine and human alt-med, and away from MEDRS for 3 months. This is more narrow than your current ban, so you won't have to count words, scrutinize sources, or look over your shoulder. Just don't edit certain articles. This would be kind of the test period to see if drama increases again, and it ends automatically without appeal, after which you can edit anywhere on the site. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 17:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::I am opposed in principle to negotiating bans with the subject of the ban. Discussion can take place between uninvolved editors, but to put it on a one-to-one basis between the banning admin and the subject leaves it open to abuse. ] (]) 21:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::Abuse? Who should bans be negotiated with if not the subject of the ban? And what's wrong with giving editors some control over where they can edit? The way I see it if somebody has enough input where they can agree to follow a topic ban, that is a very good thing, and they are more likely to abide by that sanction than if it was unilaterally imposed on them by forces completely outside of their control. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 05:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::Thanks again for your words. I would be amenable to considering this if the wording was very specific to '''articles''' rather than topics or discussion. For example, it was very recently announced that GM salmon has now been licensed in the US. I was editing the ] article to reflect this. The RS I was using stated that the fish would not be labelled as GM because it was "nutritionally equivalent to non-GM salmon" (I think those were the words). I felt this fact should be included, however, I did not include it because it probably relates to human health which is a part of human medicine. I think your proposal would deal with this type of problem. However, it is probably worth noting that the "count the words relating to humans and the number of words relating to animals" and "rats are used in studies for human health results therefore you have breached your topic ban" both occurred on the ] article - a herbicide, for goodness sake. I can see the distinct advantages of what you have suggested. But, I am mindful that many people have already supported an unconditional lifting of my topic ban now that 6 months has expired, rather than my having to experience a further 3-month test-period. I'm sure the closing admin will take all these points of view into consideration.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 18:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::Yes, this would only apply to articles only. I too am aware of the supports piling up below, so you will likely be unbanned without needing my support. I think it's a good idea anyway, even if you just make the commitment to yourself and don't write it down on-Wiki. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 05:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' lifting of the topic ban. It has led to several "gotcha" situations, and no-one being clear where the boundaries lay. DrC makes clear above that his understanding of MEDRS has improved. Lifting the ban will mean that he can work unimpeded, particularly on non-human animal health. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' unconditional lifting of the ban, with an accompanying understanding of ]. I've seen enough discussion now, and I have made up my mind. I think that Beeblebrox makes good points, both about ROPE and about the non-dependence on whatever happens at ArbCom. I've waited for evidence of harmful edits around the boundaries of the topic, and nobody has really presented any. Lift the ban entirely. --] (]) 23:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' lifting the ban given DrC's recognition of what caused the problems in the first place. ]<sub>(])</sub> 00:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' I would feel very comfortable using DrChrissy's suggestion from his response to Awilley above: ''One way around this would be for a voluntary ban to be time-limited to e.g. 4 weeks, after which I would be free to edit the entire site without question (of course, I would be adhering to the usual behaviour and PAGs expected of editors)'' I maintain that he should be able to edit this site without question, and would especially hate to loose his voice at MEDRS-related discussions. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 02:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Comment''' - The community will do what the community will do, but if the ban is lifted, I see a significant probability that we'll see DrC's name on the noticeboards again. Remember, you read it here first! ] (]) 04:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support'''. DrChrissy - straightforward, cooperative, professional. The Tban implementation - poorly-defined, "gotcha", dysfunctional. (How does WP attract/keep expert editors? By draining them of morale?! DrChrissy is a stronger editor from this muddy experience. That deserves recognition not bad faith.) ] (]) 06:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''support''' a valuable editor, Misplaced Pages ''should'' be stronger, "knowledge-wise" with such an editor--] (]) 13:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Comment''' I do not recognise the editor described in many of the support comments here as the one who has been topic banned by the community. The editing environment has been improved in the topic areas covered by the ban. The fact that ARBCOM is examining those very same behaviours that led DrC to be sanctioned by the community suggests to me that this appeal is premature. -] ] 15:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:*It's also interesting to note that I recognize many of the "support" voters as being other editors who generally support the fringe side of things (QuackGuru being the obviously blatant exception). ] (]) 20:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::*Although it's true that there are some editors who predictably line up to vote (not !vote) for the fringey "side" every time, and it's also true that the decision here is not going to end up as a vote, but rather as an administrative assessment of the strengths or weaknesses of arguments, I really do not think that DrChrissy is someone who advocates for fringe material. Nor, may I say, am I <s>(and I hope that my pointing that out will not be portrayed as "whiney")</s>. --] (]) 20:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::*I was not including you in the group of editors I mentioned, nor would I characterize your participation here as "whining", as opposed to your ongoing disproportionate response to your 24-hour ArbCom block over a month ago, which I advised you to put behind you ("Get over it"), instead of dwelling on it unnecessarily. Other editors have been the recipients of unwarranted blocks for any number of reasons, and you don't see them making it their life's work to rectify the injustice. (That's assuming that your block was unwarranted, which we cannot know because we are not privy to the information that ArbCom was.) ] (]) 21:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::*I repeat: I see no evidence that DrChrissy will add fringey content. --] (]) 22:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::*Then I would say that your evaluation of their editing is suspect, and advise you to re-read the community discussion which lead to the topic ban in the first place. You'll find it . ] (]) 00:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:*Roxy, thank-you very much for that first sentence. I could not have asked for a more eloquent piece of writing to indicate how much my editing behaviour has changed over the past 6 months, and how the topic ban has achieved its objective within the time indicated by the closing admin.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 20:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::*Are you deliberately misreading what Roxy wrote, or are you simply being disingenuous? What he said was nothing like your summary of it. He's saying that the subject area you've been topic banned from has '''''improved significantly by your <u>not being there</u>''''', and that the description of your editing promoted by your supporters is '''''unrecognizable to him when compared to your <u>actual editing behavior<u>'''''. (Hint: It was '''''bad''''' for you, not good.) ] (]) 21:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::* Oh dear BMK. Lots of bold and underlining, but Roxy does not even bother to defend his own posting. Are you able to read his mind? He correctly identified that the community have recognised I have changed my editing behaviour subsequent to the topic ban and that is completely valid evidence for it to be lifted. I simply thanked him for that observation.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 00:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::* No, I can't read Roxy's mind, but, fortunately, I don't have to, since I can read their '''''words''''', in which they expressed quite clearly what is on their mind. I suggest you try doing the same, since he said nothing whatsoever about the community recognizing a change in your editing behavior. It probably would be a good idea to read it again, this time without reading into it what you '''''want''''' it to say, instead of what he actually says. While it's often the point of snarky remarks, reading comprehension really is necessary to edit Misplaced Pages properly, if one is to, for instance, represent accurately what reliable sources say rather than what one wishes them to say. ] (]) 02:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::* Sorry. Real life, and it was bedtime. I dreamed about leopards and spots. Perhaps I should get a vetinary to interpret ... Oh. -] ] 07:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose'''. I think it is a very bad idea to lift an existing topic ban on an editor who is currently facing another topic ban for the same type of behavior that led to the first. -- ] (]) 18:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*:], to help the closing admin. understand your !vote, please could you state which is the "same type of behavior" you believe I was topic banned for and which you believe is now being looked at by ArbCom. What is your evidence for making such a statement, please?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 19:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support'''. Not an admin, but an editor who has worked with DrChrissy on articles such as ]. DrChrissy is a valuable and hard-working editor. I think that judgments above that refer to DrChrissy having a "fringy" point of view are troublesome, for two reasons. (1) Having a POV is not against guidelines, but rather encouraged, actually, and i think DrChrissy's POV is valuable in editing here, as it's somewhat underrepresented. (2) The decision of what is "fringy" is rather relative. All judgment should be based on behavior, and relate to whether DrChrissy works well with other editors, uses appropriate sources, and represents them accurately. Any judgment that is based on an assumed "standard POV" for Misplaced Pages is creating a "party line" of sorts. I support DrChrissy's request for a full lift of the ban, and then future behavior being judged based on behavior in regard to the guidelines. ] (]) 22:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:*Another member of the crew. ] (]) 23:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::* {{ping|Beyond My Ken}} What is that supposed to mean? Looks a lot like poisoning the well and attempting to cast me as a gang-like POV editor. If that is the implication, then i ask you to either say that explicitly, or to strike the insinuating remark. Let's be explicit and honest about what we mean. I have indeed worked alongside DrChrissy on a few articles, very productively in general. A few times i've urged DrChrissy to slow down and to listen to other editors more, but on the whole i have found DrChrissy a generally good and conscientious editor. Now would you please explain your brief drive-by remark here? Thank you. ] (]) 07:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::*SageRad, considering , you're hardly in a position to pass judgement on other editor's comments or to demand anything, nor can you be considered as a non-partisan voice in this discussion. I suggest that the closer of this discussion would be best advised to ignore your comment entirely as yet another one of the fringy crew. ] (]) 07:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::*You repeat the same behavior that i've stated is problematic, attempting to poison the well against my input and framing me as a POV pushing gang editor and thereby trying to negate my ability to provide input here. That's wrong. I ask you to strike it. I've got editing experience with DrChrissy and can provide input. I'm generally in favor of the sorts of edits that DrChrissy makes though not always, and my input is quite as valid as anyone else's. What you're trying to do here is not ok. It's battleground behavior. I've stated my concerns. This section is about DrChrissy, not you and i, and I gave my input. ] (]) 09:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::*Yes, and you certainly can do that. I also gave my input, which is that your input would best be ignored by anyone who closes this thread. I see nothing wrong with that. ] (]) 00:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::: is what is wrong with it. ] (]) 08:20, 24 November 2015 (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) | |||
== I need help from an admin - Urgent == | |||
*I'm not going to !vote (others have lined up to do that from the GMO ArbCom case), but myself and others have voiced concern many times on their talk page when DrChrissy has tested the edges their current topic ban(s). If someone actually is going to consider removing the ban they should consider those diffs and talk page sections and that DrChrissy is up for another topic ban at ArbCom for the same behavior. ] (]) 01:07, 23 November 2015 (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)}} | |||
:* Why are you not !voting? It seems a little odd to me to contribute something like you have and than actually refuse to !vote. Perhaps you are not convinced by your own arguments? I feel you really should clarify which behaviours in the admin's closing statement for my topic ban are also being considered at ArbCom. You are stating it is the "same" behaviour, but I fail to see what behaviour you are referring to.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 01:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
Dear Misplaced Pages Team, | |||
:::Mostly because "votes" mean nothing here. The evidence should speak for itself. That and there's already a block of editors associated with the GMO case doling out supports, and I usually give those kinds of votes doubly less weight (whether support or oppose). Tossing a bold word or two in front of my post would carry just as little weight. What less involved editors determine from evidence presented in examples like mine is what matters, not vote counts. ] (]) 02:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::Hmmm, I see more of the same aspersions that we've been seeing at ArbCom which includes providing diffs that don't support the allegations (and what makes them aspersions). The diffs I reviewed were simply explanations of the TB, not actual violations of it. Claims that DrChrissy has been "testing the edges of his TB" are part of the reason for his request to lift it - it was never done intentionally rather the TB is thoroughly confusing and extremely restrictive in places where it shouldn't be so it seems quite odd that anyone with a lick of common sense would condemn him to many more months in ''purgatory'' because of the flaws surrounding the TB. Ironically, the diffs used to support the unwarranted allegations (and I actually investigated them) also included comments by admins, {{u|SlimVirgin}} and {{u|Beeblebrox}}, who support lifting this ban, so how on earth could those diffs support keeping the ban in place? I will also mention that the long list of diffs look impressive but they don't support any of the reasons given to keep the ban in place. Thank goodness we don't have an overabundance of admins working under time constraints who will simply look at such a large number of diffs and ass-u-me they support the allegations. I find such a practice to be extremely disruptive and potentially harmful to both the editor being unjustly accused as well as to the project overall....but of course, that's just my POV. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 20:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose'''. As shown by Kingofaces43, DrChrissy seems intent on skirting their topic ban, by trying to edit articles which can be summed up "scientific consensus versus fringe unscientific POV / conspiracy theorists / Daily Mail health articles etc." with <s>articles</s> areas such as GM food, glycophosphate, acupuncture, <s>high fructose corn syrup</s> etc.. This does not suggest good faith. Why the heck can't they stay away from these areas and concentrate on uncontentious areas for a while? Their editing is not suited to ] areas whatsoever. It will just end up with future ANI and ArbCom actions. <b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;">] ]</b> 23:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::This is an outrageous posting! I have '''never''' edited ] or its Talk page!<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 00:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::What about ? If you havent edited the article you've certainly discussed it. I have changed artcles to areas.<b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;">] ]</b> 00:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::'''E/C''' That is a diff to my Talk page in which I was discussing with a well respected admin whether a posting to the page would be a violation of my topic ban. They explained it would, so I did not make the edit/s. Are you suggesting that my seeking advice from an admin means I am in breach of my topic ban?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 00:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::OK it's not clear what happened. I shall redact it. But why even ask? Of course it would violate your ban. see ] <b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;">] ]</b> 00:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::I invite you to also redact your accusation about me editing the acupuncture page and its associate Talk page. My last edit of that page was on May 17th - 3 days before my topic ban was imposed.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 01:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::You had a community ban dated the 16th. See . <b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;">] ]</b> 01:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Acupuncture is considered to be alt.med, not biomedical. Alt.med was not added until the close by ].<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 14:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::More quibbling? It does not inspire me to reconsider...<b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;">] ]</b> 15:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::Of course it doesn't. This little exchange is typical of the Doc's behaviour with regard to his community imposed topic ban from the beginning. I see nothing to persuade me to change my opinion, expressed above. -] ] 11:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC) - | |||
:::::::::::::I reviewed our PAGs and couldn't find "quibbling" mentioned as a violation, much less worthy of a TB. What I do know is that casting aspersions is highly frowned upon as is baiting, harranguing and so forth. Wrongful criticism falls under that same category and may be considered a PA. DrChrissy is void of any such conduct and has simply defended himself against unwarranted allegations. Perhaps its time to more closely examine the allegations made against him to see what might be causing what some consider quibbling but is beginning to appear more like ill-will toward a GF editor's integrity rather than an attempt to resolve a real issue. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 13:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{od|:::::::::::::}} | |||
Well that's where you're wrong, this is an attempt to resolve a real issue, that issue bring DrChrissys' problematic editing of ] topics. I've just noticed that ArbCom have just voted to topic ban DrChrissy from GM plants and agrichemicals . To reverse their topic ban at this time would be ludicrous. <b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;">] ]</b> 14:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{od}} | |||
On the above dialogue, i do not think it's fair to represent the subject's clarification of scope of topic ban as "quibbling" and then to use that as more fuel against them, for that is a silencing sort of tactic. It must be permissible for the person in question to clarify as much as needed, until we are on the same page. I do not like phrasings and tactics that create the impression that any new words from the defendant are, in themself, further evidence against the person. It's a silencing tactic and not fair. It feels very bad to the defendant. They have a right to speak in their defense even if it's to clarify a detail. There is no limit to the amount of dialogue, as long as it's not a filibuster. Secondly, i fail to see how the GM ArbCom case's result is relevant here. Let's keep issues separate. I'm also part of the ArbCom case, and it's very complex and has its own many issues. ] (]) 15:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:The recent ArbCom ban of DrChrissy is highly relevant, as it indicates problematic editing in ] topics since the community ban was enacted. It shows DrChrissy has learned little from their community ban, and has continued editing with little regard for earlier criticism. <b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;">] ]</b> 15:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::@Mrjulesd I believe you are again inaccurately misrepresenting the situation. First, there is no recent Arbcom ban of me. There is a vote in process, but no ban has been imposed and I feel it is misleading for you to state this has been done. Second, you state that the ArbCom vote "...indicates problematic editing in ] topics since the community ban was enacted". The evidence in the PD relates to ] and ] edits. Are these "Fringe" topics? If they are not, which fringe topics are you referring to?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 17:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Look I'm not going to discuss this further here, there is too much crap already in this thread. But if you're really curious you can ask me on my talk page. <b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;">] ]</b> 18:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::This is absolutely not a matter of curiosity. You have made an accusation against me and I am asking for evidence to support that. What is your evidence for my editing "fringe" articles since my topic ban, please?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 19:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
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. | |||
Can we please take some time off from hammering DrChrissy and give an uninvolved admin a chance to carefully review the SUPPORT vs OPPOSE consensus before this ''discussion'' turns into 17 pages of meritless accusations and relentless repetition? Imagine being an admin having to wade through this stuff. Jiminy Cricket. We've already explained the pros and cons, and why the ban should be lifted (which has prevailing support) or not lifted (minority view based on the initial confusion as explained by Beeblebrox above). Try walking in DrChrissy's shoes for a week while trying to be a productive editor. It's frustrating to say the least. I will repeat what Beeblebrox stated above as it defines part of the problem regarding the oppose comments: {{xt|''@Tryptofish: I am well aware of which topic ban we are discussing. Some commenters here have suggested that because another tban is a possible result of an ongoing arbcom case, that means this one should not be lifted. I don't think the two should be linked in that manner. I'm not sure why you thought I was talking about the lifting the arbcom tban. (which if I understand the situation correctly doesn't actually exist at this time)}} Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)'' <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --><!-- Template:Xsign --> | |||
:You seem to assume that the discussion hasn't been closed because people (yourself and myself included) continue to comment, but I believe you're overlooking several possibilities: | |||
::#The discussion hasn't been closed because no uninvolved admin who's looked at it has seen a consensus to lift the topic ban. Remember, '''''the ban is in place''''', there does not need to be a consensus to '''''keep''''' it in place, only one to '''''remove''''' it, and since it's a community ban, that consensus needs to be at least as strong as the consensus was to impose the ban in the first place. | |||
::#Some admins have looked at the thread but, considering the likely outcome of the GMO case, are waiting for a formal closure there to guide them here. | |||
::#This is Thanksgiving weekend in the US, which means that many American admins are probably occupied with RL activities (such as family gatherings and Black Friday Christmas shopping), reducing the number of admins who might be interested in evaluating the discussion. | |||
:I'm sure there are probably other factors as well. ] (]) 20:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
Many thanks, | |||
*'''Support''' - Not really involved, but there are some signs that the editor improved editing. ] (]) 13:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
Mohammed ] (]) 17:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* '''Oppose'''. DrChrissy's input was profoundly unhelpful in this contentious area, consistently supporting fringe views over the mainstream, and I see no evidence that he has gained any ability to accept that he might be wrong, which was a core part of the problem. If the ban is lifted it is my firm opinion that it will need to be reimposed in short order in order to protect the integrity of the encyclopaedia in an area of healthcare where there is a major collision between quasi-religious belief and empirical scientific fact. And as a point of information, there is no "confusion" about whether topic bans apply to the sandbox. They do. They always have. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:51, 29 November 2015 (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) | |||
*'''Oppose''' based on wide support from Arbcom of evidence that DrChrissy has engaged in edit warring and is facing an imminent topic ban by Arbcom from GMO topics: ]. ] (]) 17:14, 1 December 2015 (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 == | |||
===Request to close this discussion=== | |||
{{atop|1= is thataway. → - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
*{{u|Awilley}}, since you have been overseeing DrChrissy's TB, would you be so kind as to evaluate and close this discussion? It has turned to an ugly direction and what appears to be baiting. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 13:55, 27 November 2015 (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) | |||
**It would be poor form for Awilley to close a community discussion in which they have voted. It is also poor form of you, as a supporter of lifting the topic ban, to pick a like-minded adminstrator to close this discussion, rather than just ask for someone uninvolved to close it.--] (]) 14:26, 27 November 2015 (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) | |||
***I simply thought the admin who imposed the TB had to remove it. My mistake if that isn't the case. AGF, Atlan. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 14:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{abot}} | |||
****You don't seem to practice what you preach, as you make a point of questioning the motives of oppose voters here.--] (]) 14:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
== EncycloDeterminate unblocked == | |||
*****It isn't nice to cast aspersions, and it isn't wise to jump to conclusions. '''Please''' AGF and stop trying to make this discussion about me. You're being disruptive. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 15:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
******Cry me a river.--] (]) 15:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
**I never got a ping; I don't think it works with the {{tl|u}} template. No, I won't be closing this discussion. As Atlan pointed out I did vote above. Also, it would be incorrect to say that I support lifting the topic ban. Mine was a ''conditional'' support with conditions that DrChrissy has chosen not to meet. My experience has been that closing admins tend to ignore extremely long threads full of bickering between partisans. It's possible to say your piece without creating several level-1 bullets and multiple section headings, and then challenging all the opposing comments. (I'm talking primarily to BMK and DrC.) <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 20:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
***{{ping|Awilley}} I think I might have been unclear in my postings regarding your suggestion of a conditional lifting. I did not say that I chose not to meet the conditions. Rather, I was pointing out that at the time, and still now, there is a community consensus for unconditional lifting of the ban. I was waiting for further discussion of your proposed conditional lifting.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 13:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
The Arbitration Committee has resolved that: | |||
{{od}}Will an admin please evaluate and close this discussion? <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 14:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{ivmbox|1=Following an appeal, the Arbitration Committee repeals the Oversight block of {{Userlinks|EncycloDeterminate}}, as it is no longer necessary.}} | |||
:*And in doing so, please look at the hatted material. Most of it is frivolous, but there is also substantive argumentation in there.{{parabr}}(BTW DrC and Tryptofish, the edit conflicts came about because DrC initially put his comment inside the hat, but at the top of it, and I moved it to the bottom of the hat, where it belonged to preserve chronology. Meanwhile DrC was apparantly deciding that their comment should be outside the hat entirely and reposted it, so we ended up with one comment inside the hat and one outside.) ] (]) 20:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
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 == | |||
{{hat}} | |||
{{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) | |||
===The bottom line=== | |||
::@] here is another CFA imposter for you. Cheers! ] ] 05:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
I think the bottom line here is that at the moment when a proposed remedy to ArbCom's GMO case is a , based on a finding that DrC , has , and has been engaged in a , and that topic ban has already been , meaning that barring any change in the voting, once the case is closed, there will be another topic ban on DrC, this one ArbCom-imposed; it is hardly wise at that moment it to remove DrC's previous sanction. ] (]) 02:51, 24 November 2015 (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) | |||
===The bottom, bottom line=== | |||
{{abot}} | |||
I urge anyone reading the ArbCom case in relation to this lifting of a topic ban to do so very, very critically. There is an ever-growing plethora of concerns about how this case has been, and is being handled. Many of these concerns are coming from greatly experienced editors and are so fundamental to the case that some have called for the case to be withdrawn or restarted from a neutral point of view.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 16:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC | |||
:The subjects of ArbCom cases, and philosophically like-minded editors, '''''<u>always</u>''''' have "concerns about how the case is handled" when it goes against them. It never fails, and it almost never amounts to a hill of beans. ] (]) 20:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Never mind the bottom line - this case has bottomed out and needs to be closed, probably by the admin who originally imposed the TB. Two admins have weighed in and supported removal of the TB, while admin {{u|Awilly}} who has kept a close eye on DrChrissy's compliance and has offered a suggestion. The TB should not extend into this expert's area of editing which has nothing to do with human health other than guilt by association; i.e., humans consume animals, and some of the same alternative therapies are used. Interesting to see how the placebo effect works in veterinary medicine. *sigh* There's no reason to not allow an expert in his field to work unencumbered in his voluntary position on WP. The project might even consider expressing a little gratitude that we have volunteers like DrChrissy generously giving of their time and sharing their knowledge instead of inundating us with the negativity I've been reading. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 16:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::As I mentioned below, this is a community-placed topic ban, not an admin-placed ban, and the opinions of admins carry exactly as much weight as that of any other community member. Even Awilly, who was good enough to straighten out the terms of the ban, is not in any way specially endowed to influence the removal of the ban, which is entirely a '''''community''''' concern. The role of an admin is simply to evaluate the consensus of the community when closing the discussion, not to override it, or to count admin !votes as more significant than the votes of you or I. ] (]) 10:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::Forgive me, BMK, but I don't understand what you're suggesting. Was it not an admin who imposed the TB? Are you saying that a group of editors without authoritative tools can impose TBs on other editors, which pretty much makes this a numbers game? When did consensus become a !vote count? If that is the case, why do we need admins? Forgive my skepticism, but that's a scary thought because it could place editors at the hands of potential lynch mobs. It's bad enough that we have to deal with ] but it appears to me that the procedure you describe may result in a kangaroo court. A call to ], and we've rid ourselves of opposition. For example, (purely hypothetical), let's say an editor claims that you (generalization) are a disruptive editor, and files against you at AN/I, then posts notices of the case on the TP of the WP project to which they are members and also at various other venues where they know they have support. You're saying that the sheer numbers of a "community" of editors casting votes can get you site banned or topic banned - do I have that right? If so, when did that happen and where can I read up on the policy? Jiminy Cricket, how is that not the makings of a kangaroo court, the latter of which should actually be what raises community concern. Doesn't the actual decision rest with the closing admin who then evaluates the merits of the case, reviews the evidence and comes to a conclusion based on those merits as presented by the community (which does not trump PAGs) rather than simply counting votes? <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 14:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
===The seemingly bottomless pit=== | |||
I rather think that whoever closes this request will determine the consensus, and whatever that is, will be the "bottom line" for purposes of this discussion. I think that DrChrissy has every right to respond to criticisms here, but I do not find it helpful for anyone else to self-appoint as the determiner of the "bottom line". --] (]) 21:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Absolutely, Tryptofish. And I hope that happens soon because the discussion has become less than helpful. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 14:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
===Bottom's line=== | |||
"Enough; hold or cut bow-strings." '''' (Act 1, Scene 2) ] (]) 21:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I am rather reluctant to even comment on a posting which is so clearly off-topic, but it worries me that BMK also realises his posting and perhaps those below are totally inappropriate for the Admin's Noticeboard and yet chooses to joke about it on another editor's talk page.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 16:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
===Visible Pantie Line=== | |||
I'd pay good money for a Punch Line right now. -] ] 21:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:"That's the way to do it!" ] (]) 22:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Punch lines do tend to work better than bottom lines in some cases. Who shall we punch (data punch)? <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 16:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
===The ] line=== | |||
"''Poor blighter! All he needed was the love of a good woman. Well not even a good one, any old one would have done; slap a wig on a 'Speak your Weight' machine, he'd have been happy. And now he's gone and done himself in!''" (series 1, episode 3) ] ] ] 21:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
===The ]=== | |||
] -] ] 12:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
===Regarding the Hatted content=== | |||
] The fact you have made these edits which you describe yourself as humorous (rather than being topic related) on the Admin's Noticeboard, and you have joked about these elsewhere, shows a great disrespect to myself, the wikipedia process/community, and particularly the closing admin. I feel an apology to the community is well-advised.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 01:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Since you've seen fit to comment on the hatted material outside of the hat, I've unhatted it so everyone can see it. As for apologies, none is warranted, and none will be forthcoming. I do, however, thank you for your comment, which well displays why the glowing descriptions of your behavior posted by your friends are so superficial and unconvincing. ] (]) 01:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::See ] <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 14:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::I would like to point out that I previously attempted to hat the entire set of sub-threads about bottom lines and the like, on two grounds: that humor is unhelpful to an editor who is making a very serious request for the lifting of a topic ban, and that it is similarly unhelpful for one editor to self-appoint as the determiner of the "bottom line" of a discussion in which the emerging consensus may be quite contrary to that claim of a bottom line. That same editor, first, reverted me to only hat the humorous sections, and then later unhatted everything in order to argue further with DrChrissy. I think that Atsme's point about baiting has some merit. --] (]) 17:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::For the record, while I was trying to make the posting, there were some very unusual edit conflicts which appeared to be due to BMK moving my comment in and out of the hatted content - all without my consent. For BKM's benefit, the reason I saw "...fit to comment on the hatted material outside of the hat" was very simple - the hat carries with it a warning that the discussion should not be modified. I was simply following instructions. And a third point BMK, please read ] - this states "This template should only be used by uninvolved editors". You were clearly involved.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 18:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::Commenting only about template use, I was the first to apply the hat, so I apologize that I had failed to see what DrChrissy just pointed out about involved editors, although I also think that IAR applies to my use of it. --] (]) 18:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::Trypto, I was assuming "involved" meant "has contributed to the material being hatted". You had not, so I consider you were non-involved.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 19:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
===]=== | |||
I have no idea how the title of this section is relevant other than illustrating how this entire discussion has degenerated into absurdity. Let's just lift the topic ban on DrChrissy. I find it hard to believe that editorial actions by DrChrissy have or will in the future waste as much time as this discussion has. --] (]) 03:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Wastage of time is not the issue, disruption of the editing of the '''''encyclopedia''''' and the skewing of its contents is. And, of course, this discussion -- a large part of which is garbage, I agree with you there -- has done nothing whatsoever to disrupt anyone's editing of content, has it? Nor has it done anything to skew our desired NPOV. Mostly, it's been a bunch of DrC's friends saying what a good person he or she is, so the topic ban should be lifted, and a bunch of other people saying that she or he a combative edit-warrior pushing a fringe POV, so the topic ban should stay in place. That's pretty much what pages like this are for.{{parabr}}Oh, and yeah, there's some levity thrown in which apparently is a gross insult to DrC, Misplaced Pages and the Declaration of the Rights of Man ... apparently. ] (]) 05:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::BMK, I understand where you are coming from, but my overall view of DrChrissy's contributions to Misplaced Pages are extremely positive. I really don't see quite the same fringe POV as you do. I may be wrong, but I like error on the side of forgiveness. It fails sometimes, but I'll bet that in the long run it maximizes constructive building of Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 05:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::I forgive DrC, I just don't want them to edit in an subject area the community has decided she's disruptive in. But, you know, there's nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree about the tenor of her editing -- unfortuanately, lifting a topic ban requires a strong '''''positive''''' consensus to do so, and that's not here, and will not be here. (@Atmse: In determining whether to lift a community-placed topic ban, an admin's vote carries '''''exactly''''' the same weight as any other editor's vote.) ] (]) 06:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::FYI, DrChrissy is a he. With all due respect, BMK, I agree with the consensus here which appears to be that DrChrissy should have the TB lifted or at least modified per {{u|Awilley}}. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 14:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
=== Close out === | |||
Consensus exists to lift the ban on Dr. Chrissy, can we have admin close this out noting conensus to lift the ban ? ] 14:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:No such consensus exists, although a bare majority may (I haven't counted). ] (]) 20:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{hab}} | {{hab}} | ||
== Proposed community ban of Marginataen == | |||
== Fixing problems caused by use of sandboxes to make multiple articles == | |||
{{userlinks|Marginataen}} | |||
Dear editors: Sometimes a new user writes a draft article in his/her sandbox and submits it at AfC. If it's acceptable, a reviewer will move it to mainspace; if it's a notable topic but needs work, an reviewer will move it to Draft space. In either case, a redirect remains in the sandbox so that the user can find the moved page. | |||
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) | |||
The problem comes when the same user decides to repeat the process and make a new draft in the sandbox, overwriting the redirect. In that case, the redirect by the reviewer is the first edit of the new article. By this process, I am credited by X's "Articles created" tool with having written several articles for which I don't really want credit and have not worked on: ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. | |||
:{{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) | |||
When I first noticed this, I thought that a solution would be appropriate to deleted the first edit containing the redirection in each article, leaving the real draft creator as the first live edit, but that doesn't appear to work: ], ], ] and the deleted ] are all credited to me in error. | |||
:'''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) | |||
::20 more edits after the AN notice. ] 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. ] (]) 09:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:'''Support'''. Might considering a RFC on Meta to globally ban Marginataen in the future. ] (]) 10:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:'''Support'''. Repeatedly making disruptive edits even after having been blocked several times and promising to mend their ways. ] (]) 12:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:'''Support'''. Per proposal. --] (]) 15:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:'''Support'''. Don't waste the community's time. ♠]♠ ] 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: {{u|Tamborg}}, {{u|Bubfernr}}, and {{u|LatteDK}}. There may be others that I have missed. ] (]) 16:56, 19 January 2025 (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) | |||
::As a purely stopgap measure, I've blocked Marginataen from mainspace for a week to encourage them to respond here. Any admin should feel free to unblock without asking me, if the block becomes no longer necessary. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 20:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:'''Support''' - Gotta play by the rules. ] (]) 20:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:'''Support'''. The continuous disruption far outweighs the minimal content contribution. ] (]) 21:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== User:TWC DC1 == | |||
As well as me being unhappy to be seen as the creator of several of these, there is also the problem that the real creators wouldn't be notified if the pages were ever tagged for deletion. If there's this many just from my list, there must be thousands of these. Is there anything to be done about this, and should I delete the misleading edits when I come across this? Or just let it go?—] (]) 04:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{atop | |||
| result = Warned, then sockblocked. <small>(])</small> ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 21:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:I think Twinkle uses the 'live' revisions to determine who is the page creator, so I think we can rest a little assured that at least is people use Twinkle to nominate a page for deletion, the actual creator will get a talk page message (ping ] to confirm). Regarding X!'s tool, it might be best to discuss this with whoever maintains it these days – there may be a reason why they want to credit the first editor (even if deleted) as the author. Last, am I right in understanding that you are getting ] for these pages even after you've tidied the history to make the actual 'creator' the first editor? If so, that sounds like a bug in the software and something the devs should fix. ] (]) 12:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
}} | |||
::Whoever moves the draft into main space, if they are not an admin, could tag the draft (now just a redirect) with ]. And leave a note for the submitter so they are not confused. The user could then start a new draft in the same sandbox and in theory, there would be no overlap. ] (]) 15:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Deleting redirects left by pagemoves is normally a bad idea, but when the existence of the draft causes problems, I agree that it's time for G6. ] (]) 22:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::If deleting is not a best practice, and the problem is overwriting the redirect in the same sandbox, what about protecting that sandbox page and require the user to use a second sandbox for future drafts? Rgrds. --] (]) 01:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::Curious. This seems to be a misfeature of the use of sandboxes for drafts. I don't see a request for administrative action, but maybe this should be discussed at ] or at ]. ] (]) 04:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::One thing that *could* be done, would be to request deletion of the redirect from the article history, using a delete and selective restore. (Like a history split, but just leaving the split revision deleted) An admin could do that now, though AFAIK there isn't a policy that either permits or prohibits it. This would allow it to be fixed when a redirect creator requests, but wouldn't require any routine, pro-active work. ]] 03:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Sorry for taking so long to respond; I was in a location without secure internet for two days (bluegrass festival). | |||
:::::::*About delete and partial restore: Yes, {{U|Monty845}}, this is exactly what I was inquiring about. It would be easy for me to delete the redirect from the history, but is there a consensus that this is a good idea? | |||
:::::::*About notifications: {{U|Jenks24}}, I have received several notifications about articles which I've never seen before, because they had redirects in their history of other old drafts; however, the four instances that I have found where someone has taken the time to delete the redirect are live articles, so other than nominating them for deletion I don't know how to find out if I would receive a notification. I just know that they appear on my list of articles created. That in itself is a minor thing, but if the data about article creation is used for any kind of reports or analysis it may cause inaccuracy. | |||
:::::::*About sandbox use: {{U|EdJohnston}}, {{U|Nyttend}}, 64.85.216.119, {{U|Robert McClenon}}, deleting the sandbox after a draft article is moved out of it prevents the technical problem. When I move an article, I'm given the choice not to leave a redirect, which should have the same effect. However, this causes another problem because usually it's new users who write articles in the sandbox and without redirects they may think their articles have been deleted. What would be more effective is to strongly discourage editors from writing articles in the sandbox, and suggest using either a named user subpage or page in Draft space instead. This would also save work at AfC, where the reviewers have to make up and type in the article names when they move them to Draft space. Perhaps an edit notice could be added to the sandbox edit screen saying something like "This sandbox is for experimenting. To make a draft article, click in the search box and type User:Usename/Article title". (and, sigh, create a page "User:Username/Article title" that says "Try again, but use your specific user name, and the title of the article you want to create.")—] (]) 07:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::*We can always use a different rationale (e.g. "Deleting page to fix a technical problem; you article is at TITLE, and feel free to create this page again"), or we can just create the sandbox as a blank page, or we can leave a note at the user's talk page explaining what happened. ] (]) 15:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
====Purpose of sandboxes==== | |||
The real problem, as I see it, is that user sandboxes are being used for two purposes that really should not overlap, and this causes at least two problems. Their primary purpose should be for experimentation. They are also secondarily being used for article creation. The problem that is discussed above is that, when they are used for article creation, and the articles are accepted, they cause weird redirects that confuse the history of articles. The other problem that I see as an ] reviewer is that editors who are using the sandbox for test edits then submit the test edit for approval. In most such cases, I don't think that the editor meant to submit the test edit as a draft article. It becomes necessary for the reviewer to decline the submission politely, when it may never have been meant to be a submission. I would suggest that one solution would be to disable the ability to submit sandboxes to AFC. User subpages should still be capable of submission. ] (]) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Sean Lynch (footballer) == | |||
After the speedy closure of ], which I honestly thought was a hoax, an editor claiming to ''be'' Sean Lynch has stated at ] that he wants his article deleted because it's interfering with his efforts to start a new career, post-sport (the article makes no mention of him being retired, so I've tagged it as outdated). I've just raised this at Misplaced Pages Football but really it's a procedural thing, more than a FOOTY question. This individual has cited ]. He's willing to provide proof that he is who he says he is. How can we do this in a way that also protects his privacy? Thanks, ] (]) 19:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I doubt he will qualify as a "low-profile" individual, given his career. Either way, he needs to interact off-wiki with ] who will help him as best he can. Usually trying to explain it as unlikely the article will be deleted, and nominating it on his behalf if he is determined (had a few of those in my time, non were deleted). Either way not much else we can do for now. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 21:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks so much. I'll make sure he knows this. best, ] (]) 22:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Informal poll == | |||
Comments are welcome at ]. --] (]) 17:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Mishae == | |||
I've just declined an unblock request ] from {{user|Mishae}}. By a strict reading, I could theoretically be considered ] as I once had quite a snappy exchange with Mishae after I proposed an article he'd written for deletion; per my comment on his talk, I explicitly abrogate the wheel-warring clause regarding my decline, if anyone feels this is an unblock request that ought to be accepted. ‑ ] 10:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*Good decline. --] (]) 10:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*Horrible decline. You were involved and you had no business declining. ] ] 10:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*Good decline. Mishae is fond of mouthing pretty words and sweeping generalizations and then after being unblocked going off and doing whatever the hell he pleases, including disruption, incivility, general incompetence, and outright deception. His last edit summary before TPA was revoked was so vile it had to be revdelled. ] (]) 11:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*I had to deal with some of Mishae's behavior in insect articles and finally got a large number of vandalism-like edits fixed (removing Wikiproject tags from thousands of articles even when the project said they should remain). Coupled with attacking editors who disagree with their edits and overall demeanor described above, the unblock decline is very appropriate considering the history of going right back to the problem behaviors. ] (]) 00:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*Ah Mishae. I wondered why this name was so familiar especially after a quick refresher from the ANI back in April. I had made a comment at the time with the intention of joining the discussion but a job and city move prevented me. Reading back over his unblock requests, I get the sense that he never has truly understood what it was he was blocked for. While we should give all editors regardless of race, religion, creed, or ability the benefit of the doubt when it comes to contributing, there comes a time when we have to say enough disruption is enough especially when it's impacting the editing health of other editors. The needs of one cannot be placed above those of the many. {{ping|Mishae}} your inability to fully understand the circumstances that led to your block are the reason why many, including myself, will endorse your continued block. This has never been about your '''disability''', just your '''inability'''. ] (]) 02:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*I didnt realise being racist was a disability... While technically having a past disagreement with an editor might fall foul of the involved (as you dealt with them in a negative manner on a content issue) I would hardly say it disqualifies you completely. Otherwise, decline is fine given their patten of behaviour. ] (]) 10:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*Good decline. I can't see that INVOLVED is part of the equation. That said, at the risk of being INVOLVED I've just warned Mishae that he's verging on TPA withdrawal again. ] (]) 20:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
== ] closed == | |||
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted: | |||
# All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of Pending Changes, and appropriate edit filters. | |||
#Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in the ] case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that: | |||
::*Accounts with a ] may be blocked if they violate the ] or other applicable policy; | |||
::*Accounts whose primary purpose is ], violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely; | |||
::*There are ] in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy; | |||
::*Administrators may act on clear ] with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved; | |||
::*Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has ] of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning. | |||
:For the Arbitration Committee, ]] 16:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
: Discuss this at: ''']''' | |||
Please see related discussion here: ] --] <sup>]</sup> 19:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Urgent fix needed == | |||
Hey all, | |||
Can an awake admin please action ] asap please? I hoped to get the first batch of these rolling this morning! Thanks, ] (]) 07:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Not exactly awake, but {{done}} anyway. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 07:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
== New essay == | |||
]. | |||
I wrote this essay with hopes in exploring in essay-form how certain admin practices look and feel to non-admins with advice offered to admins on how to handle certain controversial interactions. | |||
] (]) 12:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I suppose it had occurred to you that administrators edited here without the tools before they became administrators? ]] 16:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Of course. Not all experience the full range of possibilities of what it's like to interact with an administrator as a non-administrator, though. Many administrators have never experienced what it's like to be blocked, for example. And many after becoming administrators forget what it's like not to be an administrator. ] (]) 00:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Well that's generally because they haven't done something necessitating a block. It's amusing when these essays come up for two reasons. Firstly, blocks aren't common for regular editors, and it's hypothetically it's quite hard to get multiple blocks; getting more than 10 blocks is a pretty major feat which, I'd say, demonstrates more about the editor in question than the trail of admins. The second point is, yes, blocks are unpleasant for the person receiving them ''that's the point''. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 09:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. It does seem to be rather ]ing, I'd argue. ] (]) 15:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::Not at all. The point isn't to make you feel bad because you made a mistake. The point is to put an effective barrier in the way to stop whatever problematic activity is happening. The fact that that barrier is unpleasant has no bearing on whether it is punishment or not (real world example; mother tells daughter she must stop editing wikipedia until she finishes her homework (unpleasant, preventative). After finishing homework daughter is still barred from editing because she didn't do her homework first. (unpleasant, punitive). To cast it in like-for-like; someone causing disruption on Misplaced Pages is being unpleasant and will not stop, they are served with an unpleasant situation which forces them to stop. Of course, it should be used in modicum, but then it most always is.... --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 15:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::The point of the block is then not to be unpleasant to the blocked user but rather the unpleasantness is a side-effect which cannot be avoided. That's rather a different sense than saying: "blocks are unpleasant for the person receiving them ''that's the point''". One could imagine a hypothetical utopian sci-fi vision of a wiki-based encyclopedia where instead of blocking problematic users administrators were somehow able to refer the problematic useraccounts to a simulacrum where the problematic behaviors would only be acted out against a simulated community and the "blocked" user would never realize their isolation from the actual encyclopedia. In such an example, the "blocked" user would not feel unpleasantness but the ''point of the block'' would still be achieved. ] (]) 16:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
The essay presumes (accurately) that ''any'' action an administrator does will be perceived wrongly (which is accurate, just not the way intended I'm certain) so I'm not sure what the lesson there is. The issue is ] actions, not all actions (unless you're dealing with jerks). For example, page protection ''will'' result in a ] complaining only if the editors involved want it to be that way. Else, most editors with sense may not agree with the version protected but will actually then focus on the talk page discussion rather than fighting with the admin who protected the page as if the admin did it out of personal spite or whatever. It's nice but I'm not sure what's new with it. The bigger problem we have is with admins who shy away from doing anything (and I've fallen into that habit) due to the absolute antagonism you get no matter what you do. -- ] (]) 10:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:] might be another useful essay. I think that this one speaks at least a little bit to why such things occur. The most adroit administrators might find ways around being viewed that way while still helping to solve problems. I don't know, I don't have the bit. I am attempting to describe how certain admin actions may be negatively perceived by those who don't have the bit and are on the receiving end of such actions. It isn't really meant to be an admonition not to do such actions (the whole point of becoming an admin is that you are trusted to do such actions, after all). It's merely to explain how doing certain actions in certain ways can lead to certain problems and to offer certain alternatives that I've seen work. ] (]) 15:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:: I don't think you realize that most admin actions are not based on some prior interactions with the editors. While there is a drop in admins, there are still far many admins than regular editors here (especially since admins aren't supposed to be using their tools when involved). For example, if I review ], there's a request for page protection. As I said above, ''no matter what version I chose to protect'', someone could be angry about that. If your solution is that admins should, instead of actually using the tools, try to "help solve the problem" without it, you're suggesting what, I post on the talk page that the people there shouldn't edit war? If I don't use the tools, all I've done is remove the report, post (possibly again) on the talk page and then we'll wait and see what happens. The person who ''reported it to RFPP'' is now angry at the admin for '''not''' acting. If they stop, no one really needed an admin in the first place. If they don't, there really may be no solution ''other'' than protecting the page and ''forcing'' them to discuss it. -- ] (]) 09:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::There may be no solution to the problem you describe, and the essay does not say, "don't use page protection tools". Instead, the essay tries to describe the very problem you are outlining. It tries to identify, as you are doing, what the consequences are and how page protection can set up a kind of power dynamic for better or worse. We can all name examples where administrators protected pages after editing the pages and the edge cases of what makes someone "involved" or not constitute megabytes worth of textual analysis on this site. This history necessarily causes problems between administrators and non-administrators. Who knows? Maybe someone smarter than you or I will come up with solutions to the problems, and it is my hope that this essay can serve as a place where these problems are described in clear terms. ] (]) 14:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Request topic ban for CheckersBoard == | |||
CheckersBoard has combined agenda-based editing along with making inept edits on ]. Request that any topic ban include ]. Highlights from this : | |||
*In addition the speedy deletion tag was removed against wiki rules. | |||
*article relies too heavily on primary and secondary sourcing | |||
*Currently stands as more of a hagiography and job application than a topic worthy of encyclopaedic entry | |||
*topic might be better as a blog elsewhere | |||
All this about a version far from flattering. | |||
Editing ineptness: , , (note edit summaries) , (caused by own doing) | |||
Content ineptness: , , (material is already in relatively short article) | |||
Lack of awareness of good content practices despite discussion: , , | |||
Agenda based editing: , , , Note the wiping out of Marin's name. This series of edits is like removing all the policy content from ] (leaving the criticism), moving it to ], and wiping Obama's name. | |||
Plenty of warnings on user's talk page including a block from me before I got involved with trying to prevent content damage. Edit summaries are indicative of responses. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' I first became involved on the Marin page last month when I expanded the article with sourcing and better layout. It looks like CheckersBoard has been involved with the page for around a year, and there has been some suggestion about CB having a COI on the topic: . A look at the page history for Andre Marin shows the repeated COI/unproductive editing, and frequent reverts by a number of different editors. CB has received over a dozen warnings on his talk page about editing on Marin and ] and has made no efforts to improve his edits or try to discuss these issues on the talk page. ] (]) 19:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' based on apparent lack of reading comprehension alone. After being , CheckersBoard , apparently under the impression that the information was being removed for being undue. I that the information was already present, yet minutes later, they without any acknowledgement of the talk page discussion. The agenda-based edits posted by NeilN are also quite concerning. Unless CheckersBoard acknowledges that they are causing problems with this sort of editing, they should stay away from the topic entirely. ]<sub>(])</sub> 19:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
* This is a long-term problem, and multiple editors (including myself) have tried in vain to get Checkersboard to understand (and edit within) wikipedia guidelines. It's unfortunate, but there has just been too much disruption caused by this editor. Reluctantly '''support''' the proposed topic ban. ] (]) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Problematic category == | |||
I think is bogus and baseless. Because those persons only share a similar last name not kinship. They're not from a specific clan or family. They're not related to each other. It's similar if we create a "Johnson family" category and then add it to articles of people who have Johnson as a their last name. --] (]) 20:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:], if you believe a category should be deleted, make a proposal for deletion at ]. These kind of cases are discussed there every day. <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 20:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Okay. Thanks. --] (]) 20:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Policy question: is it permissible to edit for pay from an IP address? == | |||
] says "Editors who are compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions, on their main user page, the talk page accompanying any paid contributions (articles, drafts etc), or, if the talk page can not be used, in edit summaries." IP editors usually don't have a user page, and if they have a shared IP address, it's not really meaningful to have one. So what's policy when an paid editor edits from an IP address, and discloses their affiliation in edit comments or the article talk page? | |||
This has come up twice recently in two independent cases, ] and ]. It's thus a real policy question. In both cases, paid editing was disclosed on talk pages or edit summaries, but multiple IP addresses were involved. | |||
On the one hand, Misplaced Pages does try to be "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", and while IP editors do face some restrictions, they're allowed to do most things. On the other hand, paid editing from IP addresses is hard to monitor, and makes checking for COI problems more difficult. It is to some extent gaming the system in the ] sense. | |||
So, what's the consensus on this? Thanks. ] (]) 23:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Regardless of the practicality of enforcing this, the wording is "editors who..." not "accounts who...", so I don't see why this wouldn't apply. ] (]) 23:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:If the policy explicitly states that disclosure in edit summaries is appropriate when other systems fail (which they easily do for changing/shared IP addresses), then what's wrong with doing exactly that? ] (]) 23:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Spam links disguised as references == | |||
* {{LinkSummary|durianproperty.com.my}} | |||
It has come to my attention that an editor from the 219.92.40.0/22 subnet has taken to spamming a specific commercial real estate website disguised as a reference, complete with <nowiki><REF></nowiki> tags. This concern has already been raised at ]. There are presently 480 links back to this website at the moment, with new links being inserted or reinserted daily. What is the easiest way to remove these links? Regards, ] (]) 02:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
: I'm certain getting it blacklisted with get them removed. Isn't there a bot that does it? Try ] perhaps. -- ] (]) 10:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Add any sites you think are spam ]. If they are indeed spam links, a bot can remove existing ones, as Ricky mentions. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 12:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Getting it blacklisted will not by itself get them removed, although of course someone could write a bot (or adjust one) to have that done. ] (]) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::I've hardblocked both /24 ranges for one year for ref spamming. The contribs for 2015 out of both ranges were primarily that. These may need to be removed by hand.<br /> — ] ] 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::The good news (relatively speaking) is that some of the spam is focussed in single articles (several of them in 1 article with 1 edit), and can be easily undone with 1 click. ] (]) 15:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::Thanks, ]. As I noted , I don't dare perform rangeblocks without someone else providing the precise range, lest I block nobody or block half the Internet by accident. ] (]) 16:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::No problem. We've been busy and removed these links. I did see other IPs so we will have to be looking for it until someone adds it to the blacklist. (). This is blocked user ] and I also hardblocked a third range, 219.92.43.0/24 one year.<br /> — ] ] 17:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
: I was not aware of the master account dating back to June 2015. I see that all five hundred spam links have been removed and will follow up periodically using the LinkSearch tool until the domain has been added to the blacklist. Thank you Berean Hunter and all others for your assistance. Regards, ] (]) 20:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::You know, sometimes, we all can be so efficient when the damage is of an obvious nature. <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 23:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
Domain blacklisted. ] 20:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
Could I get some more admin eyes on this article, which is about a computer security hacker who has been wheeled out to give opinions on various cyber-attacks here and there. I have a nasty feeling he's crossed swords with ''über''-misogynist ] and good old ], and that sounds like a recipe for disaster (at least on an unprotected BLP). I've put the article up for AfD but I'm fighting a losing battle with IPs either vandalising or removing content for spurious reasons. I've semi-protected the article for 3 days and directed people towards the AfD, and am pretty confident that and absolves me from being ], but it never hurts to get other people to check over these things. ] ] ] 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:How eeeeevil of you. I decided to punish you by unprotecting it and then reprotecting it myself for an appropriate period of time...which happens to be exactly the period of time you picked :-) ] (]) 14:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::A little bit more research reveals Jamie Woodruff about the ] - I knew I felt something fishy. ] ] ] 14:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
==Balkans issue== | |||
The ] article was ] by {{no ping|Loesorion}} with the rationale ''This article was created by user who had similar content removed from M-87 Orkan page. He created this article for personal purposes and it contains false information. After creation he linked this article with M-87 Orkan page were same content was deleted after Talk''. I'm not interested in the original shape of the article or any dispute that there may be between Loesorion and {{no ping|Bobrayner}}. The article has been improved by a number of editors (including myself) and the fact that the ship was involved in arms running is borne out by sources. With , Loesorion claimed he had ''Deleted and corrected false information from article''. This is not the case. The reference "nca" does indeed verify fuel for SCUDS and also parts for the Orkan rocket. The seebiz webpage that was deleted as a reference verifies the sale of the ship to Splitska Plovibda. I reverted the edit and raised the issue on the article's talk page. | |||
It seems to me that Loesorion is trying to push his particular POV in this dispute, despite sources verifying a situation opposite to his view. I have warned him via the article's talk page not to do so. As the vessel served with Balkan countries, are there any discretionary sanctions that can be applied to the article? Advice would be appreciated please. ] (]) 16:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:For inof, Loesorion has . I'm not going to get involved in an edit war over this, but have explained my position at ]. ] (]) 21:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Block of Thewolfchild == | |||
I blocked {{u|Thewolfchild}} earlier along with {{u|Cassianto}} after I saw them still at it. TWC's contained a petty attack and it was clear that both were trying to bait each other. Later, after going back and looking further in TWC's history, I see that he me on {{u|Liz}}'s talk page. I want to report that here because otherwise that could look like that had something to do with his block. I'm not sure why I was mentioned there as I only the thread originally at ANI and but otherwise wasn't involved in that case. | |||
The criticism had nothing to do with the block but in all fairness to TWC and for the sake of prudence, I would like others to review the situation and remedy if necessary. Thank you,<br /> — ] ] 19:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*Legitimate block. I saw the baiting and general IDHT on Liz's talkpage and was preparing to do the same thing if it continued. ‑ ] 20:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::I got flack for simply closing an ANI discussion that was clearly over when all parties received 48 hour blocks. But ] got the ] despite their patient explanation on why the three editors received blocks for edit warring. At a certain point, you find yourself just repeating yourself. <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 23:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*Looks fine. Legit block, they absolutely don't seem to be able to disengage and move on. Lots of rage flying around. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 20:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
* A sensible response. Being criticized does not make you involved, if it did then it would be pretty simple for a user to make any admin they wanted to "involved". ] 20:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*Legitimate block - and even rather lenient all things considered. I'm also surprised that {{U|Cassianto}} hasn't already been blocked a long time ago. ] (]) 21:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
* I saw this and thought of - should Cassianto bring his duelling pistols, or his swords? Anyway, this is okay as a cool down block, but for '''a week'''? Can we please shorten it to 24 hours? They're making themselves hot and bothered but ''not actually disrupting any other bit of the encyclopedia''. ] ] ] 21:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:* We generally don't block to let someone "cool down". Given that the dispute between the two users has been going on for weeks now I don't think 24 hours is going to be significant. ] 22:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::*I think we're just going to have to accept we have different views on blocks and that's just the way of the world. I guess my stance comes from stopping my kids from quarrelling with each other, I can't "block" them! ] ] ] 22:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::*Well when I was a kid and being a little shit I was sent to my room. If I was really bad I was sent to my parents room(no toys there). ] 22:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::Good block. And you only got sent to your room? You got it light. I used to get a thrashing with a bamboo switch, or a feather duster, or a ruler or even an open hand. Nothing teaches a rowdy consequences as fast as a thrashing. ] (]) 00:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::Thankfully my parents took a more modern approach. ] 00:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::Yeah, well, I got whupped with a piece of rebar '''''while''''' I was walking 5 miles to school through the snow. And when I asked to have the Rolling Stones play at my 16th birthday party, my parents just sneered and booked Herman's Hermits instead. ] (]) 00:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::<small>Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at 6:00 in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of hot gravel, work 20 hour day at mill for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would thrash us to sleep with a broken bottle, if we were lucky! ] ] ] 16:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
*'''Note''': I have from Thewolfchild as they were using their talk page to further provoke Cassianto. As always my actions are open to review. ] 00:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Given my and MSGJ's experiences, HighInBC, I'm pretty sure you will face questions once this block expires. <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 01:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::If you look at my talk page you will see I am no stranger to that sort of thing. I am always happy to answer questions. ] 01:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::I saw this brewing on your talk page, Liz and the sad thing is that there is a long history of this sort of thing from this editor. See ] for reference. I do not understand how the mentoring that this user was supposed to be receiving from {{u|TParis}} has been allowed to without comment. Obviously ''both'' parties to this particular set of blocks are in the wrong, and the blocks are warranted, but I think this situation needs to be monitored. It's only possible to look the other way and kick the can down the road spooling out more and more WP:ROPE for so long. Severely anti-collegial behavior doesn't only make the perpetrator look like a fool, it drives away good editors who have to suffer the abuse. -] (]) 01:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*Well, if they do their IDHT thing again, they'll be blocked again. BTW, I also advocate some leniency for Cassianto here, who is much more of a net positive and {{redacted}}. ] (]) 03:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*:{{ping|Drmies}} advocate leniency for one party by all means, but probably better not to insult the other party ;) — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 12:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::*If we're going to redact ''that'' we got a long way to go. And if we're going to be picky, I think blocking someone and removing talk page access is a much bigger "insult" than a few mild words. ] (]) 15:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::*An indignity perhaps, but not an insult. The thing to keep in mind is that people are perfectly capable of being insulted at something that was not an insult. ] 03:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*For the record I will not be challenging either of the blocks or questioning any admins on their actions in recent weeks as they pertain to me. For the most part it is largely a useless exercise, as your block log is permanent and regardless of how questionable, or just plain ''bad'' a block may be, it will always be there to be thrown in your face, or even used to support further (and lengthier) bad blocks. Further, I now also see that questioning an admin per ] is now apparently a blockable offence per ]. Lastly, I'm not interested in conflict, I'm really not, nor am I here to disrupt. I am here to contribute, in my own way. I may not churn out dozens of FA/GA articles, but I do contribute. I'm not trying to build a resume for adminship, I just look to improve articles of interest to me or fix small errors that I come across anywhere in the project. Sorry if some of you don't see any value in that. Anyway, I come away from this bearing no ill will nor carrying any grudges. This whole experience has certainly been... ''enlightening''. - '']'' 19:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Minor vandalism on webisode episode listings == | |||
We seem to have a problem with very minor vandalism. Over the last few years, I seem to be in a constant struggle with someone with a changing IP address. This person seems to have a particular pleasure in changing the release date for the episodes of webseries a few days different here and there. The vandalism is small enough some of these changes have taken years, if ever to fix all of the damage. Yes, as seen in my recent edits of ] and ], the vandal didn't even take the time to change the List of seasons section dates. | |||
Here are a few of the IP addresses that have made these changes. | |||
*2602:306:CD51:9170:8419:466:565C:544C | |||
*2602:306:CD8F:9060:54B3:E942:F8E6:9AF0 | |||
*2602:306:cd51:ab70:e944:9afb:5cb9:4142 | |||
*2602:306:CD8F:8C70:14BE:366D:EA26:EA36 | |||
*2602:306:cd51:8c10:3581:95e1:da38:5b65 | |||
*2602:306:cdc2:3930:51c4:5933:e564:919a | |||
Most of the edits seem to be coming from Raleigh, North Carolina. I don't know if we can shut this person down. This person seems patient enough to wait editors out on these backwater pages. In the end, I know there used to be some sort of verify edit type of system that used to be on wikipedia. Maybe pages like these need to be under that banner. I am not as active as I used to be. It is just sad to see factual errors on wikipedia that aren't fixed for several years. ] (]) 06:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Based on the addresses you've provided above the CIDR range seems to be 2602:0306:CD00/40. We could consider blocking this range if it is a big problem. Have you any examples of ''recent'' vandalism from these addresses? — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 12:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::I don't think so. Here are a few more. | |||
* 2602:306:c59c:5f80:ecad:897b:5c44:b306 | |||
* 2602:306:CD8F:BDF0:E436:3CD0:6759:2A34 | |||
* 2602:306:CD8F:BDF0:FC78:2634:D91C:D34F | |||
* 2602:306:CD51:BDA0:75C2:A162:1855:123D | |||
* 2602:306:c59c:5080:f1df:cb9b:c34a:470f | |||
* 2602:306:CD51:A100:614D:A52:CF31:B105 | |||
* 2602:306:35FB:2EC0:584A:8ECE:39AF:E2FC - seems to be non vandalism address | |||
::Maybe the right answer is to just ignore it. There has just got to be a better way to catch vandalism like that. ] (]) 00:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Added bullet points for ease of reading] (]) 00:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::I can't block such a large range unless there is significant ongoing vandalism from these addresses. If it is specific articles that are targeted then we could look at semi-protection or pending changes. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 12:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::Assuming the "non-vandalism address" is unrelated, these are all within the equivalent of 3,072 IPv4 addresses (in between /20 and /21): 108.89.196.0/23, 108.213.24.0/22, 108.216.248.0/22 and 108.220.34.0/23. ] (]) 23:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
I assume pending changes are for the very minor articles. Yes, I would prefer that we use pending changes for the webisode episode pages. ] (]) 15:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
*I put PC protection on ], but not the other article. I was having a hard time justifying it because the vandalism was so old and there appeared to be an IP that was making productive edits. Blocking the IPs won't do anything because the person behind them has probably moved on to (hopefully) more productive pursuits. I think ] and ] are supposed to catch subtle stuff like this, but it's certainly not a perfect system. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 01:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Meta Spam == | |||
''''''. No doubt I have been missing much by not following dramaz boards the last few day - but I think this is something that en-wp editors should be aware of. If it doesn't belong here? - delete. If it should be at a VP page - cross-post. Whatever - I don't care. Just letting folks know. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 03:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:{{ping|Ched}}The page you linked to isn't on Misplaced Pages - it's on meta; to have it deleted, please read ] and act accordingly. There is nothing here that Misplaced Pages admins can deal with. ] ] 04:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:: Oh ... no, I'm sorry ]. I didn't mean delete the page on meta - but rather delete my post here on AN. My post here was meant as an FYI - and if it was not appropriate, then delete it (my post) from the WP:AN page. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 04:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:: Perhaps it would be better posted at ]? — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 04:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Do a range block == | |||
{{archivetop|1=Sock has been put back in the drawer by {{u|Berean Hunter}}. {{nac}} '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 03:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
I pissed off {{noping|A Pizzon Lamb}} and the IPs they have been using at ] by reverting their edits and putting page protection on the article. They went wild on the until it was protected. They've had fun at , 's and 's. To make matters worse, they've been reverting edits I've made on other articles, such as . Irony... one of the two links they wanted to add to the Foster article was ]. | |||
It's entering into the third day and this is getting old. As I'm "slightly" involved, could somebody block Pizzon Lamb and put a range block on? ] (]) 08:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:The user first socked on their main IP, which is owned by . I've left that for the minute as I don't know what collateral is on it. After one block on the ISP, they found some webhosts which I've rangeblocked for six months apiece. ] ] ] 15:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::{{U|Ritchie333}} Thank you. They have continued to revert edits that I have previously done. These edits I made were CheckWiki fixes, so reverting them just causes an error to reappear. They have been coming in via more Zero2Infinity addresses (103.27.224.x 103.27.225.x 103.27.226.x 103.27.227.x) and 128.90.37.113. I did a range block on these (ie 103.27.224.0/24) for six months. Adjust, remove or whatever as you see fit. I think they are also using 128.90.14.5, but they made only one revert, so I'm not sure. I haven't dealt with this particular form of harassment before... Any suggestions you have? ] (]) 06:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Another example of the reverts, see the history for ]. ] (]) 06:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::This is someone's sock...see to see CU had this range blocked previously. I've placed some indefinite semi-protections and pending changes protections...indefinite based on BLP policy. I blocked the user as NOT HERE.<br /> — ] ] 15:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{archivebottom}} | |||
== Question == | |||
Is Bbb23 the only user with Check User rights? | |||
--<strong><span style="font-family: 'AR DESTINE'">] ]</span></strong> 08:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:No. HTH. -] ] 08:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Full list is ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 10:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:: Others who are not busy in other areas should help him relieve some burden in SPI. --<strong><span style="font-family: 'AR DESTINE'">] ]</span></strong> 17:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Spam == | |||
{{resolved|]] 17:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
Could an Admin please delete ].. Thanks, ] (]) 19:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I'd say that's all taken care of. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 19:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Arbcom remedies. == | |||
Where's the proper place to go, to have a Arbcom case's remedy revoked? ] (]) 20:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
Also, is thanking someone for their edit or post (via the 'thank' button), considered a breach of one's Arb restricton, ''if'' it's a edit or post related to that restricted topic? ] (]) 20:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Case remedies can be revoked at ]. And it depends re "thanking" - might be a technical violation, but as a one-off it might also be too trivial to worry about. -- ] (]) 21:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::I do want to point out -- without implying that it's the case here -- that there have been incidents where using the "thanks" button excessively to an editor one is in a dispute with or whom one is under an IBAN with or who has claimed harassment, etc. has led to a block of the "thanking" editor, as the excessive use was determined to be a means of annoyance. So while a quick "thanks" may slip by (which depends to a certain extent on the reaction of the other editor), I wouldn't make a habit of it. ] (]) 21:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::As long editor-A is allowed to 'thank' editor-B for making an edit or post in a area that editor-A is restricted from, there shouldn't be any problems. Certaintly know way that editor-A could be accused of influencing editor-B. ] (]) 21:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::Who said anything about "influencing"? If there's an interaction ban, for instance, then the "thank you" is, as Euryalus mentioned, a technical violation of it, albeit (perhaps) a trivial one. The ban is not on "influencing" the other editor, it's on "interacting" with them.{{parabr}}But, now that you mention it, when Editor-A thanks Editor-B for something done in a subject that Editor-A is restricted from, I think that could '''''easily''''' be considered as trying to influence Editor-B, and by doing so being involved in the restricted subject. It's generally best not to test the boundaries of one's sanction, admins and arbitrators tend to look on it with disfavor - so I wouldn't do it, especially since you've now brought it up. ] (]) 22:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::Just wanted to be sure. I'm under a 3+ year restriction, which was (of course) put in place ''before'' the 'Thank' option was added :) ] (]) 22:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::See ], which specifically mentions the Thank extension, although the ] section (immediately above it) doesn't make any references to it. ] (]) 14:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Request for comment on possible change to administrative policy == | |||
] | |||
] (]) 00:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Disruptive edits == | |||
{{resolved|No remaining live edits, user blocked by NawlinWiki. ] (]) 03:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
Could an Admin please review the edits made by {{User|Zznbzzz}} and block please. Thanks, ] (]) 01:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:{{ping|NawlinWiki}} Could you please block {{User|Zmnbmznz}} for block evading. Thanks, ] (]) 14:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
== RFA2015 Phase II RfC == | |||
Hello. Anyone who reads this message is invited to voice their opinions on the ] for ]. The purpose of this RfC is to find implementable solutions for the problems identified in ] of the project. Thank you. ]] 20:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
Some SPI cases which are CU completed and CU declined (An SPI clerk has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting a behaviour investigation.) needs attention of administrators. --<strong><span style="font-family: 'AR DESTINE'">] ]</span></strong> 02:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
== A request to review the close at ] == | |||
This is a request to review the close at ] to determine if the discussion was closed appropriately. The heading of the particular section originally was “Should all content be sourced?”, but after it was closed, an editor changed the heading to “Should plot summaries be sourced … ?” I discussed this close with the closer on his talk page, ]. I believe the close was inappropriate because the closer was not an uninvolved editor, instead he was a part of the discussion. This is in spite of the fact that the guidelines on the ] page indicate that the closing editor should be someone who is “uninvolved”. There are important reasons it should be someone who is not involved, for example: so that it won’t seem as if the discussion was closed only in order to get the last word, or to limit the ability of an opposing view to be expressed, etc. The discussion had been a good exchange of ideas between very active editors about “verifiability” and what the guidelines say about handing citations in articles. I think discussions on talk pages have value, and should be respected. Editors should indeed ask each other questions, and discuss Misplaced Pages policy, and discuss how it should be edited. Discussions should not be closed unnaturally by an editor who is involved and might want to make a point. It violates the WP policy (cited above). I think it’s important, and the discussion should reopen, and hopefully come to a conclusion, or fall silent, or what ever it might naturally do. Thanks. ] (]) 03:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:In short, yes. And likely for your own good as SchroCat stated due to you heading nose down into IDHT territory. You opened a discussion with a non-neutral heading to start with and informal discussions rarely require a formal closure by an uninvolved party unless it is a formal advertised RFC or consensus is not clear. The discussion was very clear, and without rehashing it here, you are unlikely to find many (if any) who disagree. Secondly - this was explained to you repeatedly by multiple editors. You continued to argue, but you need to learn that there comes a point in a discussion like that where you either accept you are wrong, or that the other participants just dont agree with you. As wikipedia works by consensus, either option almost always means you should drop it or end up at a drama board. I suggest Dropping it. ] (]) 09:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
<small>Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --] (]) 20:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC).</small> | |||
:::As has been pointed out numerous times in many places, current guidance states that discussions can be closed by the participants where consensus is clear. As this was essentially DagTruffle not listening to everyone else, demanding an uninvolved person to close (what barely qualifies as) a discussion is just buro-wonkery and a waste of everyone's time. ] (]) 15:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
<small>Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --] (]) 20:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC).</small> | |||
:<small>Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --] (]) 20:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC).</small> | |||
::<small>Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --] (]) 20:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC).</small> | |||
If an outside view is wanted, I have to say that I am in agreement with Caden. DagTruffle appeared to be making some quite reasonable points about referencing (with examples), and the insistence that the seems very strange and contrary to most Misplaced Pages principles. They are certainly doing no harm, and are actually adding to the veracity of the text. If IDHT applied in that discussion, it looks more like it was those opposing DagTruffle who were guilty of failing to listen. The attempt at pulling rank was really rather depressing to see. I would recommend that the RFC is reopened, allowed to run for longer, and not closed by an involved party. ] ]] 16:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:What RfC? - ] (]) 16:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Apologies, I assumed this had been an RfC. Nevertheless, I would still recommend that the closure is reversed, and hopefully some more consideration is given to the valid points raised, rather than a new editor being brushed off. ] ]] 16:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Not really. Equally or more valid points have been put in opposition; there is no consensus and it's a fairly pointless argument to drag on any further. I'm also not sure this is a new user. (Not necessarily accusing anyone of underhand behaviour with that). There is too much knowledge of procedures, wikilawyering to class them as "new". - ] (]) 16:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::: The most serious problem, as I see it, is that some editors think it is justified to strip entire article sections of inline citations. And citations are the way content can be verified. The best argument they give for for removing citations, is that something similar is done in articles on movies. But Broadway musicals and movies are different. For example, the only way an editor can use a “primary source” to verify the plot summary for the musical ''Allegiance'', would be to travel to New York City, buy a ticket for $306.00 or less, and report back. That is until the script is published, if that happens. But since plots of musicals are often described in books and articles why not cite them? Especially since verification is one of the Seven Pillars of Misplaced Pages. (By the way, I did indeed have a previous Misplaced Pages account — Dagtorfleson — until my computer died, and took some passwords to the grave with it.) ] (]) 17:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::This is rather disappointing. On the relevant page I congratulated both the protagonists on their courtesy and consensual approach, but I seem have been premature in that judgement so far as Dag Truffle is concerned. Whatever the merits of the arguments (rather caricatured here by Mr/Ms Truffle, in my view, as neither the Carmen, Carousel nor Romeo and Juliet articles refer to films) there was only one editor urging the Truffle line, viz Mr/Ms Truffle. There being no consensus for his/her point of view it was entirely within the normal WP rules to bring the one-sided debate to a conclusion. I am glad to note Dag Truffle's statement that he/she is not a new editor: not only was I too a touch surprised at such slickness in Wiki procedural lore but I feel that an experienced editor, albeit under earlier names, should recognise the need for consensus. <small>Unhelpful comment removed. --] (]) 20:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC).</small> '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:1.05em;">]]</span>''' 17:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
<small>Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --] (]) 20:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC).</small> | |||
:<small>Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --] (]) 20:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC).</small> | |||
::<small>Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --] (]) 20:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC).</small> | |||
:::<small>Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --] (]) 20:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC).</small> | |||
*Next revert in this section gets a 1 week block. --] (]) 20:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
'''Inappropriate closure''' should definitely not have been closed by an involved user. DagTruffle had understandable concerns, even if others disagree with his views. I would have waited for an uninvolved user to close the discussion regardless of the overall consensus (or lack thereof). ] (] / ]) 00:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
*I don't know that there's much to be done here about the close. It wasn't a formal process discussion but let's take on that the fact that involved people closing discussions is poor form; an appearance of bias; a drama magnet. I do not have the time to start an RfC but the "three experienced editors" here got it very wrong in my opinion; a basic failure of logic. The fact that plots don't require sources does not imply that plots should ''not have sources'', nor that it is okay to remove reliable sources once added where they weren't mandated. To be fair, the original post may have started with the notion that plots do ''require'' sources, which is incorrect by current policy and guidelines, but the underlying issue was removal of sources, and the very clear notion expressed by the opposition was that because sources weren't required, that warranted their removal. I would go to bat against that notion—one I think of as pernicious. DagTruffle was later arguing that much more fundamental issue, and the idea this was just a new user with some zany notion clearly on the other side of policy and guideline to be brushed off as an IDHT malcontent is troubling. Had I come upon that discussion in the ordinary course, I would have attempted to shift the focus to what I see as the real issue. This is all to highlight that, yes, I don't think the close directly violated any policy, but that nevertheless it was a very bad idea.--] (]) 13:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Request to move archives of ] == | |||
A few months ago, the page at ] was moved to ]; the main talk page was moved along with the article, but its archives stayed at their original titles, and they can all be accessed from . Could an admin move all the archives and the archive index to the new title? I could technically do this myself, but since I can't move more than one page at a time nor suppress any redirects, it would make for a messy process. I originally posted this request at ] but it hasn't gotten any attention. ] <sup>(])</sup> 06:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:All done. I didn't see the point of suppressing any redirects, so I didn't. ''']'''<font color="green">]</font> 07:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Too be fair, there's nothing non-admins from mass moving pages via a script, just as admins do. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; font-variant:caps;">] (])</span> 15:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Admins don't have any mass-move scripts granted as part of the admin package. It's just that we get an additional check box when moving pages: "Move subpages (up to 100), if applicable". That's the only reason (as far as I can imagine) why this request makes sense. ] (]) 18:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
Anyone have a mop and bucket for the backlog there? Several discussions are over a month old. '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 09:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Rescinding unused community sanctions: ] == | |||
The "]" community-authorised probation has not been enforced for more than three years, the having taken place on the 27th of May 2012. It is quite clear that these sanctions are not needed, and I believe that most in the community would agree that sanctions such as these should only remain in place if they are needed. Therefore, I propose that the authorisation for these sanctions be revoked by the community. ] — ] 18:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:You'd be taking away the sanctions on an area that is still quietly simmering, on the grounds that it hasn't exploded lately. Note the intensity of the arguments in ]. A typical comment there was "''Is there still an article on Wiki called "British Isles" that includes the explicitly non-British sovereign country of Ireland? I don't believe it.''" And see which is reminiscent of many that have occurred in the past. ] (]) 21:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
::"British Isles", like many other topic areas, will never stop being controversial. That doesn't mean that a sanctions regime that hasn't been used in more than three years should remain in place. Plenty of controversial topic areas survive without such systems. If a volcano does truly "erupt", sanctions can be reauthorised. There has been no indication as such, however. Keeping unused sanctions regimes around merely because a topic area is controversial is byzantine. ] — ] 21:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Remove'''/revoke/whatever you want to call it. '''Support RGloucester's suggestion'''. Long-unenforced sanctions shouldn't be in place, if nothing else because they're not friendly to the uninitiated. Imagine that several new-ish editors engage in a good-faith content dispute on this topic: a longtime editor familiar with the sanctions can come in, play the sanctions as a trump card, and win the dispute. This flies in the face of standards such as ]; we have too many rules, and getting rid of never-used rules is a good way to simplify things. As already noted, they can be reactivated if truly needed, but merely responding to intense arguments such as "Is there still...believe it" is no reason to have broad sanctions in place. ] (]) 21:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose removal, leave in place''' It's rather silly to remove a sanction because it's working. The fact that it hasn't needed to be invoked doesn't mean that the problem has magically disappeared, it means that the sanction is doing what it's supposed to do, discourage people from editing in a way that invites invoking the sanction. ] (]) 00:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
::This is hard to believe, given that there are no notices in place on any related pages that inform users of these sanctions (not even on ]). No notices regarding their existence have been given to users in more than three years, either. The purpose of general sanctions is to curtail disruption. If there is no disruption worth curtailing in more than three years, it is hard to believe that these sanctions should continue to exist. How can users be discouraged from editing in such a way if no one even knows that the sanctions exist? The only way one would find out is by visiting ], and that page is not a frequently viewed page. All in all, there is no evidence that an extraordinary regime is presently necessary in this topic area. General sanctions exist for extraordinary circumstances, as opposed to the standard manner in which disruption is dealt with, and I do not see how an unenforced, unknown sanctions regime is aiding the encylopaedia. ] — ] 00:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::So ... if a public swimming pool posts prominent signs about no diving in the shallow end, and the number of injuries from diving at the shallow end drops down to nothing, your advice would be to remove the signage as it's clearly no longer necessary? If reducing the posted speed limit on a dangerous curve cuts down the number of accidents significantly, you'd tell the authorities to put the speed limit back up to where it was, since it's no longer needed? ] (]) 01:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::This is not a similar circumstance. First of all, there are no prominent signs indicating the existence of these sanctions. That's what I just wrote above. Furthermore, if it were a similar circumstance, we would have general sanctions by default in all topic areas. We do not. We only use them as extraordinary measures. If they are not used (or useful), we remove them. ] — ] 02:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::: The comparison to posting a sign would be to put a notice on related articles, whether by an ordinary template or an editnotice or something similar. Here, we're just pulling over drivers who infringe an unposted speed limit, giving them a warning, and arresting the ones who re-infringe...except for the fact that we're not doing this, because there's been no enforcement in three years. We don't need to maintain this policy of pulling them over, because infringing the unposted limit is a ] to dangerous driving, and we can still arrest people for that: editwarring over the inclusion of "British Isles" on pages, or willynilly removing "British Isles" from lots of pages, is outright disruptive and obviously nationalistic, and we don't need the sanctions in order to block someone who does that. ] (]) 02:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' removal per BMK - sanction warnings appear to be working ]<sup>]</sup> 😜 02:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' If we're not using them and haven't been using them for three years, by all means lift them! ] 11:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' as per BMK. Sanctions exist both as a measure to take afterwards against problem editing, and to deter future problem editing. I am not persuaded that removing a sanction that is performing its job in preventing problem editing is a good thing. I would support say a 3-month suspension to see how it goes, if it kicks off again, it should be able to be reinstated without need for another long discussion. ] (]) 12:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Again, how can these sanctions deter disruption editing ("preform their job") if no one even knows they exist? There are no posted notices of these sanctions anywhere, and no one has been notified of their existence in more than three years. However, the three month suspension is acceptable to me. If there hasn't been a use for these sanctions in more than three years, I hardly doubt that there will be in three months. ] — ] 14:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Checkuser data followup == | |||
In reference to a recent discussion ] involving apparent retention of checkuser beyond WMF guidelines, as written at the time, I asked WMF about it and they've clarified the guidelines to make it explicit CU data may be retained long term. <small>]</small> 10:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:It really wasn't necessary to inquire, a straight-forward reading of the policy shows that to be the case, as I pointed out at the time. ] (]) 07:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Review of topic ban - Armenian genocide denial == | |||
I issued a ] earlier and logged it ]. As I have never placed a topic ban before, I would like to make sure that I have done this properly. | |||
Background: | |||
I became aware of frequent problems with sockpuppets and paid meatpuppets in relation to trying to deny the ] after working numerous related SPI cases this year. There is a ] hired by the nation of Turkey to promote the denial. There are actually more PR firms than mentioned there being paid whopping sums of money to conduct this campaign. See this . I blocked numerous socks/meats and had to protect pages including talk pages due to the disruption of these meats which took to IP hopping (see as an example). After suppressing puppet activity the disruption subsided for the last few months. The editor above is attempting to take up their baton and run with it. Quite frankly, I see the patience of the Misplaced Pages community growing thin on this perennial issue. Because that editor has constructive edits in other areas, I chose to place a topic ban in order to prevent further disruption when he filed a ] earlier today. His bias is clear in where he changes the wikilink to deny the title of our stable article. He that he is Turkish-American. | |||
Named parties to that DR filing were {{u|EtienneDolet}}, {{u|Tiptoethrutheminefield}} and {{u|Dr.K.}}. I have not notified the above user because his involvement here would be against the topic ban and I want to deescalate the disruption not encourage it. | |||
In addition to making sure that I have done this correctly, I would like to know if the community '''supports''' or '''opposes''' this TBAN.<br /> — ] ] 19:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' I responded to a query made by the user ]. My comment was restrained—what I actually saw was that the user was enthusiastically pushing a fringe view. ] (]) 03:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Give the guy another chance''' I already talked to Berean about this. I think Dominator is not as bad as the typical POV-pusher in this area. I am not going to second-guess Berean's admin discretion but I think he should have been warned more strongly under AA2 before the topic ban was enacted. ] ] 04:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' Don't get me wrong, I ''vehemently'' oppose the fringe POV Dominator1453 is trying to push. However, intellectual honesty and fair play compel me to oppose a ban at this stage. First, instead of edit-warring over the content, he sought ]. We are sending the wrong message if we ban people who seek DR instead of edit-warring. Second, in order for such a ban to be applied, Dominator would have to have been formally warned of ] sanctions. To my knowledge this is not the case, so the ban is premature on procedural grounds. And lastly, being biased is not enough to warrant a ban. We all have out biases. It is when an editor causes disruption as a result of these biases that a ban is warranted. In my opinion, the disruption caused by Dominator at this stage is minimal. That may of course change in the future, but at this stage, I feel a ban is premature. ] (]) 07:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
*{{u|Dr.K.}} has asked politely on my talk page if I would reconsider the TBAN. In my eyes that is what this thread is trying to gauge and yes, I put this here for reconsideration by the community. So I am open to the idea of lifting it if that is the outcome here. Because it is here, I would ask for about three days to allow for more input before making the decision. For some reason though, Dr. K. and {{u|Athenean}} seem to think that he had not been warned about ] and that is not correct. He was warned ] on his talk page on Nov. 13. I should also point out that yesterday he tried to another editor that appears to be Turkish with ''"Hello, I am trying to add the fact that some scholars and historians deny the alleged Armenian Genocide but fear that too many aggressive users of Armenian and Greek origin are reverting my edits. Please ]."'' and I see that as escalation of disruption especially in view of the fact that he filed a DR as well ''before'' that. Unlike his adversaries above, he doesn't seem to have a problem trying to have ] enforced on others in the conflict as he also tried to for Arbcom enforcement ''after'' filing the DR and trying to canvass. This may be taken as a given that he understood AA2 and didn't need more warnings about it. I have serious doubts that anything fruitful will result if the TBAN is lifted as it looks like he is trying to beat a dead horse. I also do believe that since his non-neutral POV and bias has been revealed that he has compromised his position and shouldn't be editing there.<br /> — ] ] 13:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Clarification''' After {{u|Berean Hunter}}'s explanation just above, I can see that the usual signs of disruptive editing in this area clearly exist. My comments above were based mainly on my personal interactions with this user, a few times on my talkpage, where he was unfailingly polite and even friendly. ]. But I see now that he used the ethnicity of his opponents during the canvassing incident of which I was unaware. My mention of "adequate warning under AA2" simply meant that I thought the user should have been given a topic ban perhaps as part of an AE report or a final warning before any topic ban was enacted if an AE report were not filed against him/her. But I realise that Berian Hunter did his/her due diligence and the matter falls squarely under his/her admin discretion, which I respect. Again, although this user seems to be following the exact same path as previous users in this area, there was a certain respect shown to me during our interactions which caused me to extend AGF and stretch it to its breaking point. Given Berean's additional comments, I can see that he exercised his admin discretion well. Does that change my mind? I have to investigate a little bit more. Thank you all. ] ] 16:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Closure review at ] == | |||
{{archive top|result = ANI is not the venue to carry on a spill-over discussion based solely around the discord between the two disputants. There's nothing at all useful in keeping this open, also as noted, per ], not a single person would overturn the discussion and enact the opposite decision. There's nothing to be gained by keeping this open longer--]] 02:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
Purplebackpack89, and involved user of a discussion on whether subject warranted a separate article, decided to close the thread despite having an obvious bias. I stated on my talk page that closures to such discussions are inappropriate for involved users to make, but he rather than retract his closure. I am also concerned that ] was being erroneously overlooked and/or disregarded. Whether the article is retained or redirected, I do not feel an involved user's closure should be allowed to stand. ] (] / ]) 00:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:'''Boomerang:''' Fine, somebody can confirm that it was appropriate to close a discussion that was '''FIVE-TO-ONE''' in favor of retaining Martha Jefferson, with only Snuggums dissenting and nobody making any comments in two days. The discussion was also closed because Snuggums was shouting everybody else down, often by repeating the same arguments over and over and over again. Snuggums needs to just let it go! Surprise, surprise, most people want the wife of ] kept! BTW, Snuggums was so adamant that this be merged or deleted, he even went around removing all the links to Martha Jefferson, which is going to cause the community a great deal of trouble since Martha Jefferson is being retained. Frankly, Snuggums needs to disengage himself from Martha Jefferson, as he is too adamantly fighting clear consensus and is making too much work for everybody else. <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">]]]</span> 01:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Not a boomerang at all. I wasn't exactly "shouting", either, only stating and emphasizing points. Five-to-one isn't necessarily consensus per WP:NOTVOTE. ] is against having pages on people solely noted for family connections. Even if consensus was against me, closing such discussions when you were WP:INVOLVED is not at all appropriate and frankly no better than anything I've done regarding the article. See ] for more. ] (] / ]) 01:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::You do realize that BADNAC is about ''deletion'' discussions and INVOLVED is about administrative actions, right? Things aren't as stringently enforced when it's a general discussion. Also, you've mentioned the notability guidelines dozens of times, first at the talk page and now here, and it's clear that nobody else agrees with your interpretation of them in Martha Jefferson's case. Just because you believe it to be true doesn't mean you get to override ''five'' editors. <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">]]]</span> 01:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::I never said I got to override five, only that five-to-one isn't necessarily ], which is not ''solely'' determined by votes. My point in citing those pages and their premises is that involved users have obvious biases and therefore should not close discussions when they've already given input as a clear conflict of interest. Best to wait for '''uninvolved''' users to come along and make closures even if it takes a while. ] (] / ]) 02:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:The argument against a stand alone article based on ] appears to have been rejected by everyone on the sound basis that in accord with that guideline, there is significant coverage of this woman's life. Thus, the bio supported 5 to 1 appears to be a ]. ] (]) 02:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{archive bottom}} | |||
== Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times == | |||
Back in May I nominated ] for ], and it was kept. While I don't have a problem with that, the issue is the category is not removed when the AfD is closed, there was some talk of close AfD scripts doing it, although I don't think that is always the case. I was going through the category using AWB for a while, and removing it from the discussions manually, but I haven't done that since mid October (you can see that it is still in ]). So my request is that when people are closing AfDs that have been relisted 3+ times, they check to make sure the category is removed, and if not remove it manually. Much thanks, --]<sup>(]) </sup> 04:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Was there a bot that used to do this? I'm sure there was a bot that used to remove ] from closed AfDs, but it doesn't seem like that happens anymore. Assuming this wasn't deliberately stopped, might be worth cross-posting at ] to see if anyone is interested in taking it on again. ] (]) 12:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
* As an AFD closer I simply go through the log and close them so with the greatest of respect I'm not going to flaff about manually removing categories and potentially screwing something else up in the process, If we delete the (IMHO useless) category then we won't have a backlog. –]<sup>]</sup> 12:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
I recommend issuing a warning to ], as their actions appear to be ]. Despite previous warnings, they have continued this behavior. --] (]) 21:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Seemingly new user (probable sock) attacking admins == | |||
{{abot}} | |||
{{archivetop|status=SELF-TROUT|1=Oops, I guess it didn't need to be closed right away after all. {{nac}} '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 07:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
Anyone care to put a stop to ? <s>I would close it myself but it seems more appropriate for an admin to do it in this case.</s> '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 05:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{archivebottom}} |
Latest revision as of 21:34, 19 January 2025
Notices of interest to administratorsNoticeboards | |
---|---|
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 discussionAdministrators' (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 | 20 | 25 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 69 | 70 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- 5 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 10 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 14 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 1 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 36 sockpuppet investigations
- 27 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 3 Fully protected edit requests
- 0 Candidates for history merging
- 2 requests for RD1 redaction
- 108 elapsed requested moves
- 1 Pages at move review
- 17 requested closures
- 20 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 16 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 cawikimedia.org from the e-mail address you have used for the Bhairava7 account. Please describe the problem and request the removal of two-factor authentication from your account. See meta:Help:Two-factor_authentication#Recovering_from_a_lost_or_broken_authentication_device for details. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't able to access my also gmail (who attached from old account) due to 2:FA protection,then I was created new account with new gmail for re-contribution on Misplaced Pages. :(Happy editing Aarav200 (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please try the following steps to regain access to your Gmail account: https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7299973 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know if it is much useful but I can verify that he is indeed Bhairava7 as I contacted him over at discord personally. The AP (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was emailed about this. Given Yamla's CheckUser result, I don't think that there is any reasonable doubt that it is the same person operating both accounts. While they may be able to recover the account from T&S, I feel like it is a bit unnecessary to force them to go through that route as it is ultimately their choice whether they want to recover the account or create another one (even if I personally have a bias for recovering). I was going to transfer the permissions over, but saw this thread, so didn't follow through with it. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
@ToBeFree and Sdrqaz:,I also tried as per the link given by ToBeFree but I am not able to recover or access my Gmail... It would be better if I give up the desire to contribute to Misplaced Pages... I am also trying my best... If both are recovered then it will be good... Please forgive me but I will take full care that such mistake does not happen again in future... If possible, please transfer the rights of my old mentioned account to my new account because I've feel more stress at this time.Happy editing Aarav200 (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will transfer them over, given that it has been unsuccessful. I also think that this route is kinder. If T&S disables 2FA on your old account and you would like to go back to using it, please let me know. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
BAG nomination
Hi! I have nominated myself for BAG membership. Your comments would be appreciated on the nomination page. Thanks! – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I need help from an admin - Urgent
I'm not sure about oranges from Jaffa, but there's a pack of blocks from Misplaced Pages here. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear Misplaced Pages Team,
I need an urgent help concerning a page and information about my project, I'd appreciate if a wikipedia admin can contact me to help.
Many thanks, Mohammed Mohamugha1 (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's not enough information here for anyone to do anything. Please tell us what the problem is and what help you need. You probably want to read WP:COI prior to doing anything further, though, just in case you've been violating our guidelines around conflicts of interest. --Yamla (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- What's the issue? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- This account probably needs blocking. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
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 of their 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)- As a purely stopgap measure, I've blocked Marginataen from mainspace for a week to encourage them to respond here. Any admin should feel free to unblock without asking me, if the block becomes no longer necessary. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 20:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Gotta play by the rules. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. The continuous disruption far outweighs the minimal content contribution. Brandon (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
User:TWC DC1
Warned, then sockblocked. (non-admin closure) JJPMaster (she/they) 21:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I recommend issuing a warning to User:TWC DC1, as their actions appear to be gaming the system. Despite previous warnings, they have continued this behavior. --SimmeD (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Category: