< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 19:37, 14 May 2021 editGrandmaster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers25,517 edits →Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gugark pogrom: new section← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 16:04, 24 December 2024 edit undoUsernamekiran (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers34,674 edits →Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits: very serious commentTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{short description|Page for discussing incidents that may require action by administrators and experienced editors}}		{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
			{{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}
	<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Header}}</noinclude>__TOC__{{clear}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}		|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	|maxarchivesize = 800K		|maxarchivesize =800K
	|counter = 1067		|counter = 1174
	|algo = old(3d)		|algo = old(72h)
	|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c		|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
	|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d		|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
	|headerlevel=2		|headerlevel=2
	}}		}}
			{{stack end}}
	<!--		<!--
	NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE		NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
	NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE		NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
	NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE-->		NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE-->
			==Obvious sock threatening to take legal action==
			{{atop|1=VPN socking blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			{{atop|result=IP 2409:40D6:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 range block has been blocked for 6 months. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			] has been socking to edit a wide range of caste articles, especially those related to ]s . This range belongs to ] and has been socking using proxies and VPNs too. Many of which have been blocked. Now they are threatening to take legal action against me "{{tq|but how far we will remain silence their various optimistic reason which divert my mind to take an legal action against this two User}}" . - ] (]) 11:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Just as ignorant as he is known longtime abnormal activation and especially on those of ] article see his latest revision on ] you will get to urge why he have atrocity to disaggregating ] but pm serious node i dont mention him not a once but ypu can also consolidate this ] who dont know him either please have a eyes on him for a while ] (]) 12:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Very inappropriate attitude on talk (violates NPA, CIV, BATTLEGROUND) ==
			:But wait a second as per ] i dont take his name either not even so dont even try to show your true culler midway cracker and admin can you please not i am currently ranged blocked as my network is Jio telecom which was largely user by various comers] (])
	*{{userlinks|Exxess}}
			::Please tell me there's a language issue at play here, and that the IP didn't mention ] and use a racist slur in the same sentence there... —''']''' (]) 12:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I think it's both. ] (]) 12:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Well, we linguists don't like anecdotal evidence, but I'll provide some: I (non-native speaker of English, with a linguistics PhD) had to look up all the potential candidates for a slur in that post, and when I did find one it's not one I'd ever heard. However, "crackers" is an insult in Hindi, so I'd say it is most likely a PA, just not the one an American English speaker might understand it as. --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 13:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::At least in the South, an American would recognize ] as a pejorative. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 13:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Sure, but the IP user who used the word said they are in India, and their post contains various typical non-native speaker errors. ("culler" instead of "colour", for instance) --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 16:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::<small>Funny thing is you go far ''enough'' south it wraps back around again: ] - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
			* Observation: the IP just on the talk page of the ] article. It's peripheral, and the IP is pretty clearly involved. Is this a bad-faith edit by the IP, or should we just take their suggestion and extended-confirmed protect the page?... —''']''' (]) 12:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Is there a Dudi ]? Though I will note there is a lot of overlap between the "Indian Subcontinent" and "South Asian social strata" topic areas. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 21:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			*Noting that this person (Truthfindervert?) has taken to using VPNs. I’ve blocked a couple today. --] (]) 22:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by ] ==
	I've recently become aware of some very disturbing edits by ] on ]. I've interacted with him very little (disclaimer: while most of NPAs at that talk page are directed at ], some are directed at me; reviewing the history it seems I've had some interactions with that editor a few years back), but what I see is very disturbing and seems to breach ], ], ] and ]. It seems impossible to discuss anything with that user there given their attitude. I'll note here that their edits to the article itself are mostly ok, but whenever they are challenged, even on a slight matter, Exxess responds with a ] in the form of extremly uncivil rant of the scale I've rarely seen in all my years here. Here are some diffs and quotations, from most recent to oldest:
	*
	**"to hell with your petty ]/" <-- self explanatory...
	**"There seems to be a clique that regards Polish articles as their fiefdom. I defeated ] in a request for deletion regarding the Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki, herbu Radwan family article. Then what ] did was round up his little clique and posse, and I was accused of sock-puppetry" <-- battleground language/ABF and ]
	**"Now, we have another knee-jerk editor, ], who tried to round up a posse here - ]"
	**" ] taking umbrage with calling the szlachta an electorate is idiotic and stupid" <--WP:ASSERTIONS, ABF
	**"Forget summoning your friends, and fight your own battles. " <--WP:ASSERTIONS, ABF, battleground
	**"'''STOOPID''' - brainless indeed. And mentally disordered. See lunacy above."
	*
	**"Knee-jerk editor ] strikes again. This editor is bitching and moaning at ]"
	**" This kind of prodigious, knee-jerk stupidity and idiocy is difficult to comprehend, yet alone tolerate. "
	**"] gonna' try to round up a posse and a clique at ], so he can make some half-assed, idiotic attempt at "consensus" despite what the sources state."
	**":], you really think Misplaced Pages exists to reinforce your ignorance, misconceptions, and prejudices. Then you cry ORIGINAL RESEARCH and WP:SYNTH when your idiotic, knee-jerk deletions get challenged. There is no way to dance around the idiocy of this one. "
	**"Keep an eye on this editor ]. Really takes umbrage if editor's edits are challenged, particularly when they are stupid"
	*
	**"I disagree with everything. It's a reflex" <-- not a good attitude to have by default
	**"let us have a war about that" <-- BATTLEGROUND
	**"stop the trespass, and let me work" <--] attitude
	*
	** "a superlative brainless example of {{u|Lembit Staan}}'s statement, "brainless replacement of the word 'szlachta' with 'nobility'", and all this after a debate determining the title of the article should not be "Polish nobility"; but the lead sentence is in direct contradiction to the article title "Szlachta." Brainless and confused indeed. Knee-jerk editing" (also note the edit summary)
	Just today, this spilled into ]:
	*
	**"], what is dubious is you contradicting the obvious. You are wasting time with trifles and the immaterial. At first I was questioning your intelligence. Now I am questioning your sanity. "
	*
	**"Pal, (]) you want to talk bullshit and nonsense, so let's demonstrate yours "
	**"Wrong, you cannot read."
	**"You have a primordial misunderstanding regarding facts, which requires countering your knee-jerk deletions and crap with forthrightness."
	**"Pal, here is some advice for you - do not fight facts and secondary sources with stubbornness and knee-jerk deletions."
	*
	**"I revert your edits because your edits are knee-jerk and idiotic."
	**"So, because the great ] does not comprehend history, or law, he is going to cry"
	**"So, what you are bitching and moaning about is the fact you're publicly being shown you do not know what you're editing about, and when you PERSONALLY do not agree with something you DO NOT UNDERSTAND, or ever considered, you just knee-jerk delete, and start flinging accusations of original research and synth, and stumble right through the secondary sources, and pick yourself and keep going, then you try to round up a posse to support your half-assed, knee-jerk edits. I told you to take it to talk. You ran away. Then you come here and try to round up a posse."
	**"You knee-jerk editors who think anything on Misplaced Pages regarding Poland is your personal fiefdom get stopped dead in your tracks by the secondary sources. Then, you try to round up your little clique, but fail."
	**"Stay away for good, ], because you do more harm than good with your limited capacity to read English and comprehend what the secondary sources state"
	**"Do the world a favor, ], and stay away from this article, which is too complex for your limited powers of comprehension"
			The main issue with this editor at the moment is disruptive editing based on continuous abuse of ] and ]. Issues began when this editor . They did it and and .
	There is more but I think the above is sufficient to demonstrate a problematic pattern - one that has been going on for years. Note that this editor was inactive for a while, sometime taking wikibreaks that last over a year, but he displayed a similar, problematic attitude when he was active at the talk page of the same article in the past:
	* in 2018:
	**
	**also that year, ] (ping ])
	* And more ancient history from 2011:
	*** from ] instantly deleted by Exxess as "Deleted meddling" in the next diff. I actually forgot about this but this complain was apparently related to a personal attack against me:
	** (in edit summary)
	** and
	* Also note that this topic is within the old discretionary sanctions that this editor was informed about all the way back in 2008:
	** And last, a CIV warning from all the way back that year too:
			Instead of starting a discussion on the talk page of the article, the user came to ] to let me know of their opinion of my contributions. When I on the talk page of the relevant article, the user and according to their POV. When I let them know that this was highly inappropriate according to ], both and , they ] stating {{tq|ever since the stupid Misplaced Pages Dec. 2019 encryption protocol upgrade, to able to edit or view Misplaced Pages at all from my home computer, I have to use an indirect method which involves a non-fully-Unicode-compliant tool. I couldn't even really see your signature that way, and so didn't know to try to avoid changing it|q=y}}, which I had never heard of. In any case, they kept reverting the content supported by the reliable source, they also kept attempting to apply their POV to the discussion heading and and . I that I had and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, and they went ahead and .
	Just in case, let me point our recent attempts at dispute resolution: Lembit Staan at WT:POLAND a bit over a weeks ago, and yesterday ] for review and mediation at ], but to get involved. Exxess was aware of both of those requests, since they responded in their usual wall-of-text uncivil style in both places. Since community discussion at WikiProject and ping to an admin who was (until recently) active in related topic areas failed to provide any resolution, I see no recourse but to come to ANI.
			<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
			:The other user in this case is ]? This looks like a content dispute over whether the article is on the English version of a German-Arabic dictionary or the dictionary itself. ] (]) 15:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	While we can always use some more active editors in the obscure topic area of pre-20th century Polish history, and Exxess seems to have some knowledge about the topic, this kind of attitude and behavior (BATTLEGROUND, OWN, personal attacks, and the wall-off-text style they are wrapped in) cannot be allowed to continue: it leads to 'winning' disputes by making everyone else leave: . Therefore I'd like to ask the administrators & community for intervention. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 04:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
			::Yes the is indeed about ]. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violating ] repeatedly even after I that I had and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead and . ] (]) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::The heading dispute is between a date heading, and a descriptive heading? that's not really reformulating your entry. ] (]) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::It's a conduct issue. ] (]) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "{{tqi|Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant.}}" To be blunt, if you don't want editors changing the headings of sections you start, don't use such terrible headings. I definitely recommend you stay away from ANI since changing headings is quite common here. ] (]) 06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff. ] (]) 06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::&lrm;إيان: I suggest you stop messing around with the section heading since it's a distraction which could easily lead to you being blocked. But if AnonMoos changes your signature again, report it and only that without silliness about section headings, mentioning that they've been warned about it before if needed. ] (]) 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			I wrote a long and detailed explanation on his user talk page as to why the date-only header is basically useless in that context, but he's still for some peculiar reason fanatically determined to keep changing it back. Frankly, I've basically run out of good-faith reasons that make any sense -- except of course, his apparently unshakable belief that he has certain talk-page "rights", which according to Misplaced Pages guidelines he does '''not''' in fact have (outside of his own personal user talk page)... ] (]) 23:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	::], you forgot to put in here ] calling what I put in the article "bullshit" despite the secondary sources, because it is something "he never heard of." Once again, I do not consider being forthright a problem. The goal is to improve the article. And, a detailed discussion is not a "wall-of-text" style with the intent to stop discussion. I am inviting discussion and challenging your behavior, your edits, and Lembit Staan's edits. Stick to the facts. You personally knee-jerk deleted something I was in the middle of editing. Based on what? See detailed discussion. I do not recall reading any policy on a character limit for talk discussions, so I personally think you are taking matters out of context, and painting a very misleading picture, just like when you lost a deletion debate, then you gathered a posse, and accused me of sock-puppetry. False claim. Stick to improving the article and the facts. The extent some editors will go to when they are challenged. ] - you are always appealing for outside help. Consistently. - ] (]) 06:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
			:{{replyto|AnonMoos}} I don't see a problem with changing the heading but why on earth did you change their signature multiple times ? That is indeed a clear violation of ] since the signature was perfectly valid per ]. In fact your change was far worse since it changed a perfectly valid signature which would take other editors to the contributor's talk page and user page into an invalid one which lead no where. If you're using some sort of plugin which does that, it's your responsibility to manage it better so it doesn't do that ever again especially if you're going to edit talk pages where it might be common. If you're doing that intentionally, I suggest you cut it out or expect to be indeffed. ] (]) 06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	::There is an article called ]. I do think it is stupid for ] to object to the szlachta being called an electorate. Being forthright. I think that particular assertion is stupid. There is no way to dance around that one. - ] (]) 06:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
			::], this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::: For what it's worth, AnonMoos stated earlier that the changing of the signature was a unintentional technical issue, due to his use of some "non-standard tool" in accessing the internet . This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g. ). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later . Equally disappointing is the extremely aggressive rhetoric and acerbic tone with which he has been escalating this essentially harmless, good-faith content dispute from the beginning. ] ] 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Misplaced Pages securely. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Should be impossible as it's required to even access the site in the first place according to ]]<sup>] </sup> 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::<strike>Looking at his talk page it's been going back to at least 2011]<sup>] </sup> 16:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)</strike>
			:Guys, I do not deliberately set out to modify signatures, and when it happens, I am not usually aware of doing so. As I've already explained before in several places, since the December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade (NOT 2011!), the only way I can edit (or view) Misplaced Pages at all from home is by an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. To change this, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection, which would permanently disconnect my older computer, which I still use almost every day.
			:Meanwhile, this thread has been set up so I can't add a comment to it from home without affecting Unicode characters, so I was unable to reply here for 36 hours or so. If I'm silent in the future, it will be for the same reason. ] (]) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Misplaced Pages uses Unicode characters (] encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should '''not edit'''. ] (]) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Misplaced Pages '''at all''' unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Misplaced Pages developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Misplaced Pages's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Misplaced Pages from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... ] (]) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::...] was created in ''1994'', and became an official specification in '''2000''', not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Misplaced Pages with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web ''at all'', and the security hole that lets you access Misplaced Pages without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is ''not'' working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::You unfortunately don't know what you're talking about. New ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL METHODS have been introduced ''within'' HTTPS from time to time. I was using HTTPS perfectly happily until December 2019, when the developers arbitrarily ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. ] (]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::And even leaving that aside, as Johnuniq mentions - if you can't edit without corrupting Unicode characters, and by your own admission you ''don't know when it happens'', you shouldn't be editing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::This is probably a reference to when Misplaced Pages started requiring TLS 1.2 (because earlier versions were deprecated). Anyone who was/is still on Windows XP at that point couldn't connect any more. ] (]) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I'm not talking about when the update happening, I'm talking about how you have known about this issue, and have been getting complainants about it since <strike>2011</strike>and are still not taking any steps to do anything about it. What kind of internet connection would not support your PC? What on earth are you even using? Dial-Up? Because that still is supported by even Windows 10. ]<sup>] </sup> 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			<strike>:::Also, how did you see me saying "this has happened since 2011" as me saying that the update happened in 2011? Can you clarify. ]<sup>] </sup> 03:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) </strike>
			::::The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... ] (]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::: Apologies. I was extremely tired when I wrote both above. I have striken the date parts. Rest of my comments still stand. ]<sup>] </sup> 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			===None of this matters===
			I don't care what tool this guy uses or what his excuse is. If he can't edit without screwing up people's sigs, then he must not edit. {{U|AnonMoos}} shouls consider himself on notice now that if one of his edits messes stuff up one more time, he'll be blocked until he can give assurance that he's come into the 21st century. ]] 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:That's nice -- and also totally inaccurate. I ''was'' in the 21st century, and using 2012 tools, up until December 2019, when the developers pitchforked me backwards by arbitrarily imposing HTTPS ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS which my home computer hardware is not able to run. Notice that I had no problem complying with character-set handling -- the problem is with arbitrary ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. ] (]) 00:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::The century imagery is irrelevant. You have been warned. ]] 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::That was ''six years ago'', which is IMO about 3-4 years too long to keep using it as an excuse. Technology changes over time, so whatever this non-standard thing you think you need to do to edit here, it may be time to make a choice. ] (]) 00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Misplaced Pages developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... ] (]) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. ]] 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::If you have DSL or even DialUp. That still works with modern machines. ]<sup>] </sup> 01:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Heck, ''I'' am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*The response by AnonMoos to feedback about this problem is bizarre. I don't really care what the excuse or the history behind it. If you are unwilling to edit Misplaced Pages using tools that work in 2024 then you should stop editing. The behavior is completely unnecessary and it seems like you don't understand the disruption. ] (]) 14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			* AnonMoos hasn't really explained in any detail what their technical limitations are. They don't have to, but we can't really give advice otherwise. If as others have suggested their computer can't negotiate TLS 1.2, I'm surprised that they're able to use any websites at all from that computer. Requiring TLS 1.2 is not controversial; Misplaced Pages wasn't doing anything unusual in dropping TLS 1.0/1.1 around that time. ] ] 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	::] - deletion meddling? That was an honest mistake and you are a disingenuous editor. You are very good at ignoring the rules when it suits your purposes, like canvassing, until you are challenged, then, upon your edits being challenged, you rigidly assert violation of the "rules." "Deletion meddling" - that was an honest mistake. Korwinsky was another editor who just knee-jerk deleted a reference because he thought it would "mislead readers." Presumptuous in the extreme. - ] (]) 06:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::I see that {{u|Exxess}} has replied three times without denying that they have engaged in personal attacks and harassment. Perhaps that is because the diffs provided above show quite clearly that Exxess has repeatedly engaged in that type of misconduct. I have blocked Exxess for one week. Exxess, when you return, abandon personal attacks and harassment. If your misconduct resumes, the next block will be for a much longer time. ] ] 06:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::Given the editor's comments on their talk page, this might as well be extended to indef. They've indicated they see nothing wrong with their behavior & will resume it when the block ends. &mdash; <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 20:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::::{{u|HandThatFeeds}}, {{u|Cullen328}}, Given Lembit Staan's comment below, I proposed a ban on post-size limit (nobody can be reasonable expected to read those rantish walls of texts Exxess mass produces). Given his later talk page comments, Exxess now ] from editors he offended, while simoultenesly asking for a longer block. Sigh. I have serious doubts he is learning anything from this. This reminds of ] I wrote a while ago. Editors convinced of their own perfection are hard to reform. PS. All that said, I hate blocking people who show a willingness to reform, which is why my suggestion was the word-size limit. It's plausible Exxess could be an asset to the project, IF his talk posts were civil and readable. But said willingness to reform is hard to see right now. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 02:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::::{{u|Piotrus}}, I have withdrawn their talk page accesss and warned them that they will be blocked again if the personal attacks resume when their current block expires. I am not a fan of highly customized editing restrictions, but if the community disagrees with me, so be it. ] ] 02:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
			== Disruptive editing by ] ==
	::::::::I am amused by how my accuser, wrongdoer <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub>, writes about me as if I am in a larval stage of development, while all means of countering, resisting, and destroying the false claims hurled against me were forced from my fighting fingers, upon the deprivation of my Misplaced Pages-given freedom to edit.
	::::::::You may measure an editor by observing the editors aligned against him.
			The ] is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page.
	::::::::I am also amused by how my accuser, wrongdoer <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub>, is attempting to govern my Misplaced Pages-given freedom to edit. By what right, does my accuser presume I wish to have him administer and govern my Misplaced Pages-given freedom to edit?
			] (]) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::I am sure I will now be accused of harassment for courteously notifying my accuser Piotrus his wrongdoing is being discussed in a public forum.
			:@]: It looks like you both are ] on ].<sup class="plainlinks"></sup> That's not particularly helpful, so you should try to have a discussion on the ] as to whether you should include the ] name for the article in the lead/infobox. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::Does not Misplaced Pages state, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it."? Does not Misplaced Pages state, "Be bold can be explained in three words: 'Go for it.' .... '''Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it.'''"
			::MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. ] (]) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::@]: I am not suggesting that the IP editor isn't being disruptive, but my point is that {{u|Moroike}} isn't making the situation better (using the example of that one article). You can see this by looking at <span class="plainlinks"></span> where {{gender:Moroike|he has|she has|they have}} mostly just reverted this editor without using a summary. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city of ], ]. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you? ] (]) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			Since this IP user won't stop and is stonewalling, either he/should be temporarily blocked, or all the pages he is POV pushing without sources, should be semi-protected, so that only registered users can edit them. ] (]) 21:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			== User engaged in edit warring to remove disputed content prior to consensus ==
	::::::::I saw a Misplaced Pages problem, and I Misplaced Pages boldly fixed it. I did no wrong. But wrong was done to me. My faultless 14-year record was besmirched with a one-week block, for Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy, and now I will forever be evaluated in light of that besmirch, while my accuser, wrongdoer Piotrus, was allowed to accuse at will, while all means of countering, resisting, and destroying the false claims hurled against me were forced from my fighting fingers, and I was tossed into a Misplaced Pages pillory (my talk page), and deprived of my Misplaced Pages-given freedom to edit, to counter wrongdoer Piotrus' willfully made false claims. I question the neutrality and impartiality of the one who forced me into a Misplaced Pages pillory (my talk page), and removed all means of countering, resisting, and destroying the false claims hurled against me by depriving me of my Misplaced Pages-given freedom to edit, while allowing wrongdoer Piotrus to edit at will.
			{{atop|There's nothing actionable in this content dispute, except perhaps trouting the original poster for failing to assume good faith and hounding friendly admins when they try to help. Longtime user ] (4.5 yrs, over 5K edits) has made several assertions based on their clear misunderstanding of social norms. In this discussion they've failed to notify the subject (they actually failed to use the subject's name in the OP), they've failed to bring any diffs, they failed to sign their post, and over and over they seem to have failed to assume good faith of their fellow editors. A number of editors including several admins have attempted to talk Sxbbetyy down. Nobody in this discussion seems to agree with Sxbbetyy on the merits, yet Sxbbetyy keeps circling back to their own personal interpretation of policy. The discussion at ], where Sxbbetyy refuses to listen to the admin they asked, gives another example of the problem. Sxbbetyy is reminded that creating a post on ANI puts all their own behaviors up for examination. ] (]) 15:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			Title is pretty self explanatory. Rather than engage in the consensus building process to determine if the disputed content discussed ] is problematic, ] editor has instead immediately reverted the disputed content. They have been informed of the relevant policies prohibiting this behavior and how it should normally be handled (tagging the content as disputed while the discussion is ongoing) but have elected to instead engage in edit warring to keep the disputed content removed prior to any consensus on the matter. Also important to note that they wish to have the content removed entirely, but have stated that they no longer intend to participate in the consensus building discussion. So this appears to be a ] tactic to accomplish their goal of removing the content immediately without a consensus. Seeking admin help to halt this behavior and restore the content with the correct tagging.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign -->
	::::::::As I attempted to be heard, to counter, resist, and destroy the false claims hurled at me, my ability to be heard was limited by accusations of "walls-of-text," "walls-of-text," "walls-of-text."
			:It would help if you named the editor and signed your name to figure out what you are talking about; a noticeboard only works if you give us notice about the subject and what is happening. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 23:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The editor appears to be {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}}, based on the under the word "this" as well as . — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::My apology, this is my very first time making such a post. The other pages o have spoken on seemed to have signed themselves automatically. Will remember this going forward. And yes, that was the user, posted this using my phone so I didn't want to mis-spell their name, just linked instead. ] (]) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{non-admin comment}} IMO the best practice is that in the event of a content dispute, the article should be reverted to the status quo of how the article's content appeared before the dispute started, until such a time that consensus is established to re-add it (see: ]). It seems like the beginning of the content that is in dispute was added on 18 August 2024, the dispute began a few weeks later on 23 September 2024 and has been ongoing ever since.{{pb}}In this case, since the article existed in a relatively steady state for several months (or even years?) previous to the disputed material being added, I think it'd be wise to leave the disputed content out of the article until the discussion comes to a close. ] (]) 00:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I have been seeing this opinion from a few editors and even one admin on how to interpret this article. However, the first few sentences in that section do outright state to avoid reverting the disputed content prior to a consensus. And prior to opening this report, I asked several admins on the topic and got a response that reverting the disputed content immediately is incorrect per WP:STATUSQUO as it bypasses the consensus building process. I was advised that the content should instead be tagged as disputed rather than be outright removed. The offending user was made aware of the relevant policies but has nonetheless engaging in edit warring to keep it reverted, hence this report. ] (]) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::The status quo of an article constitutes implicit consensus (]). The person trying to include disputed content in an article despite it not being status quo is the one that could be construed as attempting to bypass the consensus building process, not the person trying to maintain status quo until discussion takes place. ] (]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). ] (]) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::{{tq|1=the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content}}<br>Not really, I personally wouldn't define "been there a few weeks" as status quo.{{pb}}I think maybe the other replies to this thread provide pretty good reasoning to take a step back and say "hey maybe I'm the one in the wrong here" instead of talking in circles ] (]) 00:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Personally I think the number of contributions since the edit where it has gone unchanged is a more useful metric, especially on low traffic pages such as this one. Regardless, per the policy you cite, there seems to be no official Misplaced Pages stance on what exact criteria are needed for a contribution to be considered the current status quo, beyond it having been unchallenged in subsequent contributions (which is the case here).
			::::::As for the rest of your comment, there seems to be a high amount of band wagoning and "]" going on in the rest of this. Or people trying to use this report as an extension of the dispute discussion on the article's talk page. Hopefully more actual admins to chime in on the topic as I don't actually want to waste my time talking in circles.
			::::::On that note thanks for actually taking the time and baseline minimal effort to engage in a discussion where you actually support your point and don't just devolve into repeating the same talking points over and over. It's a nice change of pace. ] (]) 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I am the editor being discussed here. I'll provide a summary of events since the initial statement by Sxbbetyy is misleading.
			:Myself and the editor had a content dispute at ] (]) and following circular discussion, I stopped engaging since I felt I had laid out my points. Per ], I maintained the state of the article to before the dispute. I requested for a ], which was answered by {{ping|BerryForPerpetuity}}, who agreed the statement should be removed, albeit for a different reason than mine. I took this 2-1 as rough consensus. I also posted the dispute on two WikiProjects, and have received no response so far. Sxbbetyy reached out to three admins about the matter, {{ping|Sergecross73|Oshwah|Pbsouthwood}}. The ] can be summarized as Sergecross believing that I haven't engaged in misconduct, and that I have presented a "plausible, good-faith interpretation of ]". Sxbbetyy then accused Sergecross73 of not acting in good faith. Oshwah did not respond to the post on ], but {{ping|BusterD}} did, essentially agreeing that the sourcing does not back up the claim in the content dispute. Sxbbetyy received help on ] about responding to a content dispute. And now we're here.
			:Throughout these interactions, Sxbbetyy has demonstrated a failure to assume good faith, refuses to accept ], and ]s talk pages, refusing to let the other editor have the last word. Frankly, this is a massive waste of editor time: it should have been a brief talk page discussion then an RfC. Apologies for all the pings. — ] (]; ]) 00:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::This summarization in itself leaves out critical context, (such as berry's concern being alleviated and them no longer expressing a desire to remove the content), the specifics of why that conversation with Serge ended the way it did despite my repeated attempts to engage with them in good faith, and the entire discussion with pbsouthwood (who quite definitively explained that the behavior PSW was engaged in was not correct). So I urge all involved to go read those topics to get the correct context through your own eyes and then discuss any concerns from what you see here. That being the case, it seems pretty clear cut imo. ] (]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Just to be clear, in no way did I express that I didn't want the content to be removed. I did not receive a notification for your reply, and I wouldn't have engaged either way. —&nbsp;] ] 17:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			: Yes, I would leave that material out of the article. Whilst it may not exactly be synthesis ''per se'', it is certainly editorialising ("the removal of that amount of marine debris is of negligible consequence...") ''unless'' there is an actual source that says this by making a link between between the two statistics (the amount of waste removed by Team Seas and the rate at which waste is entering the ecosystem). And even then, I would say that such an edit would need to say something like "However, ARandomNewspaper pointed out that ...". ] 00:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::I did not know all principles of equity and fairness were tossed aside for hasty and reckless justice upon my creating my Misplaced Pages account on 26 May 2007. - ] (]) 21:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
			::That is actually no longer the content that is being disputed. If you look at the that got reverted on the article you can see the current version. I had made edits to it precisely because of valid WP:NPOV concerns brought to my attention by PSW. However, their dispute with the content remains with the claim that is is synthesis rather than any other concern. Which they have been thus far unable to obtain a consensus on. ] (]) 17:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I have some pretty serious ] concerns about the topic starter here. They came to me for help (no idea how/why me, I have no connection to this dispute) and I repeatedly told them I didn't see any misconduct, and then they started attacking ''me'' when I refused to agree with them. And now this. This is a very simple content dispute, with a very simple ] outcome. I've told them this. It's a disappointing time sink on a rather trivial content dispute. ] ] 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	'''For the record:''' My major problem with the article "]" was not the belligerent editor, but the apparent lack of interest of the Polish community to the subject. I admit I may be in error, and asked them for a third opinion several times, but got none, and the article continues to be dominated by a ]er. Heck, I even did not complain then they violated the 3RR reverting my "knee-jerk" edits. I understand that only a community can handle a ]er. But the community seems to be deterred by the repetitive walls of text generated by this editor. Forcing this editor to be more polite will not solve the problems with the article text they generated. When I come back there in 2 months, I feel I will have to go in a hard way of the procedure of formal dispute resolution for each and every dubious statement this user introduced. ] (]) 18:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
			*:At no point was he "attacked". I defended myself after he became hostile with me (as anyone can read in our convo, I stated multiple times that I would leave and did not want to be a burden if they didn't want to engage with this, but he made no such objections and continued). Eventually he just became outright hostile and refused to explain their points any further, devolving the conversation into them repeating themselves over and over, its all there to read on his talk page. As for why I contacted him, I wanted to ensure I chose impartially so I just randomly looked at the currently active admins at the time and he was the first one I found. ] (]) 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::The discussion is , if anyone wants to look. The "attack" I'm referring to you is your accusation that I responded to you in bad faith. I was not involved in the dispute, have no stance on it, and had no pre-conceived notions about either of you - what in the world would my motivations be for "bad faith responses"? It doesn't make any sense. You simply didn't get the response you wanted, and proceeded to badger me on it. Did I get vaguely irritated when I volunteered my time to review and comment on a dispute I had no stance or interest in, only to get all sorts of ] responses on it? Yeah, sure, but who wouldn't? ] ] 18:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I'm here from my input at the 3rd opinion request. This is nothing more than a trivial content dispute, I see no reason for this to be at ANI. I somewhat agree with the claim of ], it becomes more susceptible to incorrect information, and from my analysis it seemed like the claim in the disputed content was completely wrong. Two different sources, from two different time periods. My $0.02: The claim of stonewalling is ridiculous, there was ample good-faith discussion based on existing policy and guidelines. This editor does not ], it appears that he claims that editors disagreeing are acting in bad faith. From him to administrator Sergecross73: {{tq|"I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."}} It seems that he roots his argument based on the editor who removed it rather than the content itself. Very unfortunate waste of time. —&nbsp;] ] 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	{{out}}
			*:Exactly. It's not "stonewalling" that's happening here. PerfectSoundWhatever has discussed at-length at the talk page. They're simply not willing to ''talk circles indefinitely''. And we don't require that of editors. I've urged Sxbbetyy to, rather that spin their wheels arguing with the same person endlessly in a stalemate, to try to get other participants to take part. But they've refused, and instead decided to move their arguing to ANI instead. As I noted to them in one of my last comments to them, if they spent half as much effort in consensus-building as they did complaining and arguing, they could have built a consensus by now... ] ] 17:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Reading any of what I wrote in this dispute shows clearly that is not the case. Also, the quoted sentence is completely taken out of context.
			*:Here is what was said in the mesaage before that they left out, "Not really the logical conclusion one draws from reading any of what I wrote here, where I asked multiple times for you to explain your reasoning in your replies (instead your response was to repeat yourself without offering further explanation), but if that is what you want to take away from this that's fine by me. I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."
			*:The message as a whole was replying to was a passive aggressive insult that didn't progress that conversation, hence the response as it was clearly not an example of engagement in good faith.] (]) 18:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Also, it looks like the participants in the dispute on the Team Seas article are acting as if this report is an extension of that dispute discussion.
	] has returned, and gone right back to . Thankfully no insults yet. &mdash; <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 15:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
			:This is a report of edit warring to revert disputed content prior to a consensus being reached (there was no consensus prior to the reversion and there still is no consensus, as admitted by PSW themselves in that very dispute and In their latest revert message, no idea why now in this report they are trying to claim that there is suddenly consensus for removal).
			:This is not a report on the dispute itself, just to make that very clear since those involved are responding as if it is. ] (]) 18:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::You've still got this backward. You need to show a consensus to keep your content in the article, as everyone else has been telling you. ] is directly on point, and I'll quote it here: {{Tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} ] (]) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Thank you. I have tried to inform them of this many times and many ways. I do not know why they cannot wrap their head around the concept. Conceptually, it would be very problematic if we were required to retain every disputed content until consensus ruled it out. It wouldn't be workable. ] ] 19:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Nobody is arguing WP:ONUS here...not in the dispute and not here in this report. The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.
			:::I was directly advised by admin Pbsouthwood that the removal of disputed content BEFORE any consensus has been reached is not allowed (save for specific situations, none of which apply to the disputed content) as this bypasses the consensus building process. ] is the talk page where I was advised this. This is echoed with the wording in WP:STONEWALLING and ]. Here is the direct quote from the latter, "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, {{under discussion inline}} is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." ] (]) 19:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::{{tq|The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.}} <--- No. This is your problem. What you are saying here is incorrect. Policies say the opposite of this. You are not going to get support at ANI. In fact, the longer you keep going with this ] insistence that community practice is actually the opposite of what policies plainly say it is, the more likely it is you're going to find yourself blocked for disruption. Pbsouthwood didn't tell you this either (what he wrote doesn't match what you've been doing), and your initial question did not properly represent the situation at hand. But we can invite him here to see if he actually supports what you're doing here: {{ping|Pbsouthwood}}, what say you? ] (]) 20:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::This entire comment serves absolutely zero purpose whatsoever. You're parroting what others have already said with no supporting evidence. Along with throwing in an oddly included threat that is completely nonsensical and wholly unwarranted.
			:::::And while I could point out the myriad of ways your claim about what Pbsouthwood said was inaccurate, that would pretty much involve reposting his reply, which is a waste since anyone can already go to his talk page and read it themselves.
			:::::So at this point, if you need that admin to come here and tell you what they already said themselves, more power to you. Would save us all a ton of time to get an authoritative answer on this, especially with another admin holding the opposite view point, in spite of the specific policy wording. ] (]) 23:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::], there does not need to be an established consensus for the removal of content. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I'm not the one insisting otherwise...this report only exists because an ]. And as I've posted in my previous replies, the wording in the policies clearly support that. Makes me question how many have actually bothered to really read these policies... ] (]) 02:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::The other admin told you ''nothing'' about the removal of ], which is always appropriate. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::# This report is not an extension of the dispute discussion for that article, if you want to involve yourself in that discussion, do so there, do not hijack this report.
			:::::::::# The disputed content is plainly not WP:SYNTH as I explain on the talk page in great length, with nobody thus far having provided valid examples as to how it is.
			:::::::::# If you are going to make the claim that any WP:SYNTH concerns warrant immediate reversion without consensus, please feel free to share the quote in the relevant policy that says this. I have not found any such wording and instead found that what is present matches up with what PBsouthwood informed me.
			:::::::::] (]) 17:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::] ] ] 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::At this point I say that my advice was given without a specific context, and without prejudice. I maintain that it is more collegial and polite to discuss a removal of unsourced but ''plausible'' content ''before'' removing it, as it can often avoid disputes of this kind, but it is not forbidden to arbitrarily delete content that an editor ''plausibly considers inappropriate provided the relevant reason is given''. It is always the responsibility of the person advocating inclusion to provide a reference when challenged, regardless of the process of challenge.
			:::::Some forms of synthesis are acceptable. If a conclusion is logically inevitable based on undisputed factual premises, or is a simple mathematical calculation, we routinely accept claims that may not be specifically stated in a source, but we may require the logic to be explained, as it may not be obvious to the reader.
			:::::At the risk of being ], I also refer readers to <s>]</s> <u>(looks like that essay has been expunged, try ])</u>. &middot; &middot; &middot; ] ]: 06:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I think many of us used to the mess editors adding unsourced content can create would strongly oppose leaving in unsourced content just because it's plausible. The standard should instead be at a minimum that you believe the claim made is most likely correct and sourceable not simply that it's plausible. Although ultimately such discussions are a little silly anyway. If editors would just add sources rather than leaving it for someone else because they're claiming it's unlikely to be challenged or whatever, there would be a need for others to decide whether to query or remove unsourced content. ] (]) 09:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I was suggesting tagging with citation needed while you wait a reasonable time for a response, but as we know some of us do not have the patience and just revert. It in not unheard of to know something, but not have a source handy at the time. What is obvious to one may be totally obscure to others. This is acceptable within policy and guidelines. You could start a RfC to have the guidelines changed, but I suspect it would not get through as being a bit bitey. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; ] ]: 12:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Yes, what you say is true, that's absolutely an acceptable approach. But that's not really the problem at hand here. The bigger issue is that Sxbbetyy appears to be believe that the alternative approach - reverting per STATUSQUO or NOCONSENSUS - is somehow misconduct, and that's simply not true. They're not arguing about if your approach is valid, they're arguing that its ''compulsory'', and they're attempting to report a user for not following your possible approach, which is completely meritless. ] ] 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Please do not put words in my mouth. The only reason this report exists is because Peter Southwood advised that this was how I should proceed if the editor participating in this no-consensus reverting continued to do so and was unreceptive to further discussion. (Both are true by admission of PSW themselves). ] (]) 18:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::Yes, I've seen , but you presented the situation to them entirely in hypotheticals that lacks crucial context. You frame PSW as unwilling to engage in discussion but omit the fact that You accuse PSW of edit warring to keep their information in the article, but omit the fact that . I would think the near-unanimous rejection of this ANI report would indicate that this was not, in fact, a good thing to report. Best case scenario, this is archived with no action, but I'd be shocked if it didn't result in a ]. ] ] 18:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::I don't know why you are attempting to present the entire discussion on that talk page as some sort of proof that PSW was willing to engage in further discussion to halt the behavior this report is about. At no point whatsoever did PSW ever indicate anything like that; if they did this report wouldn't exist as the discussions on your talk page or Peter Southwood's page would have never needed to happen. Not to mention if you take the time to actually read the discussion, you see that most of it is on the specifics of the validity of the WP:SYNTH claim made by PSW, eventually culminating in PSW actually asserting that they will not stop change their position on this and then outright refusing to engage any further.
			:::::::::::And now you accuse me of edit warring by citing the entire recent edit history of the page...this isn't fooling anyone who actually bothers to read any of the revert messages and examine the timeline of when they occurred (talk about omitting "crucial context").
			:::::::::::Beyond just slandering my character, I don't really see what these kind of spurious claims accomplish. It wastes everyone's time, makes yourself look biased and hostile, and adds nothing to the conversation. Keep things civil please, I really shouldn't have to tell you of all people that basic expectation. ] (]) 02:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::Wait...are you seriously trying to suggest that, even though you were the only one who reverted him every single time, he was edit warring and you weren't? ] ] 02:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::If you are going to continue to twist words and make false claims immediately after being asked to keep things civil, maybe it would be best for all involved if you just moved on from this conversation. Sad that even has to be stated at this point, it should be a given. ] (]) 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::Yet another IDHT response where you try to baselessly chastize me rather than address anything anyone is saying to you. ] ] 18:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::What a choice to post this exact type reply to my last message... not to mention the sheer absurdity of it. To claim that I've never addressed anyone's points in my replies is so easily and visibly wrong (literally this entire topic is full of my detailed replies to people's concerns, including this very reply) that it's almost insulting to the rest of the people participating in this or to anyone who even chooses to read that message. It's as if you think nobody can see the rest of this discussion (or even the comments directly above it). ] (]) 11:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Thank you for taking the time to respond and my apology for any inconvenience it may have caused. Ive tried to keep it as civil as possible, but there seems to be a very hostile air in this discussion by those with the dissenting opinion. As for how this situation is to be resolved, would it be appropriate to restore the currently disputed content with the appropriate tags (as it is sourced and was the statusquo on the page at the time of reversion)? Or is there something further that must be done here? I'm generally unfamiliar with how ANIs actually function. ] (]) 17:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Have you considered starting an ]? The fact is that you made a ] addition to the article; someone else objected to it, which means you now ought to seek consensus ''for your addition''. As numerous people have told you, none of the relevant policies and guidelines (], ], ], etc) would allow you to make a recent addition the "default" the way you want, but more generally - the problem is that you're trying to dig through policy for something that will make your preferred version the default, allowing you to have it in the article without having to demonstrate consensus for it even in the face of challenges. Even if the policies and guidelines I listed ''were'' on your side this would still be a bad way to approach it. You have a conflict, your goal should be to resolve it by making consensus as clear as possible - figuring out what the crux of the dispute is and then, if you can't reach a compromise, holding an RFC to see where consensus lies. Also, I have to point out that just by a quick nose count of people who have weighed in on talk, I'm seeing a dispute that is now three-to-one against you. That ''is'' a consensus - not a massive one, maybe an RFC will pull in a bunch of people that say something else, but it doesn't make sense for you to keep demanding a consensus to remove something you added when there actually ''is'' such a consensus on talk. You've disagreed with their arguments but they're not obliged to ] you; ultimately if you think your arguments are so strong and theirs are so weak, the only real option for you at this point is to start an RFC and hope that you can demonstrate that there. --] (]) 04:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::As mentioned earlier in the discussion, this report is not an extension of the dispute on that article, nor is that what this report is about. Also, a RFC was already started for the topic about a week or so ago by PSW, but that occurred after he reverted the status quo, disputed content with discussion (repeatedly). As for the rest of your comment, Peter Southwood, an admin, has addressed what is the actual expectation. ] (]) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::What? I never started an RfC. — ] (]; ]) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I just checked and on 12/9/24 at ] you said the following, "Thanks – just wanted to mention I requested comments from ] and ] about 2 weeks ago."
			::::Did that not actually happen? ] (]) 02:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::] is a specific process. Asking questions on a couple of Wikiprojects is not an RFC. ] (]) 02:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::That's fundamentally not what an RFC is. This is getting ridiculous... ] ] 03:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::It's almost like this is the very first time I've ever been involved in this kind of issue on Misplaced Pages before...seriously these kind of replies come off as rude and don't actually say anything meaningful or helpful. Ever since our conversation on your talk page you have made next to no real effort to engage in good faith and I find that highly disappointing to be coming from an admin. And my apology if I offended you at all at some point or if you have just "lost your patience" with me, but I don't see how that gives you the green flag to suddenly disregard ]. I certainly haven't, in spite of being on the receiving end of this. ] (]) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I haven't said anything uncivil, I just keep calling you out when you say something incorrect. ] ] 18:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::], is a powerful force, I find it difficult to resist myself. ] (]) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			===Request for closure===
	{{out}}
			Despite its large size, the consensus here is quite clear. There's no misconduct here, just standard following of procedures of ] and ], which is perfectly acceptable. Not a single person has suggested taking any action towards PerfectSoundWhatver. Outside of a a potential IDHT BOOMERANG, there's nothing left to be done here. Can someone close this? ] ] 14:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I second that. If there has been any edit-warring by any party that should be dealt with in the normal way. {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}} has certainly done nothing wrong, and the OP will get blocked if they don't start listening to people pretty quickly. ] (]) 14:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Exactly. And even that's probably unlikely, as most of the "edit warring" was singular reverts with days or weeks in between. It's far from a 3RR situation at least. ] ] 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{non-admin comment}} I don't think this conversation is going anywhere fast, other than seemingly coming to the conclusion that @] has done nothing wrong, which seems to be the opposite of what this ANI post was about. There's no edit warring here, and even if there was, it wouldn't be dealt with at this venue. Shut it down! ] (]) 16:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:In what way whatsoever is this editor's decision to revert the disputed content during the discussion "standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO"? The literal first words that appear at that link are in bold and say, "'''Avoid reverting during discussion'''", followed by a detailed explanation of the actual proper procedure. And to make it very clear what it says, here is the literal first paragraph verbatim: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the '']'' '''during a dispute discussion'''. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the ] are appropriate. For other pages, <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." ] (]) 02:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::In what way is ''that'' your read of the consensus in the discussion above? ] ] 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::In what world do you logically come to that conclusion from a message that consist of almost entirely the word for word quote of the procedures described in WP:STATUSQUO, that directly counters the claim you just made? Are you saying it is "against consensus" simply because it presents a viewpoint you don't like and don't want to address? I don't see another reason why you would again twist my words, to the point of lunacy. And this is, once again, despite the fact that all of what has been said is literally within view.
			:::Also, regarding the consensus. Out of everyone that has actually joined the discussion and all the messages sent (~90% of which are either from myself or you Serge), there have been only three people who have actually said anything in support of your interpretation of this. The rest either did not discuss the topic, did not express an opinion, or were Peter Southwood who supported the interpretation of WP:STATUSQUO as stated on its page. Seems like you're just trying to rush a end to the conversation to get the conclusion you want. ] (]) 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I'm saying there has been no consensus for anything you're arguing here. Not a single person has supported action against PSW. ] ] 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::The status quo ante bellum that shouldn't be reverted from is the version ''without the new content''. ] (]) 15:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Mgtow definition ==
	::Wow, &mdash; <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> - well, look at that. I'm not defenseless anymore. Looks like I'm going to have several ANI cases of my own soon.
			{{atop|1=Editor was pointed to the talk page and then stopped editing. It looks like this was a case of ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			There are blatant lies in the wiki definition of "mgtow".
			The goal is accuracy, not "man bashing". ] (]) 14:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:@], you should discuss this at ]. This noticeboard is for conduct issues, not content issues. ]&nbsp;] 14:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Nothing wrong with the definition of MGTOW. Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight is an internationally accepted and used term used by every airplane and airline in the world. ] ] 16:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The cintent is incorrect. Mvto is NOT "misogynistic". There is no "hate" towards women, only avoidance. ] (]) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:@], you were directed to the talkpage, which includes an FAQ on the term you keep trying to remove, along with extensive discussion. You should start there before just removing sourced content that you don't like. We'll leave aside the absence of required notifications to Black Kite and myself who have warned you for your conduct. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 17:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Where do I find the talk page? ] (]) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::@], I linked it for you in my comment above. ]&nbsp;] 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Camarogue100's removal of material unfavorable to the subject with an edit summary of indicates to me that they are here to play games, not ]. Any more disruption should result in an immediate block IMO. —] (]) 20:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Hey, since you mentioned the wall-of-text, and you pinged me, do you think ] is right? Take it over to ]. I hope that looming wall-of-text is not terrifying anyone. It is dark under its shadow. Would not want an ANI case for terrorism by way of "wall-of-text"... Notice the editors mentioned there, and how polite I am - Piotrus and Lembit Staan.
			{{abot}}
			== Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits ==
	::And, while you are there, look at this paragon of brilliance, "obsolete sources." Anything prior to World War II, is an "obsolete source". That should be applied Misplaced Pages-wide. When <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> deletes something, that could never be "deletion meddling". I can't be accused of not trying to be polite before we got here, but I never got a chance to mention that before being put in the pillory (blocked) and deprived of my Misplaced Pages-given freedom to edit. - Read: ]
			Can we please dp something about editors who make unnecessary changes to widely-used modules, and then need to change 400,000 talk pages to get the same result we had before the change? Thanks to change from last week, which removed the parameter "living" from the bannershell, we now have more than 400,000 pages in ]. After the "cleanup" by ] (and perhaps others), we will have the exact same result as we had last week, no new functionality, no new categories, no improvement at all, but a lot of flooded watchlists.
	::I have to compliment Piotrus. Since I first joined Misplaced Pages 26 May 2007, 14 years ago, whenever Misplaced Pages is causing me nauseating, severe migraines, Piotrus has always been there for me. I cannot thank him enough. And now, I have Lembit Staan, too, so the migraines disappear twice as fast. After I get banned, no more migraines at all. - ] (]) 18:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
			I tried to get him to stop at ], to no avail. This isn't the first time, as you can see from that discussion. ] (]) 14:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	'''FOR THE RECORD''' - Inciting a mob because no editor of their own accord took this editor below's position, or rallied to his side, upon his bad-faith presumption Exxess is "dominating and screwing up the article and talk page", because the editor below presumed so, because the editor below's logic could not possibly be wrong. Wrongdoer Piotrus did not cry, "Foul, foul, foul," or cry, "Personal attack", or "Incivility," or file an ANI report, or drop a hint the editor below is an example of an editor who thinks they are perfect, with an admonition that this editor read the pontifications in the essays of wrongdoer Piotrus. There was no possibility Exxess was trying to help and improve the article. Exxess has spent 14 years waging war on Misplaced Pages, as if that was a rule, not an exception, so shows the picture wrongdoer Piotrus presented. Of course, there is no possibility Piotrus could ever be anything but perfectly equitable and fair. Wrongdoer Piotrus comes with clean hands:
			:If you want to discuss {{tl|WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at ].
			:As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. ] (]) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::"{{tq|when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries}}": incorrect. Since you wrongly thought I was making cosmetic edits, i.e. "{{tq|no change in output or categories}}", the category was to inform you that they are not cosmetic.
			:::Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. ] (]) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". ] (]) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did ''not'' have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. ] (]) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:This was discussed in detail on ]. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the {{para|blp}} and {{para|living}} parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. ] (]) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed {{ul|Cewbot}} would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. ] (]) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Edits like these should ''always'' be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. ]] 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Is it just me or are talk pages like ] just perpetual ] issues where a very small number of editors (frequently 5 or less) make major changes that affect thousands of articles, all without involving the broader community through, at minimum, places like ]? ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	::"No it is not. This user keeps pumping bullshit his own interpretations into the article: More precisely, the szlachta were not a nobility nor a gentry, but an electorate. Really? I keep repeating that edits of this user must be monitored. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)" - ]
			*{{ping|Fram|Tom.Reding|Kanashimi|Primefac}} I got AWB working again. If cewbot would take time for making the changes, and if this needs attention soon, then should I file a request for that particular bot task? —usernamekiran ] 06:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:The robot is in operation... ] (]) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::yay! —usernamekiran ] 16:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			== ] ==
	::"<sigh> For God's sake, really? Nobody has a say against all this illogical rambling ? Shall I file WP:RFC for very nonsense this guy introduced? (Coming back there in 2 months). Lembit Staan (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)" - ]
	'''FOR THE RECORD''' - NOT an Extended Discussion, or Talk, on a Page Called "Talk"; But Another Repetitive, Bullshit, Illogical, Rambling, Nonsense "Wall of Text", which, to quote wrongdoer Piotrus, "nobody can be reasonable expected to read those rantish walls of texts Exxess mass produces", on an article where it is obvious Exxess is claiming ownership:
			] is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. ] (]) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	Evidence - ]
			:You're removing demographic categories and templates by blanking them out; irreligion still deals with religion no matter your argument. That's definitely not compliant with ] and clearly vandalism. There's no action to take here except that you need to stop removing these categories and templates. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 19:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::And you are now '''required''' to cite how your edits meet ]; spamming it in edit summaries is not discussion. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 19:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::While doing routine vandal patrol, I came across what seemed to be a hasty and massive removal of content, being done in a very directed and personal manner.
			::::After looking at the persistent removal, and communicating, I restored the well-drawn categories.
			::::Hopefully, this is easily resolved.
			:::] (]) 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::43*, do not continue to revert these category removals without discussing them first. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::THere is nothing to discuss. The guidelines are clear. What needs to be done is editors need to be familiar with the cat guidelines. We don't discuss whether the sky is blue do we? ] (]) 02:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::THey are not well drawn, it was not hasty, it was not massive, and it was not "personal". It was directed because they all had the same issue. ] (]) 02:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Editors should not blindly revert. They should be '''required''' to understand the guideleines. ] (]) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			I gave up editing because there were too many problems that the wiki communtity is not sorting out. One of them is treating anon editors as second class wikicitizens.
	::Of course wrongdoer Piotrus painted a picture of a battle-hardened Exxess, and the hands that painted that picture were perfectly clean, and wrongdoer Piotrus, being nothing but perfectly equitable and fair, would wish me to present this about my accuser, also in the interests of ]:
			Another problem is "this is how it is so we are going to leave it like this for years and years" and this is at the expense of the quality of WP.
	::::Regarding wrongdoer Piotrus: "In my view the A.M. part of your appeal demonstrates.. what to call it... '''a lack of forthcoming-ness'''. The remainder of the appeal, in which you speak of WP's losses from your lack of participation, that's a different story that others can think over."
			I can't remember the specific category guideline for the edits I did but is the undoing editors need to look it up. Categorisation is something that a lot of editor do not understand. Go and put a notice on WikkiProoject Categorisation and you will fing that there is support for my edits.
	::Novickas (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
			WP could be sooo much better. ] (]) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	::
			:I'm sorry, but "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone" is an indication you should be trying to do better instead of telling us we should do the same. If you're not willing to actually explain why guidelines vindicate your changes, then being right sometimes isn't enough if you want to make things better. Communication is the process, not something ancillary to it. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	Wrongdoer Piotrus went through 14 years of my Misplaced Pages history and could only site a possible clash with two editors in 14 years - wrongdoer Piotrus and Lembit Staan, but as concerns wrongdoer Pitorus, wrongdoer states himself, "I've interacted with him (Exxess) very little," so, for all intents and purposes, one editor in 14 years - Lembit Staan. Both editors I stated I am neutral about. - ] (]) 23:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	: Wow. Uh. Does anyone have time to read all of that?--] (]) 23:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)		::GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. ] (]) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	::I read it, and I also read ]. I don't know how it's possible for anyone to work on an article with Exxess. The haranguing, the condescension and snarkiness, the needless repetition...it's exhausting, just reading it. ]&nbsp;] 23:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)		:::Discussion is required when other editors ask you questions in good faith in order to resolve present disputes and prevent future ones. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Bear in mind this is WP and not social media. ] (]) 02:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	*Sooo... are the three dozen uses of "wrongdoer Piotrus" just a particularly inept attempt at being insulting? Because if so, I think the block just expired would seem not to have registered to any noticeable degree. --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 00:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
			::How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone". ] (]) 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	* I vote to '''indef block ]'''. Misplaced Pages is not some social media site where people score points by mocking and insulting those with whom they disagree. It is a project to build an encyclopedia, an endeavor that requires maintenance of a level of not just civility, but professionalism. ] ] 00:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
			:::No. You brought this here. The ] is on ''you'' to explain how the guidelines justify your edits, not to say "go look it up". Also {{tqq|How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone"}} - because that's exactly what you said. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support indef block'''. The comments in this thread are a pale echo of the editor's behavior on the article talk page. That they are participating on the talk page rather than edit-warring their preferred content is a point in their favor, but what happens on the talk page is not a civil, collegial attempt to reach consensus. Until Exxess can find a new approach to working with others, the other editors should not have to endure that treatment. ]&nbsp;] 01:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
			::::It's not unreasonable in many cases to link to a very specific passage of a guideline and expect an editor to understand its meaning as regards a pertinent dispute, but you can't just fail to clearly articulate your argument while also insisting it's vindicated somewhere within the full text of a guideline. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support indef''': Clearly the block has not had any effect, with them still engaging in ]-violating posts and veiled personal attacks as mentioned above. Enough ] has been extended. Regards, ]. (] &#124; ]). 02:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
			:Content dispute. Bold edits were reverted; next step is discussion, probably at ]. If there is dispute over interpretation of the guideline you can consider leaving a pointer at ]. If there are any categories that shouldn't be used at all that can be discussed at ]. ] (]) 03:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support indef or lesser sanctions''' "Exxess"'s recent behaviour is inconsistent with a collaborative project, including the Idonthearitis (as evidenced by their walls of text), the personnal attacks, and so on. They don't seem to have been blocked before. I'm not sure an indef (or community ban) is the best solution, but their editing has been confined to mostly one topic so far (see ]), and per the general principle of escalating sanctions. ] (] / ]) 00:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			::The content dispute could have been discussed on any of the talk pages. Yet it was brought here first. ] (]) 06:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::When a content dispute involves several pages it is often <small>though not always</small> best to centralize discussion. Misunderstanding ANIs purpose and bringing content disputes here is a common and understandable error; best just to point people at appropriate ] when that happens. ] (]) 06:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			Not overly impressed by 43's comments above. But do wish to note that their ] of ] from at least one BLP appears to have been correct. The subsequent reversion of that removal is misfortune. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Hectoring comments in a RM discussion by Dicklyon ==
			== Unblock request of Rereiw82wi2j ==
	I'm concerned about {{user|Dicklyon}}'s behaviour regarding the ] article. They are unhappy with the capitalisation of the article's title. After some move warring () during an initial talk page discussion, they did the right thing and started a RM discussion. However, during the initial discussion and the RM they have repeatedly insulted me and hectored the other editors who disagree with them about this rather minor issue. Diffs and quotes:
			{{atop|1=Blocked, blocked, they're all blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	*Insult directed at me ("Maybe you're often distracted by titles?")
			The user {{u|Rereiw82wi2j}} was blocked for blanking talk page discussions. They were removing discussions they participated in with an now-vanished account, for the purpose of removing their username from the talk page(which isn't removed via a vanishing). I believe that per ] their vanishing needs to be reversed, am I correct? Do they need to be asked to resume using that account?(if they can) ] (]) 20:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	*Hectoring an editor who opposed the move while insulting me again ("What do you mean, "per Nick"? You just want to repeat what he said that was demonstrated false?")
			:It seems to need reverting because with their previous account, they only edited one article/talk page and when asked what articles they wanted to edit with their new account, they just mention this same article. That violates the entire principle of a clean start account. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 23:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	*Hectoring another editor who opposed the move while insulting me further ("That's a rather preposterous presumption, given how wrongly he characterized the case usage in the sources he cited. He is obviously not up to speed on WP's capitalization guidelines."
			::Could we revoke TPA per ? ~ ] (]) 14:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	This aggressive behaviour over a minor issue seems utterly unnecessary - it's obviously entirely possible to have differing views about capitalisation of a word without throwing insults around and needing to hector everyone who disagrees with you! Dicklyon has been blocked multiple times for edit warring, and this suggests that there is an ongoing problem which I would be grateful if an admin could follow up on. ] (]) 09:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
			::: I have revoked their talk page access and declined the unblock request. ] (]) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	:The "maybe you're often distracted by titles?" comment does not read as an insult to me. I think they were just suggesting that you came to the wrong conclusion because you were misled by some occurrences of the term in the context of titles. (Incidentally, the addition of the "maybe" ] plus the question mark makes this read as a very mild/polite form of contradiction.) Unless there's some more context missing, I think you've been a bit quick to impute bad faith there. ] (]) 00:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
			::::User has created another account {{u|Human82}}. ] (]) 15:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Dicklyon is often forceful during move discussions, and I've been on the receiving end of that forcefulness before, but frankly I'm not seeing an issue here. That said, Dicklyon should keep in mind that many Wikipedians are not, in fact, up to speed on capitalization guidelines and that he is often the ambassador for those guidelines. ] ] 03:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
			:::::Also now blocked. ]] 16:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Yes, but even after I subsequently followed his suggestion and started an RM discussion, he repeated the error and two other guys seconded that. Definitely they needed some pushback, as you can see there. ] (]) 03:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
			::::::There's also ] now. ] (]) 16:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::If other people support a particular capitalisation then they don't "need pushback". When people disagree with you it may mean that things are not as clear-cut as you believe them to be. According to ] "Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested" - given the history of disputes about the capitalisation of this sort of thing you must surely know by now that these moves are likely to be contested. I suggest you use RM from now on. ] (]) 14:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
			:::::::Blocked by PhilKnight. ]] 16:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::Yes, since Nick disagreed, we are using the RM process. The guys who joined him without saying why needed pushback because they gave no argument based in sources or guidelines, just an "opinion" that Nick liking capitalization there is better. That's not how an RM discussion is supposed to work. ] (]) 19:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	:::::I actually provided multiple sources to support the capitalised usage here, so was not relying on my opinion. It is beyond me why this editor is so aggressive about this minor matter and is continuing to attack me and the other editors who oppose the move. ] (]) 22:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::::Maybe because what you "provided" there was shown to be false, which you have not acknowledged, and the others have failed to account for. ] (]) 23:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::::This isn't really the place to rehash the merits of the ongoing RM discussion. In my view, as per Mackensen and Colin M, Dicklyon can sometimes have strongly held convictions, but although his comments may not have been especially polite, they seem basically within the bounds of Misplaced Pages routine discourse. —&#8239;] (]) 01:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
	{{ping|HAL333|SnowFire}} since your comments at the subject RM are under discussion here. ] (]) 23:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
	*That's not "hectoring". The complainant has some history of accusing Dicklyon of aggression, hectoring, etc., when the complainant isn't getting his way. This kind of escalation is a waste of ANI's time. ] ] 01:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
	**I don't recall ever encountering Dicklyon before, so I'm not sure what history you're referring to. It's a bit odd that you're accusing me of while throwing muck at me here. ] (]) 02:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
	***Probably Tony refers to the section just above the RM, which he chimed in on, where you accused me of insulting you a few days before this "hectoring" accusation. ] (]) 05:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
	***:Yeah, that would probably answer it. D'oh. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 03:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	It seems clear to me that what's needed at ] is more hectoring, not less. Look at the crap that Nick's Milhist project buddies are now adding, supporting his position based on false claims, not adding anything to the discussion but wind. ] (]) 21:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
	:"what's needed ... is more hectoring not less" "look at the crap" "not adding anything ... but wind". If that's collegial, good-faith editing then I'm a Dutchman. Dicklyon seems to to be taking every "oppose" as an insult and an opportunity to insult. Just chill, bro, as the Young People say. ] (]) 22:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
	::Do you disagree with my assessment of your arguments there, or you just think I should have found a more polite way to put it? ] (]) 23:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::You've already been pointed to ]. I'll point you there again ⇒]. ] (]) 00:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::{{u|Dicklyon}}, I attempted to suggest above, gently, that as an ambassador you should try to be more polite. Let me be clearer: your approach does not encourage the unconvinced to accept your point of view (and yes, I agree that the MOS is on your side). To the extent that you're seeking to convince people to follow the MOS you should adopt an approach that does so. Failing that, you should at least adopt an approach that doesn't have people muttering darkly on ANI about topic bans. ] ] 00:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::I don't think they are the ones to convince. They are not open to facts, guidelines, sources, etc. My comments are really to challenge them to put up or shut up, to make it clear to a closer that they have nothing to contribute to the discussion. Yes, I have a long history of people who want to ignore the MOS muttering to ANI about me. It's disgusting. Why don't they grow up? If an ambassador is what they need, that's probably not going to be me. ] (]) 02:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
	*{{xt|Look at the crap that Nick's Milhist project buddies are now adding, supporting his position based on false claims}} Oh so we're Nick's ] now? Never occurred to me. -] (]) 01:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	*:I don't know about you, but he did canvas the project to get some of the traditional Milhist MOS-ignorers like SnowFire and Thewolfchild and Keith-264 to back him. Thank you for your comments there. We persuaded the closer. ] (]) 03:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	*::{{ping|Dicklyon}} I'll accept that there are often people at MilHist that share like-minded opinions, but ]'s post which you characterized as canvassing was simply {{xt|Members of this project may want to participate in the requested move discussion at Talk:Battle of the Mons Pocket#Requested move 2 May 2021}}. This is a very innocuous message and was liable to be read by everyone in that project, even people who didn't necessarily agree with their interpretation such as myself. I more often than not find myself disagreeing with ], but unless you can provide diffs which proves Nick was specifically soliciting the assistance of "SnowFire and Thewolfchild and Keith-264" for "traditional Milhist MOS-ignor"ing purposes, you really should do as wolf suggests and apologize. Or at least stop making the accusation. -] (]) 06:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	*{{u|Dicklyon}}'s comment on MilHist of "Fortunately, the vacuous and false arguments of Nick-D, Thewolfchild, Keith-264, SnowFire, DuncanHill, and a few others were weighted appropriately by the closer there. When sources use lowercase, the preference of these editors to use caps should not be what determines the outcome. When Nick-D falsely states what sources use caps, and others simply second him even after the error is pointed out, it degrades the credibility of the project." certainly struck me as inappropriate. I know from experience that they ''can'' discuss disagreements collegially. Perhaps they need some encouragement to do so more consistently? ] (]) 11:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	*:And {{u|Dicklyon}} didn't even have the courtesy to ping me when he called my arguments "vacuous and false". I'm not a member of the MilHist WP, it's only because of {{re|Gog the Mild}} mentioning it above that I saw the comment. ] (]) 12:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	*"They are not open to facts, guidelines, sources, etc." "Why don't they grow up?" "to make it clear to a closer that they have nothing to contribute to the discussion." - these phrases don't look like ] going with the fourth pillar ], and seem to denigrate RM closers' ability to analyse the arguments presented. ] (]) 16:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	*:Yeah, you can feel that this whole RM/ANI experience pissed me off pretty good. I'll try to get back to my usual calm self now. And I was not trying to "denigrate RM closers' ability to analyse the arguments", but rather to "help RM closers' ability to analyse the arguments" when I pushed back on the opposers and challenged them to say something meaningful. ] (]) 17:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	* You know, I wasn't actually going to say anything originally, as this seemed like pointless drama for the sake of it - Dicklyon has his stridently held opinions, whatever, move on. And hell, despite voting oppose, if I'd closed that RM, I'd have done the same thing as buidhe and close it as "Moved", so it's not like I think Dicklyon's comments or points are illegitimate. However, apparently Dick has found the time to call me out as part of the "traditional Milhist MOS-ignorers", because anyone who votes differently from him is part of an evil plot, ''after the RM was already closed''. This is some severe sore winner behavior. I almost never look at the MILHIST talk page, and found the RM via the usual way of checking ]'s list, and had no idea that Nick-D posted it elsewhere. Additionally, you misrepresent my point in the RM (and probably others). I wasn't saying "ignore the MOS." I was questioning the veracity of whether sources really do predominately lower cap "pocket" and think that for obscure topics, we should defer to the experts, which would be the article creator. And, put bluntly, based on your comments on ''other'' RMs, you've made clear that you see any sort of non-capitalized use anywhere as reason to remove the capital letters, so it's hard to just take your word for it that Nick-D is "wrong" on the source usage. Nevertheless, you convinced others that the reliable source usage really was mixed, so whatever, I can move on with my life - maybe you're even right, I'm certainly not an expert myself on the specific battle and its terminology in history.{{pb}}As a more general comment, article titles are to some extent arbitrary. Both the Manual of Style and article titling policy are essentially guidelines, suggestions. They aren't irrefutable rules like ] or ]. As such, editors can't really be ''wrong'' with them. Their opinions are, at worst, different from the prevailing consensus, and ] (the Manual of Style in 2021 is not the same as it was in 2006, and it won't be the same in 2036 - that's healthy and good). As such, people should chill out if somebody is "wrong" in a RM. If they really are out of step with the consensus, than the RM will be closed against them (as arguably happened to Nick-D here!). If the "wrong" side actually succeeds in a well-attended RM, then maybe the consensus was different than expected, but it's no tragedy either way. Dicklyon, if you're reading this, your constant assumption of bad faith in others is frustrating; please accept that not everyone will agree with you every time, and that's okay. You have your opinion, let me have mine. ] (]) 21:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	*:I hear you justifying that it's OK to ignore the MOS; OK, you can have that opinion. But your comment to trust the article creator, who said 3 of 5 cited sources use caps, even though the actual number was 1 of 5, devalues my own contribution. I wasn't expecting you to necessarily take my word for it if you doubted my creditibility, but if you're not going to look into it you can at least notice that Nick's distraction by titles in the Google book search he linked makes him much less credible. You threw your weight behind a person shown to be spewing falsities. Yeah, like I said, you can feel that I was pissed. Nick opening an AN/I thread in parallel with the RM discussion was a big part of that. ] (]) 21:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	*::"Your comment... devalues my own contribution." '''No!''' No, it doesn't. We don't round up the "wrong" side of an RFC and mock them for devaluing the "right" side of the RFC with their wrongness. The whole point of these discussions is for editors to offer their authentic, good faith !vote. If it's a weak or unconvincing !vote, the closer gives it little weight. That's it. If there's zero disagreement, there probably wasn't need to open an RFC / RM to begin with. ] (]) 00:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	*:Why should anyone take the word of someone who spews so much bile? Life's too short. ] (]) 21:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	* Raising concerns, at a wikiproject, about why participants in that project keep making arguments that defy our ] and directly contradict the sourcing, is not any kind of problem. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 23:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	* Also <small>— '''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been ] to this discussion. </small> . <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 23:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
			== User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2 ==
	===break===
			*{{userlinks|ZanderAlbatraz1145}}
	Need to get back on track here. This is ''not'' about the RM itself, or which sources said what, this is about Dicklyon's behavior towards others, here, in that now-closed RM, and even now at an otherwise benign ] about said RM. Just because he doesn't agree with other editors, doesn't give him the right to badger his "opponents" with personal attack after personal attack, all with seeming impunity. Even if he is self-admittedly "pissed off", the MOS does not require such ardent defense that it gives a free pass to violate NPA. This ANI was filed 3 days ago, and as of an hour ago, the battleground mentality of this editor continues as he heaps more insults at others. - ] 21:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
			This user has engaged in a lengthy display of disruption. Namely through incessant incivility I have noticed .
	:Wolf, I have no problem with good-faith pushback on my MOS work. But this should have been a cut-and-dried case, or at least a simpler RM discussion. Go back and look at how it should have finished up . Nick could have checked his "After the Battle" source and noticed that there too he was "distracted by titles"; he could have said OK, done. Instead he took it as an insult and withdrew from the discussion in a huff, so I did the move again. He still objected, so we went to RM, where he again posted "evidence" (from a Google Books search) that was again nothing but being distracted by titles. OK, this happens, I get it. So I pushed back on him, and on those who seconded him without looking at evidence or apparently being aware of capitalization guidelines. OK, this happens, I can deal with it. Then he opens an AN/I case to complain about my "behavior". That's going way beyond any normal discourse that the situation required. Then he invites the Milhist project (which already had it on their article alerts for any of them who cared, so was really an "extra" appeal beyond their ordinary), bringing in more long-time MOS-dislikers like you and {{ping|Keith-264}}. So, it's me that should take shit for being very pissed off over all this? Sure, pile it on. ] (]) 22:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	::So now you're the victim? Have you even read your previous posts here, at the RM, and at MilHist? You abuse all and sundry and then blame your behaviour on them? ] (]) 22:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::Yes, I blame them for most of the drama here and elsewhere, caused by the ridiculous things they wrote. Yes, including you, whose comments I quoted at the project talk page and reaffirmed that I considered them to be "vacuous". And I got to look up both "hectoring" and "vacuous", so it's not all bad. ] (]) 22:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::Agreed. Those who make poor arguments are not in a position to complain they're being mistreated when called on the poor quality of those arguments. We do that 24/7, and that is what is happening here. This ] project ], so all this overly emotive "hurt feelings" posturing is sorely misplaced. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 23:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	{{od}} You have a conflict of interest and Dick is waving a straw man. You should quit while you're ahead. ] (]) 02:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	:Huh? You don't seem to have read ] or ], since neither of them seem to be pertinent to this discussion. Happening to agree with Dicklyon's criticisms of some of the MILHIST participants' transparently bogus and anti-source, anti-guideline argumentation, which increasingly borders on disruptive, is not any kind of conflict of interest, it's simply sensible. Dicklyon making observations that others are unhappy about isn't a straw man, even if they disagree with them. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 01:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	::You seem to have a short memory. ] (]) 03:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::Which is just another {{lang|la|non sequitur}}. Do you have any actually meaningful input into this thread, or are you just going to try to pick more fights? This is hardly a good venue for such an activity. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 03:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
			Instances such as , , on , etc. Users such as {{Ping|Waxworker}} and {{Ping|Jon698}} can speak to their experiences, I'll outline mine.
	===Personal attack by Thewolfchild===
	In addition to blatantly canvassing his buddies at MILHIST to come to this ANI (cf. ]), Thewolfchild complains about Dicklyon's alleged "behavior towards others". Let's look at some behavior like Thewolfchild calling him a dick and implying that he is {{em|incapable}} of civility, which is obviously a false accusation, and grossly hypocritical. Probably blockworthy in and of itself: he's clearly trying to make a penis joke out of Dicklyon's name, in a addition to calling him a dick in a jerk sense. The ] shortcut was deprecated years ago, so Thewolfchild is going out of his way to use it in this case, against community consensus to not use it. I have delivered to Thewolfchild a {{tlx|Ds/alert|at}}, since this kind of behavior is not permissible in discussions about article titles, which are covered by discretionary sanctions. It's not at all like raising issues, as Dicklyon did, about editors making arguments that defy the sources and the ]; Thewolfchild's behavior is just verbal aggression for its own sake. If Thewolfchild will not learn from this (questionable, given this childish and again hypocritical ] and ] behavior ) and will not refrain from similar uncivil behavior in future article-titling discussions, then it should simply go to ] for swift resolution next time. Thewolfchild would hardly be the first editor topic-banned from such discussions. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 23:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
			On December 10, I noticed on the article ] page several additions were made that didn't adhere to the article's purpose. Zander restored these with an introductory summary rife with . For the most part there was an attempt to discuss the issue we had, but ultimately did not see eye to eye. I asserted I'd be escalating the issue to garner more substantive dialogue around it, Zander's response includes a needless . I made some attempts at engaging the topic at the article's talk page, in addition to WikiProject Film, it was over a week that saw no input. I would go on to state that (at the time) in two days, I would restore the page to it's status quo. I would do so, . Zander , and after another terse interaction, I moved to nominate the article for deletion, finding with the conflicting views of what Unrealized meant, it was too open ended and led to these lists being essentially trivia. Since then, Zander has elected to take an antagonistic approach towards me, making swipes they openly admit , and now that I am putting said comments , Zander is now doing the editing equivalent of mockingly repeating me, with edits such as and .
	===Personal attacks by SMcCandlish===
	In a post which can only be described as hypocritical and disingenuous, {{u|SMcCandlish}} (SMc) has left out his own personal attacks; one the false accusation of canvassing (isn't that how all this started?), the other conveniently hidden in an on his talk page, while reverting an edit I made so that only I would see it. This is right after a DS sanction notice, with the clear intent of having a chilling effect on further posts by me to this ANI. An ANI he now tries to derail with this sudden "stop-looking-at-my-friend-Dicklyon-and-instead-look-at-the-Thewolfchild!" left turn. ] is a redirect to an active Meta essay on behavior. As SMc's diff shows, it was used as a redirect, piped with the word "nature", as in "the ] of Dicklyon's behavior is addressed by the 'don't be a jerk' essay". There was absolutely no "dick joke" being made at the expense of Dicklyons first name, I think the accusation is crude and obnoxious, and not only does SMc owe me an apology for this blantant lie, but one to Dicklyon as well, as it seems SMc will stop at nothing, including the humiliation of his own friend, with this nonsense. Lastly, this ANI is about Dicklyon's behavior, not mine. If SMc really feels I committed "blockable behavior", then that should merit it's own ANI report, not an attempt-at-distraction subsection of this report, that had the obvious additional benefit of not requiring a notification to my talk page (I wasn't even pinged). If SMc is going to preach the high road, he should also walk it. - ] 00:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	:This kind habitual (see previous diff above) "No I'm not! You are!" schoolyard-style parroting/projection ] is not constructive, and is simply further strong evidence of Thewolfchild's ingrained battleground behavior and NOTGETTINGIT approach to criticism. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 22:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::And yet, I've actually had very little involvement with this entire matter. A !vote at the RM, then a couple of responses to the badgering that was taking place, and then I disengaged. I posted a comment at the milhist notice, was again badgered, and again was the one to disengage. I only posted 4 brief responses in total, on both pages. Then 2 whole days go by. Then I post a single comment here, at the subsection "(break)", asking that this ANI stay on point, and all of a sudden you are on me, with your wiki-wp:essay-salad, battleground attacks, accusations, bogus sanction notices, (iow: threats), all seemingly with zero self-awareness. You keep posting repeated personal attacks while claiming I'm somehow... disrupting... something...
			This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. ] 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::All I can say is, this isn't about me and you need to stop making it about you, this particular report is about your friend, Dicklyon. You seem really desperate to derail this report into the typical tl:dr dreck that admins usually don't bother with. Multiple editors have asked that Dicklyon's behavior be reviewed, how about you just let the process run through without the detours. Can you do ]? Can you stop the must-have-last-word-posts with ''every. single. editor.'' and just let this report run it's course? I think we're done here. - ] 07:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
			:I've given them a warning for canvassing: - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			: - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			== SPA ] back at it on ] ==
	=== Let's have an RfC and be done with it ===
			Hi, all, I'd like some assistance with the SPA ], who's been POV pushing on the ] article since . A quick view of their extremely short edit history shows that their sole focus is on pushing a vaccine-denialist POV on that and similar COVID-related topics. Started out on the talk page and BLPN, but now they've graduated to edit-warring on the article itself; they were active in June, made a single related edit in October, but now they appear to be . They've already , and have received an warning--to which they were . Would appreciate a more permanent resolution, either a COVID-19 topic ban or just an indef considering their SPA status, so they don't just go back into hibernation and then turn up again like a bad penny. (And yeah, given this context, I don't love the implications of the username "Tikitorch2", either.) Thanks, ]&nbsp;]] 05:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	This thread seems to be getting to the part of a Monty Python skit where a policeman shows up and stops it because it's getting too silly. Clearly, there are larger issues going on here than this specific editor, or this specific RM.
			:]? ] (]) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	I'm currently involved in a very long argument with ], at ] (for the record, I think he's wrong, and that the article's title should be capitalized). Nevertheless, he has made reasonable arguments, and been honorable about it. He's been insistent, which is not the same thing as acting in bad faith. In fact, I wish that everyone I argued with on Misplaced Pages were this reasonable about it.
			::{{duck}}. I'm sending this ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::, so might just be generic disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:What are you implying with regard to my username? My edit history has been limited to trying to correct two red flags that stood out so much that I followed the citations when I was searching these scientists who were in the news for censorship. It has been enlightening learning how wikipedia selectively chooses secondary sources but discourages the use of primary sources to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible.
			:For my two attempted contributions to Misplaced Pages, the two red flags were pretty dramatic to prompt me to check out the citations--Sunetra Gupta's article implied more than 1 in 1000 people in England died from Covid in spring 2020 in an effort to discredit her, which was trivially easy to google as untrue. I corrected that without really changing the overall narrative. The article for Martin Kulldorff...I would probably not have spent time looking at the sources or realized how unscientific Kulldorff's critics were had there not been such superfluous "Wikivoice" editorializing and synthesizing suggesting Kulldorff lied in an essay to the public. ] (]) 06:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::] are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used {{tqq|to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible}} because that is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I said. Maybe I am the sock puppeteer! ] (]) 03:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::What I am implying is that such a username in the context of an account pushing COVID-denialist rhetoric that flies in the face of the sources and Misplaced Pages policy is . Anyway, this editor continues to be a drain of editor time and attention. ]&nbsp;]] 14:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Ah an absurd, convoluted, and contrived personal attack. Assuming anyone but you knew tiki torches were present at a political event where someone was killed, why would I choose my username based on that? Tikitorches provide light, warmth, and keep the mosquitos away. I guess its not surprising an editor named writ keeper attacks the editor rather than effectively debating the subject of the edit. ] (]) 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Even if it was a personal attack, making one ''back'' isn't going to fly here. Knock it off. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::], your edits are being examined at ANI. This is not a pleasant experience, I'll admit. So, it's best for you not to dig yourself into a hole. I know the instinct is to defend yourself but it doesn't help your situation to come out swinging. It's probably to your benefit to address any concerns that have been raised and say no more than that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64 ==
	One thing I'd like to point out here is that, if you look on his ] (or even in this thread) you can see that he is far from alone in his opinions about capitalization in titles. Maybe he is right, and maybe he is wrong, but it certainly doesn't seem like he is just some lone yahoo.
			{{Atop|Blocked for one month.--] (]) 14:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			{{userlinks|2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued after block expired. /64 has previously been blocked on December 8th for a week due to "Persistent unsourced genre changes", and 2 weeks on September 7th due to addition of unsourced content. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|The Iron Giant|prev|1264168891|1}}, {{diff|Joker (2019 film)|prev|1264169891|2}}, {{diff|Candyman (2021 film)|prev|1264170248|3}}, {{diff|Spirited (film)|prev|1264235847|4}}, {{diff|Sausage Party: Foodtopia|prev|1264237619|5}}. ] (]) 10:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{Abot}}
			== Disruptive editing ] ==
	Since it doesn't seem like there is a project-wide consensus one way or the other, and everyone seems to think that the PAGs support a different point of view, I think we should have an RfC somewhere (perhaps at ]) to clarify the scope of ] and ]. This seems to me like the only way that anyone is going to be satisfied on the issue (least of all an increasingly ] thread at AN/I). ''']'''×''']''' 05:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
			{{atop
			| result = I've protected the page for 24 hours. @] and @] are both warned against edit warring, including during the course of this discussion. RR, HR, and .82 should follow ] processes. Further disruptive editing or edit warring after page protection expires will result in blocks. ] (]/]) 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			] has been trying for about a month now to put across his own opinion about the party' infobox. An opinion which he cannot back up with any source whatsoever. Although it has been pointed out to him by both the user ] and me, continues the disruptive editing. Ιt is worth noting that although other users made the same "mistake", when the lack of sources to support the addition was pointed out to them, they accepted it and did not continue to try to pass on their own opinion.
	:I guess that means you don't have a long memory of all the RFCs we've had on the MOS, including CAPS. There's a pretty strong consensus behind it, historically, though it's a continuing job to uniformly implement it. Almost all new articles that aren't obviously proper names still get created in title case, as most editors just aren't that familiar with the MOS, or they just like to cap things important to them, like ]. And yes, I appreciate your civil discourse there, though I disagree with the crux of your argument ("There is a difference between a simple conjunction of two words and a coherent concept being referred to by their conjunction.") since that's not how our MOS says to decide what to capitalize. If that was the criterion, almost every two-word concept that we name an article for would get caps, including Mons Pocket. For example, I just clicked "random article" until I found a two-word title not capped: ]; now, I'm sure many will look at that and say that's the name of a thing, it should be capitalized. But if you look at news, or books, you'll see it's usually not; so we leave it lowercase (this one was not created in title case, but many are, and get moved to lowercase, like Extremely Online will). ] (]) 06:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	:
	:I'd say the call for a content RfC is outside the scope of this ANI report. &mdash; <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 16:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	:: Outside the scope, yes, but not a bad idea. To the extent that issues continue to crop up with how policy is interpreted, we should have a process to refine those statements of policy to make it clear how it is to apply in those particular situations. ] ] 16:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::It {{em|is}} a bad idea, because it's the wrong process. Article titles are not determined by RfC, but by RM, which are near-identical processes. That is, ] {{em|is}} RfC, for titles. That is to say, the RfC you want to see happen has already happened. Ergo, you are effectively asking for license to ] to a variant process any time someone doesn't like the outcome of the proper process. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 01:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	::{{ping|HandThatFeeds}} That's why I specifically said it should be started {{tq|somewhere (perhaps at ])}}, which is where content disputes (i.e. the majority of this thread, unless I am missing something) belong. ''']'''×''']''' 19:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	:As a side point: There is in fact a site-wide consensus on this sort of matter, named ]. The distilled gist of it (and its first rule) is: if reliable sources do not near-consistently capitalize something then it should not be capitalized on Misplaced Pages. Various editors dislike this rule and will engage in both logic contortions (and in this case even source denial), and a "never give up, never surrender" approach to get their way (in a vein of "It didn't work this time, so I'll try again later, again and again until I ]"). A few editors make the same already-rejected arguments in favor of over-capitalization dozens of times at RMs spanning years, and refuse to accept the lower-case results that emerge again and again and again. The fact is that as a ] matter they are in the wrong about the vast majority of capitalization questions. The seemingly dire urge some people exhibit to over-capitalize things (especially jargonistic terms particular to certain fields/interests, because people steeped in them tend to capitalize them when writing ], versus how general-audience sources – like Misplaced Pages – are written) is the no. 1 cause of disputation about article titles, and also the no. 1 source of strife about all MoS matters combined. This really needs to wind down, and that's not going to happen if we continue to permit individuals like Thewolfchild, and ]s of editors at habitually over-capitalizing wikiprojects, get away with aggressive "style warrior" battlegrounding about their pet topics. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 22:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	::S, thanks for changing "Many editors" to "A few editors". It really is just a few. The vast majority of Milhist editors are non-problematic (except that maybe they hang back and are afraid to contradict some of their fellows). Some do speak up in favor of following MOS:CAPS on occasion, which is good to see. If I've come across as criticizing the project or its members, I apologize for that. But the project is the place where some of the over-capitalizers find each other and support each other without evidence, sometimes. ] (]) 01:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::Yes, the number of "defy the MoS until I die" sorts can be counted on one to two hands; "Many" got left in accidentally because the original setencence was going to begin something like "Many of these problem can be traced to editors who ...". Anyway, it's entirely appropriate in my view to take concerns to a wikiproject's talk page when they involve what amounts to organized activity on behalf of the wikiproject by some of its more vociferous participants. Wikiprojects – the principle purpose of which is centralizing topical discussion – can't have it both ways. If they want topic-related discussion that makes them happy to be gathered there, they're going to have to accept some critical commentary there as well, when it pertains to more than sole-individual behavior but pertains to group activity, which is the case here. It's always the case (cf. the bird capitalization fiasco, most memorably) that various wikiproject participants are not going along with whatever the "anti-guideline rebellion" is, if one is happening and is centered on a wikiproject. Being critical of the group for entertaining such unconstructive antics is not an individual crticism of much less an attack on every single wikiproject participant. People in wikiprojects also have to remember (and sometimes need to be reminded) that they are not walled gardens, private parties, or separate membership organizations. They are nothing but pages at which editors – any editors – can collaborate, provide information, and raise concerns that are on-topic (or in this case, on-meta-topic). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 03:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::{{ping|Dicklyon}} Thank you for clarifying your remarks about MilHist. {{ping|SMcCandlish}} For the record, I closed the RM discussion notice on MilHist talk because it wasn't about "critical commentary" but a mudslinging contest. And I still strongly object to Nick-D's original comment being characterized as CANVASSing. -] (]) 03:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::::Thanks for closing that mudslinging. As or the canvassing, I don't know how else to see it. These things get automatically posted to the project's article alerts, and when a member makes an extra special appeal for participation, it brings in mainly those who agree with him, as it did here. Nick-D's notice of 10:05, 4 May 2021 was followed by comments from members Keith-264 and Buckshot06 (and DuncanHill, not a member, who echoed him). They said nothing useful, but added fuel to the fire. Also SnowFire and Thewolfchild seem to be (in my past experience) associated with military stuff, members or not. I don't know who watches that page, but it didn't really need this extra call to action. Thewolfchild perhaps still carries a grudge from when one of his ship names lost its comma after a protracted discussion. ] (]) 04:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::::I agree that closing that thread was a good idea. Has anyone suggested otherwise? What is Indy_beetle complaining about, in other words. Well, beyond the repeated obvious: yeah, Indy_beetle, you've made it clear already that you're upset about the canvassing claim. No need to beleaguer the point. And just being huffy about it is not a convincing argument. While the wording of the notice – delivered {{em|only}} to MILHIST not to any other wikiproject or other venue – was neutral, the intent and effect of it clearly was not, or the same notice would have gone to other venues, at bare mimimum ]. It was a rallying cry to MILHIST. It not having been the worst kind of canvassing doesn't make it non-canvassing. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 06:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::::::{{ping|SMcCandlish}} That wasn't meant as a "complaint". In response to your previous comment involving "appropriate in my view to take concerns to a wikiproject's talk page", I wanted to make it clear I wasn't attempting to shutdown the expressing of concerns by closing the thread. The point about CANVASS re Nick-D and Milhist is because you are discussing the behavior of Milhist. When you are confused about something I say, you can always just ask me for clarification, instead of posing rhetorical questions to the whole discussion group and then condescend me. FTR, posting notices about RfCs, AfDs, etc. in milhist even though they are already listed at project notifications is a very common thing. Also, MilHist is actually active enough to where a notice will at least be read by someone who will go and comment. Speaking for myself, it usually doesn't occur to me post a notice involving a milhist topic in other wikiprojects because most simply aren't very active. -] (]) 20:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::::Nope, I posted a single comment about what I felt was an unfounded accusation and personal attack. It seems some others agree with me. I didn't initiate this and there is no ulterior motive. The whole comma thing was ''five years ago''. I'd forgotten about it, perhaps you should let it go. - ] 17:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	::"''{{tq|This really needs to wind down, and that's not going to happen if we continue to permit individuals like Thewolfchild...}}''". So, specifically naming me and me only? Out of all of this, the ANI, the RM, the MILHIST notice, how do you even remotely justify this? This just equates to another attack, bordering on some bizarre ], and if anything is the antithesis of "winding things down". If that is really your intention, then you need to ]. - ] 17:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
			https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Movement_for_Democracy_(Greece)#5/300
	=== A contrarian view ===
	Well, I'll call it a contrarian view here, though I'm not sure I wouldn't be in the majority if a truly site-wide survey could somehow be taken. I've never really understood why the editors within major groups of articles, with demonstrated subject-matter expertise, shouldn't be relied upon to decide the capitalization of those articles. A site-wide MOS that avoids repetitious subject-by-subject or article-by-article or even sentence-by-sentence debates over the same issues is desirable on many usage topics. Capitalization norms, however, vary widely from one topic or profession or area of expertise to another off-wiki. The efforts for MOS-driven uniformity in this area therefore strike me as unattainable, and the emphasis on the importance of uniformity as excessive. There have always been a handful of editors, I will mention no names, who push for lower-casing of article titles even where the editors active in creating and maintaining the articles, and with the greatest expertise in the subject-matters of the article content, all assert and offer ample evidence that upper-casing is the convention in those areas. For more than ten years, forced lowercasing of such titles has demoralized some of these editors, and I wouldn't be surprised if it has weakened some of their good-feelings for and interest in Misplaced Pages as a whole. With all respect to everyone's good faith here and elsewhere, I'm not convinced that these aggressive forced-capitalization-uniformity efforts are a worthwhile overall contribution to the well-being of the project. ] (]) 07:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	*I totally agree. It would be much better for the encyclopedia if those with a super-human interest in fixing six million titles were kept well away from the dwindling community of content builders. ] (]) 09:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	*:Hey, John, if you're referring to me, note that I've created over a hundred articles and uploaded about a thousand photos, among other things. Besides creating content, I have a focus on style. Hope that's OK, too. I don't think I'll get to looking at millions of articles, but I've done case fixes in thousands at least; maybe tens of thousands. Do let me know if you see any I got wrong. Thanks for your interest. ] (]) 04:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	*Indeed. Forced uniformity tends to have more downsides on a community level than advantages, especially when our house style is at odds with scholarly style. (The German Misplaced Pages's disgusting (to me) house style is one reason why I don't contribute to mathematics articles there: they follow some "official" recommendations that nobody else uses). —] (]·]) 09:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	* I agree (per my comment below). ''']'''×''']''' 01:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	*:If you can take a bit more "hectoring", please say what you agree with here, and why; maybe reference what I said to NYB below. I can see how one might legitimately agree with "I've never really understood...", but are you agreeing that "Capitalization norms, however, vary widely from one topic or profession or area of expertise to another off-wiki."? If so, do you have a reason for such belief? Or do you believe that "forced lowercasing of such titles has demoralized some of these editors" is a sensible thing to assert? Is there any evidence of "forced lowercasing" (against consensus in RM discussions)? I remain puzzled. ] (]) 01:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
			https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Movement_for_Democracy
	NYB, I hear you, and acknowledge that sometimes project members want to have their own project style that deviates from the central consensus as embodied in guidance such as the MOS. But members with that idea have not convinced even the larger project, in discussions where they've tried. And I disagree with your premise that "Capitalization norms, however, vary widely from one topic or profession or area of expertise to another off-wiki." That's not what's happening here. Military historians have varying styles among them, but do not generally capitalize "Mons pocket", or any of the other things that I've worked on moving toward Misplaced Pages style. A few do, but that's not indicative of anything about the "topic or profession or area of expertise". Rather, what you see is the tendency, in all topic areas, for editors to capitalize what's important to them. ] (]) 15:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	:It doesn't seem to me like there is a "central consensus" in this discussion, or indeed, in most of them, on what constitutes a proper name (which is the subject of most of the contention, if I understand correctly). I think that a guideline (or a guideline section, or a supplement) specifically outlining what a "proper name" is would go a long way toward resolving these; even in the case that consensus wasn't established, having the guideline say "consensus isn't established" would be better than having it say something vague (or nothing at all) which everyone interprets as obviously agreeing with them. ''']'''×''']''' 01:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	::Yes, indeed, a consensus on "what constitutes a proper name" is a tricky one! That's why at ] the consensus is around the more practical criterion "Misplaced Pages relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Misplaced Pages." ] (]) 01:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	::Oh, and the reason for the kerfluffle here is that an experienced expert editor/admin wouldn't admit that the term he wanted to capitalize was capitalized in only a small minority of sources, argued that it was "close to half" (which it was not, as I showed him) and that that should be enough in spite of the guideline, and then came to AN/I because I pushed back on his nonsense and those who jumped in with support with no reason given. This thread should never have been opened. But as long as you want to keep it going, I'll keep explaining and pushing back on nonsense. ] (]) 01:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:With all due respect to NYB, the line between "expert" and "fanboy" on Misplaced Pages is not easily discernable, and I don't think it sets a good precedent to allow a small group of people to contravene MOS according to their own style preferences. -] (]) 20:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	::The current situation is that there is a small group of people willing to spend days arguing about the capitalization of a title. That small group dominates MOS and then has their own consensus to spread irritation throughout the project. The issue is not whether ''This Is Bad'' and ''this is good''—it's whether the benefit of ''this is good'' outweighs the disruption. There are lots of gnomes and vandal reverters, but there are not many good editors with specialty knowledge and who are willing to invest time maintaining core articles. Perhaps the benefit of ''all titles being perfect'' is not worth irritating those who maintain articles. ] (]) 00:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::Being among those who maintain articles, I can agree that disruption sometimes wastes my time and is irritating. Like when a user in a simple style dispute complains about it at AN/I. ] (]) 01:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Disruptive_editing....again
	=== MoS ===
	After reading up on all the various pages, to see what the kerfuffle's about, and yes, I believe that much of this is well-intended, but really, the thought that keeps coming to mind is: are you all ''intentionally'' trying for a listing at ]?
	If the issue causing contention is some policy or guideline, and in good faith you all believe it should be amended, then please start an RfC at the VP. It doesn't matter how longstanding - if it needs to be amended, then it needs to be amended.
			] (]) 19:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	Policy and guidelines are only healthy if they are living documents, not stone-engraved aedifaces. - <b>]</b> 07:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
			:This is a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. Since discussing the issue on article talk has not worked, please follow ] processes, such as seeking guidance at ] or ], or going to ]. ] (]/]) 19:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::@] taking a look because I've been tagged. While there may be content elements to it I think this has gone into a behavioural issue, namely due to it being a user actively edit warring without providing sources but instead endlessly insisting on edits that are entirely ]. ] (]) 20:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::It is not a problem of content but of behaviour. His claim is original research, is his own conclusion and is not verified by any source. He knows it, has admitted it, and yet he insists on adding it. ] (]) 20:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			(nac) ] is a moderately stable DAB page, with which I have been involved. I assume this dispute relates to ]. ] (]) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	:It's not clear what you're proposing to amend, or in what direction. The MOS is amended continuously based on discussions and RFCs and such, and the capitalization guidance has evolved to have wide consensus support. It is indeed a healthy living document, not a stone tablet. ] (]) 16:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	:Also, there's no edit war related to this thread, so going for the "lamest" would be lame. ] (]) 01:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
			== Sugar Bear returns with personal attacks ==
	Speaking of Hectoring (capped in honor of my old bud Hector Levesque, author of "The Winograd Schema Challenge"), I just downcased ]. Is this "forced"? Is it wrong? I don't think so. I do such things every day, and seldom get any pushback, because it's right, within Misplaced Pages style, to not cap things that aren't consistently capped in sources. ] (]) 02:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=/24 blocked for two weeks. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			*{{rangevandal|166.181.224.0/19}}
			*]
			Using the IP range ], Sugar Bear has returned to Misplaced Pages to disrupt film and music articles. After I recognized this fact and began reverting him, Sugar Bear began a campaign of personal attacks at my talk page, using the IP ]. Can we get a rangeblock?
	== Persistent posting of unreliable sources and unreferenced edits regarding TV ratings ==
			There's a decade-plus history of this vandal attacking me, for instance his creation of the username ]. I can spot his contributions quite easily by now. ] (]) 22:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	] has been told in his talk page not to post unreliable sources such an unverified Twitter account. He insists that "he stands up" to his edits and continues to use the unreliable Twitter account as a reference.
	He also restored unreferenced TV ratings in two separate articles () and claiming his fixed something in the article.] (]) 12:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
	*This clearly cannot continue. If this were a brand new editor, I would say point them at ], ], and ], leave a uw- template about it, and have a talk conversation with them about why proper sourcing is important. But this editor has been here since 2009 and absolutely knows better already. A topic-ban might be in order to prevent more improper sourcing in these articles, and the behavior does seem localized. It could even be a very narrow and specific one, like: "{{tq|prohibited from using unverified-account social-media posts as sources, from citing sources challenged as unrelialble, from adding information without a source, and from using misleading edit summaries}}", rather than a broad ban from Philippines TV articles. This edit and one diffed after it are of especial concern as obvious original research (either that, or they're relying on some actual source which the editor ]edly refuses to divulge, perhaps because it is known-unreliable). While ] permits insertion of {{em|non-controversial}} information with no source at all, on the good-faith expectation that it'll be sourced later, in this case these claims are obviously being controverted so that cannot apply. Since Superastig postures as "stand up" for their edits, they must assume responsibility for them and for the negative pattern they are forming. This all seems especially boneheaded because the Twitter account in question (some random non-notable person going by ] and whose profile pic is a dog) is just parotting or claiming to parrot an actual publication which looks ostensibly reliable (Philippines Nielsen ratings), so the obvious thing to do is find that publication and cite the real thing. If it or another reliable source cannot be found, it is perfectly fine for WP's article to lack information on the relative ratings of these shows; ]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 01:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
			.I've blocked the current IP, I may not have time to properly investigate the range right now. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 22:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Spamming of airport articles with useless charts ==
			::Past disruption from nearby IPs includes the following:
	User User:Legion23 has added "Airport pax stats charts" to hundreds of airport articles. While the majority of them is useful, there are also dozens of others which are virtually useless.
			::*] was blocked in 2018 and 2019.
			::*] was blocked in 2018 for one month.
			::*] was blocked in 2020, identifying Sugar Bear.
			::*] was blocked twice in 2020 for personal attacks.
			::*] was rangeblocked in 2023 for three years. ] (]) 22:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I've blocked the current /24 for two weeks, but I see a lot of potential for collateral damage for longer or broader blocks. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 22:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	Many charts present just 2 years of passenger numbers or .
			{{abot}}
			== Comments by Locke Cole ==
	Several others are showing only 1 (one) year, see , or here .
			{{atop
			| result = No support for a block for either party, and filer is fine with closure. ] ] 16:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			'''Involved''': {{userlinks|Locke Cole}}
	Historical data might be useful for someone - but in case of old data with just 1 or 2 years in plain figures instead of charts.
			So I honestly think we should both receive a (24 hr) block for our behavior, but bringing it here for that to happen. This started when I posted a list of "keep" votes with no rationale at ]. Comments made by Locke Cole in response to the list include:
			* {{tq|Sour grapes are over there, in case you're lost.}}
			::I replied to this with {{tq|What?? Voting on an AfD should be policy-based, not just "keep" or "he's too notable". I'm giving evidence to my claim that keep votes were given unnecessarily large amounts of weight when closing this. Yes, I left out the ones with evidence, because that wasn't the point of the list. Again, would you give weight to the five keep votes that just said "keep"? I believe this is the second time I've had to say this to you, but way to WP:ABF.}}
			* {{tq|Well, you're already violating WP:DRVPURPOSE #8 by casting WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors. Carry on, I look forward to seeing you blocked for being an idiot.}}
			::And I replied to this one with {{tq|Yes, I removed a comment after realizing it violated our aspersions policy. Do you have an issue with that? Feel free to take this to ANI if you want to continue, as it’s clogging up the DRV.}}
			This user has a long history of behavioral blocks, including '''six '''civility blocks over a span of nine years. Since this behavior clearly won't be getting better, bringing it here. It's up to y'all to decide if a BOOMERANG should happen, if we should both be blocked, or only one party gets the hammer. :) ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 02:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I'm not sure that the cited comments are in themselves enough to justify a block. I also note that LC has recently ]. Speaking from experience, I can state that when in deep mourning we are not always at our best. That said, I find LC's block log disturbing.-] (]) 02:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	A 20 year old chart with 1 or 2 years does not make much sense, the same applies for charts like "2016-2017".
			::While I do get that, and I do respect that and am deeply sorry that happened to them, this behavior has been going on since late 2005, and includes an arbitration request, hence why I brought it directly here. Calling me an "idiot" was 100% an NPA vio, and having a personal loss shouldn't excuse that (also speaking from experience with the loss of my mother from ] in 2014). This is a rare case where I'll say that a block log should give you an idea of whether this behavior will continue. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 02:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{tqq|bolding policies I've added at the end}} - I'll just note that every one of the "policies" you linked to (bar ], where I'm pretty sure you wanted ]) goes to ]. Which is very useful and well-thought-out, and by all means should be used as a tool at AfD, but is not policy. It's an essay ''on'' policy. There's a difference. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Okay then, per that I've removed the list. The comments still stand though. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 03:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			*So the OP wants themselves and the other party to receive blocks for incivility? Why don't you just stop being rude to each other? Change your own behavior. Opening this discussion is just drawing attention to a few comments that otherwise would have likely been forgotten. I don't see how this post helps the situation at all. Just do better. And if Locke Cole comes to this discussion, I pray this doesn't devolve into bickering. Let's all just get back to editing productively and not taking shots at each other. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I don’t know, maybe I just thought it’d continue and brought it here, likely too early. Is it possible to close this? ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 13:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:From what I read from the DRV, it definitely seemed like it got heated, but it definitely seemed to cool down. Trouts for sure, but I don't see why blocks are necessary. As for you, given that you're asking to be punished, you seem to recognize what you did wrong, and you pledge to not continue this behavior. Just change your password for a day or a week and change it back later; I don't think admin intervention is necessarily warranted. ] (]) 11:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	Unfortunately, a discussion on led to nothing. Instead, this user reverts corrections in irregular intervals, always repeating "please stop deleting".
			::Though as actual admins above have mentioned, their block history is indeed concerning. ] (]) 11:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== ] ==
	Besides, the vast majority of his charts do not have a directly accessible source, but sources are only accessible through several steps via Wikidata. That means there is no instantly available proof of their correctness. I am not sure whether this is compatible with ].
			{{atop|result=Just officially closing this discussion as the account involved has been globally blocked. If an editor has Spore on your Watchlist and you see this occurring again, contact your local administrator. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			This user made 500 edits to their user page which were all completely useless (] to inflate their edit count) and then once receiving extended-confirmed permissions vandalized ] by copypasting another article. Their user page shows them editing and counting to 500. ]] 04:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:It's a ], and I just reported to AIV. ] (]) 04:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	While many of his edits do make sense, he appears to be on a mission to put in such "charts" into as many airport articles as possible. Since the discussion has become stuck, I would like to hear the opinions of neutral readers. Thank you. --] (]) 14:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
			::Would it be possible to put up some kind of filter to alert for this? Something that…say…catches when more than 25 edits are made in a single space (user space for example) or something that would trip if the edits added less than 5 characters consistently? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	: Everyone - please read the discussion on first, with the developer's comments. These charts will update themselves in the future as more data is added to the database. This template queries the Wikidata database and displays the data in it dynamically, when the user displays a Misplaced Pages page.
			:::There is a filter for this. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=International+Space+Station0&offset=20241222044736, "New account unusual activity" covers exactly this. ] (]) 05:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			*This account has been globally blocked as an LTA so it shouldn't be an issue. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:At what point is it appropriate to selectively delete their hundreds of edits of nonsense from the page history?
			*:Or is that just something that isn't done? &ndash; ] (]) (]) 05:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::If you are talking ], there is rarely a good reason for it's use at present. If instead you mean ] see ] and ]. ] (]) 05:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I've gone ahead and revdel'd the lot of them, as cut-and-pasting from other articles without proper attribution is copyvio and thus RD1able. Selective deletion (making the edits go away from the history) is probably not going to happen, if it's even technically possible for an article with almost *9500* revisions (I know ]!). - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== POV IP editor and 2024 Kobani clashes ==
	: Line charts must have at least 2 data points (for 2 years). Otherwise a line won't be displayed. I didn't add empty charts (yes, I went through all European airports and checked what would be displayed, and didn't add charts to those airport pages that would have empty charts).
			{{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			This engages in BLP and POV pushing with things like this and this , and then edit warring and then makes personal attacks like this , in a source documenting casualties for all of December instead of the specific date, and then when he is reverted by another editor respond with . I believe this person is ] to build an encyclopedia, and also the ] article should potentially be given semi-protection status as it's part of the Syrian Civil War which has discretionary sanctions. Thanks. ] (]) 05:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Oh also . ] (]) 05:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{an3|b|72 hours}} (]) and pages protected ] 13:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Promotional content about Elvenking (band) ==
	: had 3 data points: 2015, 2016 and 2017, 2016 and 2017, 1999 and 2000, 2016 and 2017.
			{{atop
			| result = There does not appear to be an actionable COI here, just an avid fan. Content issues can be handled through the appropriate channels. {{ping|Elvenlegions}} please be mindful of musical notability and what Misplaced Pages is and isn't for. ] ] 17:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
	: In , the table below the chart also presents only 2 years - by the same logic, is the table useless as well? ] (]) 15:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
			I noticed a consistent addition of promotional content about an apparently unencyclopedic band, namely ], with articles being also dedicated to each band member (eg.
	:: Reply - Please note: "2 data points (for 2 years)" is wrong - they represent just 1 (one) year, as in the , from January 1999 to December 1999. --] (]) 15:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
			] and ]) and their unsold discography, which also got a dedicated template ({{tl|Elvenking}}). I also noticed a weird pattern by ], which appears to be either a very big fan or in conflict of interests, as well as other accounts apparently created just to support the band (eg. ]).<span id="Est._2021:1734845816539:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (] <b>·</b> ]) 05:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</span>
	:::In the <s>Tortola</s> Tortolì TTB example, the chart might indeed be unuseful as the airport is very small and looks to be closing/closed. But open airports have to get their own chart, be them small or with few data. It might be a signal to help find data and collect it, to improve data quality. ] (]) 15:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
			:I am indeed a big fan of the band and am trying to update the band's wikipedia information to make it as accurate as possible so people can learn about the band. I hope this helps support the band and also helps wikipedia readers and users who wish to learn more about the band. ] (]) 06:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::: Actually, we have uncovered an interesting issue with the Tortolì example. The data is available for even 3 years (1998-2000). Unfortunately, it is not passenger numbers that have been added to the database, but aircraft movements: 660 and 923. I suggest to go through all Italian airports that use this source and check for the same issue. , page 32 (23 printed as the page number) shows comparison between years 1998 and 1999:
			:*If these musicians are not notable, you can always tag the articles CSD A7. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::: * 1998 - 923 movements, 44,412 passengers
			::Understood, Elvenlegions, but ]. If the band, nor its members, nor its discography qualify as notable under the ], then the band's fans will have to learn about it elsewhere. ] 07:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::: * 1999 - 660 movements, 33,266 passengers
			{{abot}}
			== Disruptive editor on ] ==
	:::: Page 44 (35 printed as the page number) shows data for the year 2000:
	:::: * 2000 - 906 movements, 37,039 passengers ] (]) 16:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
			User ] has repeatedly removed reliably sourced refs to the genres infobox by removing ] simply because they don't believe it to be correct as the ref is "new" and that the artist isn't that genre. I had sent them two warnings now and also explained that's not how this works, so they decided to add more genres with refs that don't even mention the genres they included. I do not believe this editor is going to cooperate. ] (]) 08:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Whether to include charts or not should be something agreed upon by active editors on an article; a decision like {{tq|open airports have to get their own chart}} is something that needs to get consensus somewhere - probably the relevant WikiProject. As far as sources go, I agree that a Wikidata query is inadequate, especially since it links to bare URLs. Actual sources should be cited here. ] (]) 17:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
	::"Bare URL' (for Wikidata) are the very place where you can find the relevant number and check it. Better to have "www.someone.com/file/somefiledata2020.xls" than "www.someone.com". By the way, I've corrected Tortolì data (my mistake when converting the pdf). --] (]) 18:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::Nah, a bare URL on Wikidata is a stopgap - it doesn't include an accessdate, or any information about the source. A proper reference over there should be an item that fully describes the source page - there's a reason you can use a Q number to generate a reference over here on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::The tendency for people to use inadequate references like that on Wikidata seems to be a big part of the reason some people over here are so hostile to incorporation of Wikidata over here. ] (]) 21:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::::From my experience as a DABfixer, I consider the quality of information in Wikidata to lie somewhere between ] and ]. Errors imported from Wikidata into English Misplaced Pages sometimes need a specialist to fix (which I am not, but I know one). ] (]) 15:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
			:User:Pillowdelight changed the genre list of When the Pawn... which originally had been a variation of certain genres: Art pop, jazz rock, art rock, alternative rock, jazz pop, chamber pop, all of which are somewhat accurate and agreed upon by various editors of this page over many years. It was changed to just Alt pop, a genre that is used to describe the newer sounds of pop in the early 2010s with Lorde, Sky Ferreira and Lana del rey. It is not a genre that fits the album hence it has never before user:Pillowdelight been described as such beyond what her poor source says, a Fiona Apple revisit (that is not even about When the pawn.. specifically) from a new, small and virtually unheard of web magazine. Sources such as Rateyourmusic, allmusic and Pitchfork are far more accurate and robust and that's why this album has never been described as alt pop. That genre did not exist at the time of the release of the album. The source needs to be accurate, it is not. It's not an album review, it is a fluff article about Fiona Apple by a small web magazine. It's not even about When the pawn... specifically, it makes no sense. I think the other editors agree, it is inaccurate.
	Just looked at one, ]. The numbers in the chart from 2010 and earlier are completely unsourced. In a normal, onwiki chart, I could now remove these ones, or tag them with "source needed", or something similar. Here, all I have is the nuclear option, removing the graph completely. This is the same issue we had with e.g. Listeria lists, which have been removed from the mainspace. ] (]) 07:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
			:Allmusic and pitchfork are far better sources. I have added both as sources. I didn't change the genre list, I simply changed it back to the genre list that had stood there the longest before user:Pillowdelight changed it a few months ago for the first time, having never touched this page before yet complaining about other editors. ] (]) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{ping|Longislandtea}} I removed the genres because they're unsourced, which I stated in many edit summaries you keep reverting, as well as on your talk page. It doesn't matter that just because you believe a source another user added calling the album alternative pop is incorrect and unreliable because it's "new, small and virtually unheard of" is a ridiculously excuse. Read ] it states — {{xt|genres must be stated and referenced in the body of the article; personal opinions or original research must not be included.}} The sources you have added specifically from Pitchfork don't state the genres you've listed. ] (]) 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Sources need to be '''legitimate''' and''' relevant'''. Your source is not relevant and it is disputed. Pitchfork is added because they describe the album as an alternative album several times in the review and the genre category is ROCK. What is alternative and rock? Alternative rock. That is how the album was marketed. You can't cherrypick a single article to make a case for a genre that the album absolutely is not in. I will remove the Pitchfork source, that's fine. There's numerous ones including from Allmusic that clearly state that it is an alternative rock album. The album was even added to Misplaced Pages's page for alt rock albums ages ago. This is very uncontroversial. Just having alternative rock is also lacking; jazz fusion, art pop (the album is already added on the wikipedia page for art pop albums) and art rock are accurate too and have been there for ages but alas! Let's get rid of it all to only serve your opinion. Numerous albums have unsourced genres might I add, but the vast of amount of editors agree to it because they know these accurately describe the album, these are the scenes that the album and artist comes from and sourcing for genres can often times be lacking. In that case, rather than trying to look for BAD sources, it's better to agree with the consensus. In our case, we do have sources. Rateyourmusic has been used as a source for adding art pop, alternative rock, jazz pop, fusion, art rock and chamber pop as genres before. ] (]) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Here's the page for what is considered acceptable sources {{lw|Acceptable sources}}.
			::::''Relevance. Sources must be relevant--there must be some reason for the reader to care about what the author has to say. For example, the opinion of a random individual on the presidency of George W. Bush, as published in a letter to the editor of a major newspaper, is not relevant; and thus should not be included--even though it is published, traceable to its author, and given in a reputable publication. Relevance can be imputed several ways--through explicit personal knowledge, through subject-matter authority, through general notability of the author, through demonstrable correlation with the opinion(s) of a large group of people, etc.''
			::::A large group of people, the editors of When the Pawn...'s page throughout the years, thousands of people on music reviewing sites and numerous music journalists from legitimate publications do not agree with what this one article you cherrypicked states.
			::::''Note that this policy is the minimum standard for inclusion as a reference in Misplaced Pages. Sources may meet this standard and still not be authoritative, reliable, accurate, free from bias, or undisputed. Sources which meet this minimum standard but which fail to meet stricter standards may be used, but should be used with caution. In particular, such sources should be explicitly attributed to their author(s) or publisher(s) in an article's prose (rather than being presented as fact with the author only given in the notes), and disputes considering the source's veracity should be described.''
			::::Meaning you can't just add any genre because some random source says it when it goes against larger and more reliable sources as well as it is controversial.
			::::Thank you and please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. ] (]) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::]. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a ], so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Okay, I strike. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <nowiki><s>Comment</s></nowiki> which will make it look like this <s>Comment</s>. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::<s> please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand.</s> ] (]) 22:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::{{ping|Longislandtea}} How is the source considered not relevant and where was this dispute? AllMusic ''does not'' call the album alternative rock at all within its article. Rate Your Music is also not a source it's user generated which is against Misplaced Pages. I really wish an admin would comment on this because this is getting absolutely nowhere. ] (]) 21:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Here's another source describing it as an alternative rock and jazz fusion album
			:::::https://www.the-solute.com/the-solute-record-club-fiona-apple-when-the-pawn/
			:::::Alt pop is not accurate. If you're so adamant about alt pop, please argue why. It is completely inaccurate and you have one singular source over music journalists and music sites. Allmusic does categorize it as alternative rock, Pitchfork has categorized it as rock since 1999 of its release. There was NO Alt-pop at the time. It still isn't. These are different genres. Art pop is not Alt pop. You edited the page one time in October 2024 only to get rid of the genre list that editors agreed upon to add Alt pop which makes no sense whatsoever. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I have now added a new source to the genre list. If you have any problems with the new source, tell me. But it's much more accurate this way. It's still sad to see the whole genre list that was originally there, so much more descriptive and fitting, hacked away but oh well. ] (]) 21:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Pitchfork's categorizations mean basically nothing. They have ten categories, one of which is "Pop/R&B", and another of which is "Global". By the way, you should just stop caring about this, because sources misclassify genres of music chronically and everywhere you look. Take your passion to RateYourMusic. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:All of this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page (which neither editor has used). ]&nbsp;] 21:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{ping|Schazjmd}} I'm awaiting for an admin to respond. This conversation is getting nowhere hence the reason why I brought it here in the first place. I've tried to explain to the user on their talk page along with this entire thread and it's getting nowhere. {{ping|The Bushranger}} you left a comment but could you please share your opinion on the dispute? Or possibly ping an admin who's familiar with music if this isn't your area of familiarity? ] (]) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::There was no reason to bring this conversation here. I talked to you directly but go no real reply or any arguments despite adding sources and explaining why it's not an Alt pop album. I've explained to you well enough. Please stop trying to get admins to ban me simply because I (and other editors) recognize that the genre list that you got rid of was far more fitting. There's a new genre list now with sources but it is not Alt-pop. The album was already added to the wikipedia album pages for Alternative rock and art pop. I'm familiar with these genres and Fiona Apple specifically to know that it's accurate hence why the genre list has been that way for years. If you're adamant about sources, there is a source. Accusing me of not sourcing should be considered a false accusation at this point. Not all sources are equal either and I've tried explaining that to you. ] (]) 21:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::], you were given good advice which is to have this discussion on the article talk page which neither editor has posted at yet. This is a content dispute. If no action has been taken yet by an administrator, it's likely because they don't agree with your statement that action needs to be taken. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Okay, will do. Thank you Liz. ] (]) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			=== Irrelevant sources and unnecessary changes to genre list on {{pagelinks|When the Pawn...}} ===
	== Indefinite block for ] ==
			On October 22 2024, {{lu|Pillowdelight}} changed the genre list that has stood in place for years and has been a variation of the same variety of genres: Art pop, art rock, jazz, alternative rock, jazz rock, chamber pop and jazz pop. Across the biggest music sites, this is what the album is described as. The user changed it to Alt pop using a single irrelevant and unreliable source. The album is not described as such anywhere else. The user is going against the general consensus. Sources have now been added to the genre list and I don't feel as though that would mean I'm breaking any rules. The user is threatening to get another editor banned because they're uncooperative with how us other editors feel the genre list should look like. It's an album that has been categorized as rock by Pitchfork at the time of its release and was added to rock charts when released too.
	* {{Vandal|Sportsfanrob}}
			Here's how the genre list has looked over a long period of time, without much controversy from editors not readers:
			https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1178937091 from 2023
			https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1049316366 from 2021
	This person is clearly ] to contribute, given their behavior. Their edits have largely been disruptive in nature, and this person recently made even more disruptive edits, after he was blocked for 3 months and entered into a period of inactivity on his main account. During this period of "inactivity", he engaged in multiple instances of block evasion, via IPs, which can be seen on his SPI page, and some of which CUs are aware of (including instances that aren't in his SPI archive). As such, I am requesting an indefinite block on their account. This person is a sheer net-negative, and net-negatives do not belong on this site. ''''']''''' 🌀 (]) 16:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
	:{{Ping|Widr|Favonian|ToBeFree|Spencer}} Can someone please take a look at this report? This person just continues to cause more and more problems. Their history of block evasion and IP socking is also a real concern. Thanks. ''''']''''' 🌀 (]) 16:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
	::], I'm afraid you need to give more detail and evidence for an indef block. Please link to previous discussions, diffs of disruption, etc. ]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>] 11:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			Thank you. ] (]) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Tendentious editing and general ] behavior at ] ==
			:Why do people have to argue about what genre music is rather than just listening to it, and hopefully enjoying it? ] (]) 19:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. ] (]) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::This is neither here nor there, but I thought albums are generally sorted in alphabetical order by band name or the musician's last name.
			:::Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or my information is incomplete. ] (]) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. ] (]) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::If we were going to list musical genres "accurately," we wouldn't bother at all. Except in very broad strokes ("rock," "punk," "Baroque," etc), so many of these horribly subjective "genres" are made up by bored media writers and bands that hate the notion of being The Same As Everyone Else. Get ten people to listen to ten different tracks of heavy metal, and you won't get as many as a third of them agreeing on any of them on the doom/grudge/dark/death/Goth/Viking/sludge/*-grind/*-core/etc etc etc spectrum. Beyond that, arguing whether any given artist is "that genre" is ''very'' highly subjective. (Hell, I've sung Baroque, classical, folk, rock, ethnic, shape note, so many genres I can't readily count.) ] 15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Bunch of racist IPs/account ==
	* {{userlinks|47.201.194.211}}
			{{atop|1=Sent packing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	There's a bit of genuine entertainment value in being called {{tq|one of those 'entanglement' freaks}} and seeing a decades-old physics subject summarily dismissed as {{tq|all Voodoo, and a fairytale}}, but when the response to pointing out ] is {{tq|You guys stop making lame excuses}}, I don't think the discussion is going anywhere. IP was blocked for edit-warring, then came back to cast aspersions, promote self-published sources, and insinuate a conspiracy theory on the Talk page. ] (]) 17:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
			Article: ]
	::How could you leave out the best quote of the section: {{tq|The reason you want to censor the following sentence that I wrote into wikipedia is that it is an existential threat to everything you have been pushing for years}}? I mean, I'm used to hearing these kinds of things from the alt-med cranks, but I didn't realize that physicists had to deal with it too. Now I'm curious what nefarious conspiracies Big Physics (Big Particles?) is up to... ] (]) 19:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
			* {{user|GREEKMASTER7281}}
	::: Oh, sure, we have quite a lot of it.--] (]) 19:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
			* {{ip|112.202.57.150}}
	:::: This is the same IP that was the subject of ] which is what got them blocked. ] (]) 03:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
			* {{ip|186.154.62.233}}
	::::: ] are so ''passé''. ] (]) 08:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
	:The IP has been quiet for a couple of days so action now is unlikely. Ping me if problems resume. ] (]) 04:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)		] (]) 13:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Understood; will do. ] (]) 22:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	::{{ping|Johnuniq}} it seems to be . Apparently now all physicists are in a conspiracy to hide the truth from ourselves. ] (]) 22:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::I left a warning at ]. Let me know if problems continue if I don't notice them. ] (]) 00:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			:Named account indeffed, IPs blocked for 72 hours each. ]] 14:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Despite multiple warnings (if they didn't keep blanking them, they'd have around 10-15 for the last month to 6 weeks by now, ), editor User:Epictrex behavioral problems continue, and have been escalating into personal attacks and random nonsense:
	* The latest , not just once, they edit warred over it, and . When warned at talk, here was their response and .
	But that's just today. Here's the last month:
	* , while blanking an article talk page.
	* , while responding to an admin who had warned them for disruptive editing. .
	* , while edit warring across 3 pages to insert unsourced material, despite having been asked repeatedly for cites, for weeks, and never having at that point used even one. Even when how to format and add references had been pointed out to them in excruciatingly minute detail, ]. Warned here ] and
	* And let's not forget this little escapade where they used IPs to have an edit war with themselves on ] : , , , , and . Both IPS geolocate to the same place, which also happens to be the same place as the IP they used to vandalize 2 user talk pages several days earlier while in the middle of some kind of meltdown, , , and . Also at the point the edit war started, the editor had not been on wiki in several days, but timestamps confirm they used their named account within one minute of the first IP vandal. This whole thing resulted in an ANI report (]), but when they hadn't edited for 24 hours, and no admins seemed interested in pursuing it, was withdrawn.
	* and , which was in response to
	* I initially began interacting with the user after they started editing multiple Native American and archaeology articles that I watchlist, and noticed they were being templated for many of their edits, most of which seemed to be inserting uncited ] material into articles or random changes that looked like experimenting with syntax/grammar/adding useless flag icons. I tried to walk them through a few things, stressed the need to read up on the policies everyone kept linking for them and that they seemed to be wholly unfamiliar with, stressed that they needed to experiment in the sandbox to get the hang of editing syntax, and pointed to the location of the sandbox multiple times. I also gave them the most detailed explanation of "how to do a cite" I've ever had to do in the 13 years I've been an editor here. (]). As the last several weeks has passed, I've wondered if this is a ] situation. They aren't editing maliciously, they are not a vandal, and I don't think they are trolling us. I suspect the user is young and may not be mature enough to handle editing here yet. They are combative, they name call and engage in personal attacks at the slightest perceived provocation, they do not take criticism well, and so far seem almost entirely uninterested in learning what the policies are. And this latest incident calls into question if they can be trusted with the editing tools at all. At best, their edits where they actually add content with references are bits of information copied from other articles (cites and all, if they ever manage to copy a whole cite, ]). At this point I'm wondering if a short "wake-up" block for them to contemplate policies and to realize if the persist in their current direction that their actions have consequences. I don't like writing reports like this, I don't like having to take the time to look up the diffs, and in all the years I've been here I've only resorted to ANI a handful of times. But after this latest instance (bulleted point one above), after repeated warnings from multiple other editors, this user needs a wakeup call. ]] 06:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
	::At this time, Epictrex has deleted this case twice. This is precisely why they were brought here in the first place. ''']'''<sub>&nbsp;(]•])</sub> 06:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::{{u|DarthBotto}}, Make that 3 times, as seen , they seem to just be here for malicious purposes. ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Ronja</span><small style="color:#555"> ''(] • ] • ])''</small> 07:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
	{{collapse top|An IP editor (now rangeblocked) has been trolling and edit warring on this noticeboard, but the timing is a coincidence and Epictrex has nothing to do with it. I'm collapsing the unrelated comments to prevent misinterpretation and distraction from the actual topic. ] (]) 07:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)}}
	He is now trying to delete the comment directly above mine. — ''']''' 07:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
	:{{u|Czello}}, Should we just ignore their edits and not revert? Because there is a very high chance of an edit war starting, and that is not wanted by any of us. If we keep reverting, so will they. Opinions? ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Ronja</span><small style="color:#555"> ''(] • ] • ])''</small> 07:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
	::{{Ping|Czello|Ronjapatch}} For clarification, those edits were made by the unnamed troll from Auckland and not Epictrex. This thread simply had the misfortune of taking place directly before the troll's nightly routine, several days running. ''']'''<sub>&nbsp;(]•])</sub> 07:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::{{u|DarthBotto}}, Thank you for that, clears it up a bit more. What are your thoughts on how we should approach this? I would prefer a calm and gentle approach if possible. ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Ronja</span><small style="color:#555"> ''(] • ] • ])''</small> 07:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::Concur. Epictrex is not in New Zealand, see above, the IPs they have socked from all geolocate to Nevada. ]] 07:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::::{{u|Heironymous Rowe}}, For clarification, are the trolls separate people, or are they all a sock of Epictrex using a VPN? ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Ronja</span><small style="color:#555"> ''(] • ] • ])''</small> 07:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::::I do not believe they are Epictrex, they only reverted here twice with their named account. They nave not socked with VPNs yet to my knowledge. They were socking earlier today on ], more IPs from Nevada. ]] 07:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::::::{{u|Heironymous Rowe}}, Thank you, the clarification is much appreciated. ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Ronja</span><small style="color:#555"> ''(] • ] • ])''</small> 07:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
	{{collapse bottom}}
	:The diffs provided show {{noping2|Epictrex}} veering between the extremes of over-aggression and over-sensitivity (a total inability to cope with the mildest rebuke or upset). I'd go along with {{u|ThadeusOfNazereth}}'s suggestion of a ''"a short "wake-up" block for them to contemplate policies and to realize if the persist in their current direction that their actions have consequences"'' except for Epictrex's assertion that there's a deeper underlying reason - ]. It looks to me that ] is the frame in which this should be handled. ] (]) 07:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
	::{{u|Cabayi}}, Very good, I second this. A short wake up call seems to be exactly what the user in question needs at this current moment. ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Ronja</span><small style="color:#555"> ''(] • ] • ])''</small> 07:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::As an addendum, they also tend to IP sock when ducking out, just look at this today, , there are 4 or 5 IPs right there, all geolocate to Sparks, Nevada, same as the IP s mentioned above. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)</span>
	:Blocked for 3 months for currently not being compatible with a collaborative project. ] (]) 08:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
	::{{u|ToBeFree}}, Appreciate that, thank you. Here is to hoping they come back and make productive edits. ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Ronja</span><small style="color:#555"> ''(] • ] • ])''</small> 08:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::No worries, and I hope for the same. ] (]) 08:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
	=== Suspected sockpuppet ===
	Anyone want to take bets on this new account ({{User|Rui Beech}}) that has made 2 edits to an Epictrex draft is a brand new sockpuppet? ]] 00:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	Hi. Y do u think Im Epictrex? I ain’t no Dino. Also, I just know about the Kings Beach Complex and decided to add a pic of Lake Tahoe. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)</span>
	::{{ping|ToBeFree}}, quack quack? ]] 00:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	* The two posts to , a draft page that new user would not be able to just happen across, and not searchable. It was their first two edits.
	* Rui Beech to Teahouse ( and ), see Epictrex to Teahouse here ]. They have several more at Teahouse, all with the same pattern of overly long similarly worded titles, if I really need to go hunt them down.
	* And now they have taken to trolling my talk page, and ]] 03:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	I didn’t troll your talkpage, I was answering your question. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)</span>
	: Rui Beech blocked indef as sock, per loud quacking. <b>] ]</b> 03:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	::{{Reply|Ohnoitsjamie}} While we're here, meet {{U|Zapientus}}, who magically appeared two days after Rui Beech was blocked and made the exact same edits to the draft page. What a magical coincidence. ''']'''<sub>&nbsp;(]•])</sub> 20:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	== User not discussing changes, continuing to make changes ==
	Hi all - reposting as this didn't have replies - I have a very new editor, {{user|SkunkaMunka}}, who has decided they like geographic relief maps in settlement infoboxes, which is nonstandard. They also continually edit warred with me for a little over interactive maps, trying to remove or supplement them with outdated or inferior maps. I opened a ] because it's clear they are abusively using multiple accounts. There has been no activity there yet. I also received and responded to an email from this user, hoping to discuss and stop edit warring. I have not heard back, and since then, they have proceeded to revert any un-reverted changes and continue to convert additional articles.
	In short:
	*User changes maps to nonstandard or poorer maps with no discussion
	*Short edit war ensues
	*Brief email conversation
	*I stop to file a sockpuppet investigation
	*Days go by with no activity
	*I'm filing an ANI as this user will no longer discuss their desired changes or accept anything different
	Best, ] ] 13:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
	:Hi {{u|Ɱ}}, after the ] about SkunkaMunka's behavior was created, they responded in ]. Re-creating the thread without any indication of a) the re-creation and b) their reply is somehow suboptimal. At the moment, the situation looks as if we can simply wait for the SPI result, even if that takes a week or two. If this assessment is wrong, please provide recent diffs that show an emergency intervention need. ] (]) 18:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
	::{{u|ToBeFree}}, Ah, thanks, I missed the user's reply. I'll see what I can do for now. The user's conduct and bad edits need to change, and I can't do it without them reverting me again. As well, their continued bad edits across other articles need to stop. ] ] 22:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
	::If someone besides me could help reinforce that Misplaced Pages requires collaboration and discussion, and compromise isn't always the solution, that would be appreciated. ] ] 22:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::I often do that and have a relatively low hesitation to block users for ] (or actively rejecting them). I'll wait for the SPI result though, and for further edits. Please keep me updated. ] (]) 22:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::Thanks for the advice and input, {{ping|ToBeFree}}. Following further discussion, the user has relented. I'll let you know if anything changes. Best, ] ] 21:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	== ] persistent disruptive edits: edit warring, refusing to discuss/engage. ==
	] has recently been edit warring and adding disputed material (currently under discussion at ]) at/to the ], ], ], and ] pages (so far) while ignoring edit summaries and refusing to discuss. Initially, the first page (Eran Elhaik), SteveBenassi added material, from a source which I believed ] and problematic. I tried to explain my reasoning in edit summaries, but he repeatedly reverted me seemingly without engaging with my explanations (after I had asked that he discuss and not edit war and announced that I would start a discussion ]). I then started a Talk discussion pinging him hoping to reach a resolution. He then reverted me again, and though another user engaged me in the Talk page, SteveBenassi never did (the issue then went to be discussed at RSN, with me and several others participating, where it continues). More recently, SteveBenassi has added this disputed material to another page (]), without ever having engaged in the discussion regarding it (either on the Eran Elhaik article Talk page or at RSN). I reverted him once there explaining that it was disputed and under discussion and asked him again (as on the other page) to discuss and not edit war. Since then, so far, he has added the same disputed material to two other pages,
	] and ] (and has added it, along with other somewhat controversial material, to the articles' leads), and also misleadingly marked those additions on both pages as ("m") for "minor". I reverted those edits (once on each page, again with explanations), but , since SteveBenassi has continued to persistently ignore edit summaries and requests/invitations to discuss, he seems likely to continue doing so.
	Update: He continues to edit war. He reinstated the edit at the
	] page, linking a recommendation/suggestion ]) in the RSN to justify it, despite the fact that the RSN discussio. has not yet been concluded/resolved, and he again misleadingly marked the edit "minor". He was reverted by ].
	Here are the pages' edit histories for reference:
	https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:History/Eran_Elhaik
	https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:History/Khazar_hypothesis_of_Ashkenazi_ancestry
	https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:History/Genetic_studies_on_Jews
	https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:History/Jewish_history
	Any attention is appreciated. ] (]) 04:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
	:The user is currently engaged in edit war] and have broken ] also it seems that he here to ] as per his edit summaries --] (]) 19:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
	:Since another report was filed on the other noticeboard (the edit warring noticeboard linked above) by Shrike, and has been addressed, it seems this report is no longer necessary. ] (]) 14:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	::Respectfully I'm not sure that this report is no longer necessary. This statement in particular {{tq|"I intentionally made a scene to draw attention to the Ostrer issue, I knew I would be put in wiki-Jail for a day or two, I thought it was worth it, and it worked, Huldra came to the rescue."}} would seem to strongly suggest that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. Knowingly breaking policy because the punishments are "worth it" seems like textbook tendentious editing.] (]) 11:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::{{ping|User:NonReproBlue}} I think you are right (it is still necessary). I had not seen that. That diff you linked is a very troubling statement by SteveBenassi, admitting to tactically edit warring on purpose to push an agenda very much suggests that he is ], came to Misplaced Pages with a decided "battleground mentality", and that his recent semingly appologetic statenent at RSN ] was not accurate nor frankly honest. I think a new perhaps report should likely be filed (since this one has gotten little attention), but I'm not exactly sure where (for now I will modify the title a bit to reflect this new development). I'm not quite sure of what the usual protocol/policy would be here, but I will be starting a new ANI report, that will refer back to this one. ] (]) 15:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	::Its clear that ] is doing POV driven constant edit warring in multiple pages related to the Jewish rigins and should be permanently blocked from editing on this subject.] (]) 18:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::{{ping|User:Tritomex}} I respectfully disagree. I haven't used Misplaced Pages in years. I felt I was being bullied unfairly, I fought back, went to Wiki-Jail for 36 hours. Openly admitted twice in public what I was doing. I apologized. And will not do it again. See bottom of this post, I asked @NonReproBlue to make an edit for me. I have learned from my mistakes. Note: 3 people are bullying me, twisting my comments and lying about me. Thank You ] (]) 18:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	See ... search Benassi
	https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Eran_Elhaik
	***
	@Austronesier: I added disputed text to Khazar Hypothesis as you suggested
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Khazar_hypothesis_of_Ashkenazi_ancestry&type=revision&diff=1022218010&oldid=1022203273 SteveBenassi (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
	@SteveBenassi: I don't believe the disputed text should be added anywhere untill the issues discussed are resolved. That has not yet ocurred. Skllagyook (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
	@Nishidani: Regarding ... (3)DNA sequences obtained from a variety of Jewish mortuary contexts or even Natufian or other Neolithic/Bronze Age Levantine populations.. .would provide useful information about the nature of genetic diversity that is at the root of the Jewish ethnogenesis narrative.
	New research does exactly that, and it confirms that Zagoros/Caucasus population during the Bronze Age, and Today, contributed to the Genome in the Levant, indicating Elhaik may be partially correct that Ashkenazi Jews are converts from the north. See Graphical Abstract ... The Genomic History of the Bronze Age Southern Levant https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30487-6 SteveBenassi (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
	***
	@Skllagyook: See Graphical Abstract ... 3 lines from Zagoros/Caucasus at 3 different times including from the Bronze Age to Today. SteveBenassi (talk) 08:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
	***
	If SteveBenassi is to be believed, even one of the study's authors says "we can't be placed in the Elhaik camp or in the mainstream view". It is abundantly clear that there is an accepted mainstream model, and this is a single paper that challenges it. That is fringe. There is no other way to view it. If it proves to be correct, the mainstream consensus will support it, and it then would absolutely merit inclusion. Until then, there is no reason why it should be given such prominence. It is clearly undue weight. NonReproBlue (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
	***
	@Skllagyook: I emailed Aram Yardumian three days ago about the suppression of his article on Misplaced Pages, he responded "Dear Steve
	Thanks for this email note and the link to the Eran Elhaik wikipedia discussion page. That was interesting to see.
	Your question about why our article didn't warrant any news coverage is a good one. First of all, it was just a review article. There was no new data or genetic analysis. Had we undertaken new sample collections or a new kind of analysis -- as Eran Elhaik has done more than once -- I'm sure it would have at least registered a blip on the radar. Review articles often pass unnoticed.
	Perhaps also: our view of Jewish ethnogenesis is actually somewhat at odds with Elhaik's. You may be aware that I posted an article on BioRxiv back in 2013 that was very critical of his methods (i.e., using Armenians and Georgians as surrogates for Khazars). Since we can't be placed in the Elhaik camp or in the mainstream view, perhaps nobody really knew what to do with us. Perhaps in some ways it's a blessing.
	There's probably more that could be said, but I'll leave it there for now and ask how you came to be interested in this subject...
	Regards Aram" SteveBenassi (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
	***
	It's about Yardumian and Schurr's criticism of both, which I felt was undue (and I feel currently has undue prominence), since, like Elhaik, they take an unusual minority view among geneticists (seemingly held by only them), and their paper has not had any mainstream engagement (not yet cited, etc.). Part of my issue was the undue prominence it was given, especially in the initial form added by SteveBenassi, before Nishidani's rewriting of it, which I welcomed/was an improvement, but even after that as well. I don't know that I'd object to a short reference to it in the Eran Elhaik article, or perhaps among the other refs, whose prominence, per WP:WEIGHT, is not out of balance with other references criticizing Elhaik (which includes scientific sources, not only Journalistic). Skllagyook (talk) 10:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	***
	Your assertions that they are mainstream is belied by the fact that you have repeatedly asserted that they are challenging the mainstream view (and if you trust SteveBenassi, as it seems you do, so does one of the studies author's "Since we can't be placed in the Elhaik camp or in the mainstream view, perhaps nobody really knew what to do with us.") If they are challenging the mainstream view, they cannot represent it. If there is no mainstream view, they cannot challenge it. You say If the two authors here challenge an ideological meme, that is an eminently reasonable point of view, minority (though growing)", then you say that saying they hold a minority view is an "undocumented and repeated assertion". It seems that the real issue might be that you yourself do not agree with the mainstream view, which is fine, but that does not mean that you can add information in such a way as to emphasize what you feel are the shortcomings of that view, out of proportion to what actual mainstream RS say about it. Also, it seems incredibly hypocritical to talk of having secret info about Elhaik's research that you cannot go into depth on that proves both the mainstream and other fringe ideas wrong, and at the same time chastising Skllagyook for "exceeding your remit and asserting a competence, in a highly technical area of science, for which there is no evidence an in asserting your superior judgment". I think your personal feelings on this matter might be clouding your ability to neutrally analyze the body of RS as a whole. NonReproBlue (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	***
	@Alaexis: Yardumian and Schurr are Reliable Sources for the Eran Elhaik Misplaced Pages page. I made two edits to the Eran Elhaik page, one on Ostrer "will not defame Jews" comment, and another on The Geography of Jewish Ethnogenesis paper, causing this debate. The point I am trying to make is, in layman's terms, are Jews a race or not a race. Ostrer and his camp say Jews are a race, they are more homogenous than not, they are closely related, and they are mostly the descendants from the Ancient Hebrew in the Levant. Elhaik, Yardumian and Schurr say no, Jews are not a race, they are more heterogenous than not, they are not closely related, they are not mostly the descendants from the Ancient Hebrew in the Levant, but are mostly the descendants of converts to Judaism outside of the the Levant. Elhaik is a Zionist but is not biased in his research, he says his intention was not to disprove a connection to biblical Jews, but rather "to eliminate the racist underpinnings of anti-Semitism in Europe". Elhaik's paper was highly cited, it created a firestorm, many articles were written about it, because it threatens one of the justifications for Israel's right to exist in Palestine, DNA. I think we should modify this to reflect the above "Yardumian and Schurr have criticized both Elhaik's Khazar hypothesis and the mainstream model it challenged, on the grounds that, in their view, both assume the same homeland-diaspora expansion model. As opposed to this, they view Jewish ethnogenesis as one rooted in multiple heterogeneous populations which, often after conversion, coalesced to form modern day Jews. " SteveBenassi (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	***
	There is no need to panic remove this from articles. Its not the kind of source that will be disqualified for reliability. It may be out of scope for a biography but that discussion should continue at the article talk page."The Khazar hypothesis" saved lives in Vichy France. It should not be taken drastically out of its historical context to smear Elhaik. Separately, the Khazar hypothesis enjoyed a Muslim revival after the founding of the modern state of Israel and the English speaking rose to the bait but it's never been the heart of Zionism. SteveBenassi asks "are Jews a race or not a race". The answer was once a matter of life or death. But the "right to exist in Palestine" is not justified by genetics. The only place I've seen such rubbish claims is the The New York Times which is not a reliable source for science. Why would Jews who were deported to Israel by the nations that were ethnically cleansing them justify their presence in Israel by genetic studies? On Misplaced Pages we should not be "taking sides" but continuing to improve the weight or NPOV issue by discussion. Spudlace (talk) 09:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	***
	@Nishidani: (and to any other editors reading) In the diffs you (Nishidani) link above (where I removed the disputed additions), SteveBenassi has added the them to several articles while it was being discussed here instead of waiting for the issue to be resolved, after having been warned about edit warring. That did not seem appropriate. He also added them prominently to article leads, which was also undue given that the the additions represent a minority view. In the case of the Jewish history article there is no other material referencing genetic studies, so adding it seemed especially undue. And he had almost completely refused to engage in any kind of Talk page discussion since the beginning (since his first edits at Eran Elhaik).
	As I have tried to explain, I do not claim any kind of special knowledge or expertise (I am not an expert), and your accusations - now of "arrogance" - are becoming increasingly personal and uncivil and beginning to enter the territory of personal attacks, which I would like to ask that you not do.
	In making the point that the new paper is strongly divergent from the mainstream (as we can be aware of the mainstream and majority view, from published research) I merely quoted (and refered to) what much of the research itself says/concludes quite explicitly. I can find no other published research (by population geneticists, the relevant expert community) that takes positions similar to those of Yardumian and Schurr. And you admit above they they are not of the majority view. I merely argued that their position is extraordinary and has not yet had mainstream engagement (e.g. been cited by experts) and this that some caution should be used at this stage. But if the paper is to be used in this or any article, which I concede that it likely will in some capacity, it should at least not be given undue prominence. Skllagyook (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	***
	@Skllagyook: I am a Newbie, I don't know how to use Misplaced Pages, I was getting erased by three people unfairly I thought, I fought back, went to Wiki-Jail for 36 hours, made one final post, and this one, I apologize for my inexperience. I am not planning on making any more edits for a while, I got my message out, now I am done, and will watch others and learn. It was quite the experience. Thank You for putting up with me the past few days. SteveBenassi (talk) 12:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	@SteveBenassi: Your statement that your violations of Misplaced Pages policies were honest mistakes from ignorance seems to be directly contradicted by your other recent statement on another page (along with the fact that you repeatedly edit warred and refused to engage in Talk after several warnings and explanations.
	Namely this statement that you wrote on your Talk page ]"I intentionally made a scene to draw attention to the Ostrer issue, I knew I would be put in wiki-Jail for a day or two, I thought it was worth it, and it worked, Huldra came to the rescue.". As User:NonReproBlue (who mentioned it to me at WP:ANI) correctly said, this "would seem to strongly suggest that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. Knowingly breaking policy because the punishments are "worth it" seems like textbook tendentious editing." Skllagyook (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	***
	My full disclosure is that I haven't read Elhaik. I was responding to the suggestion proposed above by SteveBenassi that doesn't mention Ashkenazi:
	"Yardumian and Schurr have criticized both Elhaik's Khazar hypothesis and the mainstream model it challenged, on the grounds that, in their view, both assume the same homeland-diaspora expansion model. As opposed to this, they view Jewish ethnogenesis as one rooted in multiple heterogeneous populations which, often after conversion, coalesced to form modern day Jews."
	The form of the Khazar theory that is taken seriously by scholars is not a theory of Ashkenazi ancestry. Khazar was a slur in Soviet Russia (basically calling them Turks and blaming them for everything, which we call anti-Semitism), and it was also a theory developed mostly by Karaim scholars about Karaim origins.
	The related Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry is not supported by any evidence, historical or scientific, and is not taken seriously by any scholars, with the apparent exception of Elhaik. I think we can call this fringe.
	Yardumian and Schurr are reliable and can be used in other articles. Despite the comments in the email, I don't think this is a new or fringe position. The well-established Rhineland hypothesis implies multiple heterogeneous populations. It remains controversial but it's not fringe. The issue of deleting the Yardumian and Schurr source from multiple articles as non-reliable came up. While there is no consensus here for that, it can still be challenged under other policies like WP:UNDUE. Spudlace (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	***
	Also ... See ... search Benassi
	https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Eran_Elhaik
	***
	@SteveBenassi: Hello. Regarding the source you added, there are some issues. I notice you have re-added it twice witout engaging with my explanations in the edit notes. It will try to explain here and hopefully we can discuss it. The source's inclusion here seems somewhat WP:UNDUE given that is proposes a hypothesis that is strongly at odds with mainstream consensus, which is that moat Jewish groups (e.g. the Sephardi, Ashkenazi, and Mizrahi) do share a significant Middle Eastern genetic origin/genetic component with a common origin, and also carry substantial differential admixtures in each from non-Jewish sources, whereas this source "proposes to invert" the traditional model and controversially states that Jewish groups do not have a common origin. In addition, as I mentioned in my edit summary, its proposals have not been engaged with by other notable specialists in the field, and it seems not to have not been cited, despite having been published in 2019. Aspects of WP:REDFLAG seem to apply, particularly the first and fourth. From "Redflag", which explains:
	"Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources...Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include:
	Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;"
	And:
	"Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people."
	These seem to apply here. And there (and there are not "multiple high-quality sources" but rather one source of unclear/debateable/questionable quality)
	The authors, of which there are only two, Yardumian and Shurr, seem not to be notable in the field of Jewish population genetics, and their hypothesis here has not been covered by mainstream sources and seems to have no citations despite having been published in 2019. See here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=Yardumian+Jewish+ethnogenesis&btnG=
	The source discusses multiple papers (by much more notable and cited researchers in the area) but interprets several of them in ways that depart significantly from the conclusions of the studies themselves (which are that the aforementioned Jewish groups do share a significant common origin, as well as varrying differential admixtures from non-Jewish host populations).
	For these reasons, the addition seems to go against WP:WEIGHT and to give WP:UNDUE attention to a minority position advanced in one relatively new work that has not been engaged with by the mainstream of researchers in the field (and thus it is unclear whether it represents a ballanced review). It seems best to wait until there has been some mainstrem engagement with its proposals before adding it, let alone as one representing as an authority, and the most recent one, on the subject in Wikivoice. Skllagyook (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
	***
	@Shrike: ... See ... https://en.wikipedia.org/Harry_Ostrer#Criticisms
	"Ostrer received criticism from Johns Hopkins University post-doc Eran Elhaik, who challenged the validity of Ostrer's past work on the topic of the origin of European Jews. Elhaik has criticized Ostrer's explanations for Jewish demographic history and Ostrer being unwilling to share his data with other researchers, "unless research includes novelty and strength of the proposal, non-overlap with current or planned activities, and non-defamatory nature toward the Jewish people."
	Pediatrician Catherine DeAngelis said that 'allowing scientists access to data only if their research will not defame Jews is "peculiar"', and added "what he does is set himself up for criticism: Wait a minute. What’s this guy trying to hide?""
	Ostrer is a Zionist and biased in his research, Elhaik is a Zionist and is not biased in his research. Why is the quote OK on the Ostrer page but not on the Elhaik page? SteveBenassi (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	You didn't explained why she deserve more space --Shrike (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	She deserves the same space on the Elhaik page as the Ostrer page. This is a conflict between two people Elhaik and Ostrer, why tie the hand of one and not the other? SteveBenassi (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	Ostrer's withholding of data in a science like most others where open access is a basic principle, is extraordinary and certainly does merit the attention it gets in that source. The woman is eminently placed to comment. I think her remark should be paraphrased, since it is too colloquial. This page is notoriously subject to attacks, and consistent attempts to skew reportage against a person who is, as subject of a wikibio, entitled to comprehensively neutral coverage. It is an obligation.Nishidani (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	I agree that her remark is due to be mentioned, and I also agree that it should be paraphrased (both to avoid ending with a "?" and for due reasons as most of the other quotes are not included in their entirety) which I have attempted to do with my trimming of the quote. If you have a suggestion for a change to an alternative paraphrasing I would be open to modification. But SteveBenassi re-adding his preferred version after admitting he knows that it violates policy is WP:TENDENTIOUS and an ARBPIA violation. NonReproBlue (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	Also note that the edit by SteveBenassi makes it seem as though the entire thing is a quote by DeAngelis; It is not. The part that is a direct quote from her is "Peculiar" and "what he does is set himself up for criticism: Wait a minute. What’s this guy trying to hide?". The phrasing "allowing scientists access to data only if their research will not defame Jews is" is prose from the article, and should not be included in the quote attributed to her, but paraphrased by our prose as I have done with my edit. NonReproBlue (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	@NonReproBlue: I am not knowingly violating anything, so don't make accusations. I am new to Misplaced Pages, all I know is that three of you are bullying me. I also know that Israel has weaponized Misplaced Pages. What is really going on here? Ostrer's fake research says Jews are a "race", Elhaik, Yardumian, Schurr say Jews are not a "race", which threatens one of the major justifications for Israel's right to exist in Palestine, DNA. So we have the Left vs the Right on Misplaced Pages. Sad. SteveBenassi (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	"I intentionally made a scene to draw attention to the Ostrer issue, I knew I would be put in wiki-Jail for a day or two, I thought it was worth it, and it worked" Yes, you absolutely do know. Also your current line of discussion violates ARBPIA sanctions, which you have been notified about on your talk page, that prohibits editors with fewer than 500 edits from making any edits regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. Your edit summaries, and statements like "Ostrer's fake research says Jews are a "race", Elhaik, Yardumian, Schurr say Jews are not a "race", which threatens one of the major justifications for Israel's right to exist in Palestine, DNA." are clear violations of this prohibition. NonReproBlue (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	Requiring you to follow policy is not bullying, and "I'm new" (close to 4 years isn't that new, by the way) isn't an excuse for your continued ignorance after being warned repeatedly and blocked.NonReproBlue (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	@NonReproBlue: You are a bully, I'm fighting back. I am not hiding anything. I have not made an edit on Misplaced Pages in years. My life does not revolve around Misplaced Pages like you. Sad. SteveBenassi (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	Continued personal attacks like that will only reinforce the idea that you have arrived here with a battleground mentality and are not here to build an encyclopedia. If editing on Misplaced Pages is important to you, I would implore you to spend some time reviewing its policies. NonReproBlue (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	@NonReproBlue: Its you attacking me, not the other way around. Your a Bully and should be reported. SteveBenassi (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	You are entitled to feel that way, and if you would like to report me feel free. I am not attacking you, I am explaining to you how the rules work. NonReproBlue (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	@NonReproBlue: Report yourself, I don't know how. SteveBenassi (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	If you review Misplaced Pages policies as I suggested, the information will be there. NonReproBlue (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	However, before you report me for bullying, I would strongly suggest that you read WP:CRYBULLYING.NonReproBlue (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	@NonReproBlue: Your Bullying is real, like Crying is real. Report yourself.SteveBenassi (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	@NonReproBlue: References 30 and 31 are duplicates.
	Aram Yardumian,Theodore G Schurr, 'The Geography of Jewish Ethnogenesis,' Journal of Anthropological Research Volume 75, Number 2 pp.206–234
	Aram Yardumian,Theodore G Schurr, 'The Geography of Jewish Ethnogenesis,' Journal of Anthropological Research Volume 75, Number 2 pp.206–234
	SteveBenassi (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	Either one of you, preferably both, should drop this. Benassi. Israel has a perfect right to exist, and to deny that is very close to sntisemitism. The right to existence as a state is established under international law. Discrediting international law is very much what Israel's behavior in its colonization of the territories is about, so you are mirroring what you criticize. Israel has denied the right to exist of the state of Palestine, of course. Please don't reply to this. It is off-topic but needed as a reminder that, in this area, one cannot pick and choose what suits one in international law. If you subscribe to its principles (and that is a precondition for grasping the shocking treatment of Palestinians) then, automatically, you must affirm Israel's right to exist. I will be restoring Yardumian and Schurr in due course in a slightly different formulation, since no rational policy based arguments has been raised, and their elision looks very much like an attempt to make Elhaik some solitary, freakish, contrafactual POV fiend. Other people share his skepticism of the so-called mainstream view, a view which is hilarious because several of its proponents actually, in their scientific work, explicitly state that their science corroborates the Bible. In any other discipline, such a curious marriage of science and fiction would arouse extreme caution.Nishidani (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	] (]) 18:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	== Francis Schonken ==
	{{atop|Blocked indef, refer to Cullen's comment. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)}}
	{{user|Francis Schonken}} makes wholesale reverts of my edits, including these:
	* Edit summary: ''(revert a series of unhelpful changes)''
	* Edit summary: ''(])''
	* Edit summary: ''(reverting a number of non-consensus changes to the guideline, take to talk)''
	I sought guidance from an admin and Francis Schonken participated in the ensuing discussion. Start reading ] and ].<br>
	At one point during that discussion the admin posted:
	:{{ping|Francis Schonken}} And with you are edit warring...after being , , , , , , , . This isn't the first time since I either, as you did so with and . After that final warning and I gave you, the only conclusion that I can draw from this is that you want to be banned from the project. The ''why'' escapes me. --] (]) 19:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
	I ended my most recent post to the admin by saying "In short, FS continues to indiscriminately target my edits for reversion - acting as a self-appointed administrator to block my contributions to WP: pages. I hope you will advise '''' me regarding how best to respond to this treatment." The admin replied: "I would raise this issue at WP:AN/I at this point." So here I am. ] (]) 00:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	:No editor or administrator has the right to target and revert edits just because, as it appears here, he doesn't like them. Francis might consider editing elsewhere before ummm.... trouble hits the fan. ] (]) 01:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	::The discussion at ] is about 10,000 words long. My overall impression of FS's stance is that consensus is not the same as unanimity, but so long as he is the lone objector to a small change, then there cannot be consensus. ] (]) 04:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	;indef by Cullen328
	*'''Good block''' ] (]) 06:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::I readily acknowledge that many in the the community agree that Francis Schonken has contributed excellent content about classical music. I thank FS for their positive contributions. But for many years, this editor has had difficulty complying with our behavioral norms. As a result, they have been blocked eight times previously, for a year last time. Francis Schonken has been warned in great detail and at great length several times in recent months by {{u|Hammersoft}}, who has taken great care to identify the problematic behaviors and encourage improvement. Very sadly, FS has chosen to continue with their past pattern of disruption, edit warring and endless IDHT debates about trivialities. Accordingly, I have issued an indefinite block. ] ] 06:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Good block''' —&nbsp;If it means anything, I almost never participate at ANI, and least of all to support or oppose any blocks, but FS's behavior is so repeatedly unproductive, I feel—for the sake of classical music coverage on Misplaced Pages—I have to come here and leave a comment. FS has managed to frustrate literally everyone I know in classical music community. Honestly, some of it is just genuinely upsetting. He's put off and discouraged so many people, it is a truly abysmal thing to watch unfold (). Tireless edit warring, no understanding of proper consensus, and extreme ownership ( as just ''a few'' examples) Frankly, I've found myself repeatedly worn out by his editing, but his inability to be collaborative is ceaseless, and I have never seen someone given so many chances. ] (]) 06:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	{{abot}}		{{abot}}
	===Francis Schonken - ban from the project?===
	{{archive top|We're a few hours shy of the 72 hours normally required for full site bans, but the consensus here is already crystal clear. By an almost unanimous consensus, {{u|Francis Schonken}} is hereby ] from the English Misplaced Pages. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 15:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)}}
	On 10 May 2021 as a result of the discussion above, ] issued an indefinite block for {{user|Francis Schonken}}. At the , I write to propose that the indefinite ban of Francis Schonken be converted to a ] from the project and that, if consensus is achieved, the account be added to ].
			== Urgent need for page protection on BLP ==
	I base this proposal on:
	:'''(a)''' the conduct in my original post (above) that led to the indefinite <s>ban</s> block.
	:'''(b)''' the with no evidence that any of them led to long-lasting changes of behavior.
	:'''(c)''' the failure, despite being an active editor for more than 15 years, to understand (or maybe "to accept") how consensus works, as reported by WhatamIdoing above based on ] (see ]).
	:'''(d)''' the continuation of inappropriate behavior after receiving a final warning for edit warring:
	{{Collapse top|title=March 19 to April 15 conduct catalogued by User:Hammersoft}}
	==== Edit warring after final warning ====
	On 19 March 2021, ] gave Francis Schonken a final warning regarding edit warring: . Following that warning, Francis Schonken continued to engage in edit warring. Incidents described as below:
	===== 27 March 2021 =====
	* 16:04 27 March 2021: Butwhatdoiknow makes a change to ] . This was part of a discussion on the talk page of the policy.
	** 16:17 27 March 2021: FS reverts
	** 17:07 27 March 2021: Buwhatdoiknow reverts FS
	** 17:15 27 March 2021: FS reverts
	* discussion
	===== 29 March 2021 =====
	* 16:06 29 March 2021: Butwhatdoiknow asks a question of FS for a second time regarding the removal of a phrase from the red link guideline . FS does not respond.
	** 22:48 3 April 2021: After waiting five days with no reply from FS, Butwhatdoiknow goes ahead with the change citing the talk page discussion.
	** 04:40 4 April 2021: FS reverts with edit summary "WP:Revert, ignore" , without answering Butwhatdoiknow's question on the talk page.
	===== 30 March 2021 =====
	* 5:01 30 March 2021: Butwhatdoiknow creates a new redirect at ]
	** 5:38 30 March 2021: FS changes the target of the redirect with edit summary "re-redirect: less confusing" . No associated discussion initiated by FS.
	** 15:43 4 April 2021: Butwhatdoiknow changes the redirect target back to what they created it as with edit summary "Restore original, more specific, target." No associated discussion by Butwhatdoiknow.
	** 19:34 4 April 2021: FS reverts Butwhatdoiknow with linked edit summary "WP:Revert, ignore" (links to ], a very short essay written December 2012, and referenced twice projected wide). . No associated discussion by FS.
	** 22:42 6 April 2021: Butwhatdoiknow initiates discussion on the talk page of the redirect, and pings FS to the conversation. FS never responds.
	===== 30 March 2021 =====
	* 5:02 30 March 2021: Butwhatdoiknow adds new shortcut they created to ]
	** 5:35 30 March 2021: FS reverts with edit summary "WP:Revert, ignore"
	** 15:43 4 April 2021: Butwhatdoiknow restores the shortcut
	** 19:54 4 April 2021: FS reverts again with the same edit summary
	===== 30 March 2021 =====
	* 05:43 30 March 2021: FS reverts a long series of edits done mostly by Butwhatdoiknow that extend from after 7 December 2020 to 30 March 2021, with edit summary "WP:Revert, ignore". . Diff showing revert goes back to 20 December 2020:
	** 15:04 30 March 2021: Butwhatdoiknow asks a question of FS at the talk page of the essay, pinging FS back to the conversation. . FS never responds.
	** 15:43 4 April 2021: After waiting five days, Butwhatdoiknow reverts, with a modification that Butwhatdoiknow feels addresses FS' concern.
	** 18:59 12 April 2021: After seeing the essay referenced on a discussion on ] to which Hammersoft pinged FS, FS reverts again, describing Butwhatdoiknow's edit as "Not helpful".
	** 19:41 12 April 2021: Hammersoft points out to FS that their 18:59 edit is edit warring.
	** 19:43 12 April 2021: FS self reverts back to Butwhatdoiknow's 15:43 4 April 2021 version, and then posts on Hammersoft's talk page saying they self reverted to reduce tension.
	===== 14 April 2021 =====
	* 18:12 6 April 2021: ] places content "Today, the multimedia company TimelessToday..." on ]. This is part of a larger reorganization of the lede of the article.
	** 12:54 12 April 2021: FS removes content "Today, the multimedia company TimelessToday..." on ].
	** 14:08 14 April 2021: Faunus places content "Today, the multimedia company TimelessToday..." on ]. , referencing a discussion at ] as consensus.
	** 14:17 14 April 2021: FS removes the content
	** 16:18 14 April 2021: Faunus puts the content back in, with a citation.
	** 07:06 15 April 2021: FS removes the content
	* While this is going on, there is discussion on the talk page but only FS and Faunus are involved, and there is no consensus.
	{{Collapse bottom}}
	:'''(e)''' the result, reported by Aza24 above, of putting off and discouraging many other editors.
	--] (]) 18:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	==== Discussion ====
	* '''Support community ban''': The amount of effort I've put into trying to avoid this happening has been rather large. I have found a number of troubling behaviors, some of which is highlighted above. I've repeatedly warned FS about their behavior to no avail. I acknowledge and respect their contributions to the project, especially in the realm of classical music, but very strongly feel they are a net negative to the project. This is most especially true with their distinctly negative impact on other editors. --] (]) 20:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Support Ban''' unfortunately.
	**FS is an editor who has made significant positive contributions to the encyclopedia, especially in the area of classical music, but has also made larger negative contributions.
	**Their conduct on the content dispute about the sexuality of ] was also troublesome, when they tried to end-run around the RFC that I had started, by creating a separate sub-article, and then accused me of ].
	**I don't know why classical music causes so much controversy, although it is a great art form about which many editors are passionate.
	**Sometimes when the editing in the area of classical music gets heated, some of the editors should put on a recording rather than editing.
	:] (]) 21:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. I've never been a fan of adding salt to a wound, but I'd also be concerned if an unsuspecting admin wandered on to an unblock request and granted a serial edit warrior a reprieve. Francis didn't even make it a year before his first ] block . The past year is covered above; but, additionally: 15+ years of disruptive editing does not make for a collaborative environment. Even after a '''1 ''year'' block''', within a ''month'' after returning they were trying to bully others.. When people tried to talk to them, they often were confronted with rudeness and snark. . Francis may be knowledgeable and capable of writing about the things he cares about, but he's shown no sign of being able to work with others. At the end of the day, I think a ] is best for all sides. ] (]) 22:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''—At this point, it seems like everyone has their own "Francis Schonken story". I could go in to the many examples of edit warring or extreme ownership (I briefly mentioned some in the thread directly above), but the most unfortunate thing is the constant bullying of editors. ], resulting in the article's creator saying "I see you have taken possession of the article again. I despair. I've taken it off my watchlist and you can what you like with it as far as I am concerned."; ], resulting in the article's creator saying "I'll defer to others about what to do, and remove this from my watchlist". It things like this that show FS continues to directly damage the work of others, whether or not he is productive in his own right. So many blocks and ''way'' too many ANI threads, it seems this needs to come to an end. ] (]) 00:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. At the outset I really tried to find the wording that would make FS look beyond his own desires to really collaborate with others. With one exception, he never did. He achieved editing almost solely through bullying, forcing people to see his side of things, and basically being so determined that nearly all editors gave up because life is too short. Yes, he did contribute some good things, but Misplaced Pages is a social encyclopedia, and this is an individual whose sole desire is to achieve what he sees as right and thus appears to be unable to collaborate except through bullying. - ] (]) 01:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Support community ban (with some further points)'''. Many people have remarked on the issues with Francis Schonken's behavior and his edit warring, so I thought I might give a few examples of other issues with his conduct.
	** Selective application of and disregard for ] (), which he followed up with accusing me of violating NPOV and complaining about (of who I'm presumably one). All in all, a demonstration of extreme ] on his part (which other editors have provided further examples of).
	** A bizarre, selective understanding and/or application of Misplaced Pages rules (see for example and my response at ) and constant ].
	** Selective interpretation and definition of consensus () and openly expressing disregard for consensus that does not align with his goals or viewpoints ().
	*** With reference to the previous point, the ] and stubbornness exhibited by Francis Schonken at ] are astounding, as is the circumventing of consensus (including multiple RfCs) at ] and ]. The improper/disruptive behavior exhibited on the latter page ( will give you some flavor of the discussion) is a sight to behold, too.
	** is one of the snarkiest (to put it mildly) comments I have ever seen on Misplaced Pages, especially given that it was directed at one of the kindest editors the project has ever had.
	** Many of the recent discussions at ] were some of the nastiest and most heated in the history of classical music articles on Misplaced Pages (second perhaps only to some of the ones on infoboxes), and Francis Schonken was a major contributor to the hostile atmosphere there. Other have commented on his conduct in the various discussions on Chopin's sexuality, so I will highlight just one bizarre interchange: after I referenced some of the principles that Misplaced Pages is built on (), Francis Schonken asked me about their relevance (). I mean, what relevance could a Misplaced Pages policy possibly have to a content dispute?
	*: At the end of the day, these problems (which are just a selection from the last few months) may still be less relevant and intractable than Francis Schonken's hostile and toxic behavior, which others have remarked on and has discouraged many editors of classical music articles, and which on its own is grounds for a community ban. ] (]) 01:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' I have, unfortunately, had my encounters with Francis (including long before I created an account - they were particularly BITEY back then). While they certainly seem to have made valuable contributions to the area of classical music, their behaviour within that area is, as evidenced by the examples above, often acerbic and arrogant. Coupled with their disruptive editing and difficulty collaborating, that seems sufficient grounds for a community ban. ] (] / ]) 02:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' As the blocking administrator, I am not going to !vote, because I do not want to pile on. I chose to make this block because I have not had much if any direct previous interactions with FS that I can recall, so I consider myself uninvolved. I like classical music and many other genres but I am not passionate about it. My favorite type of music for daily listening is classic hard rock, but I don't edit much in any music genre. Over the years, I have read many noticeboard threads about this editor. Over and over, I assumed good faith in my mind, because FS is knowledgeable about classical music and I am not, and I want the encyclopedia to have good coverage of classical music. But their behavioral problems have not improved. Finally, I decided to take a closer look this time. I have to thank {{u|Hammersoft}} for doing the research and taking the time to give FS excellent highly customized advice in recent months, and I commend them for doing that work. It makes me sad to block a long time contributor. But when a person has been given and has blown chance after chance after chance after chance, the time eventually comes for decisive action. I appreciate the comments made here by other editors active in the classical music topic area, who have been subjected on a day to day basis to FS's disruption more than I have. To those editors, I say that I may not be among you, but that my decision to block was for you and for your benefit. ] ] 05:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	* '''Comment''' I think others are more qualified to express an opinion here. My interaction with Francis Schonken was limited to , which then seemed to escalate beyond reason. Their understanding of edit wars . ] 06:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' – I agree with what editors have said, above, that FS has contributed much valuable content, but a repeated pattern of bullying must not be condoned, and it is all too evident that FS refuses to learn that lesson, despite repeated warnings, advice and multiple second chances. – '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 14:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' based on the affected editors' comments here. While Francis Schonken's contributions to classical music are appreciated, there is not a single editor here whose contributions are so valuable that we can excuse behaviour that drives others away from the project, particularly when so much effort has been expended to correct it yet the behaviour persists. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 14:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' Blocked for an ''entire year'', and then comes back and resumes disruptive editing? They are not going to change, and FS is a net negative. ] (]) 23:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Support-ish, but what about T-bans?'''. I agree that this behavior pattern cannot continue, yet that it will continue if something drastic is not done (given the block record). I think there is one last step that could be tried, and this is removing FS from the topics in which he is most controlling and disruptive, which to my eyes are a) composers (in any genre) as biography subjects; b) Classical music broadly construed (including Baroque and Romantic and neo-Classical and anything else included within Classical in general parlance but not by musicologists; it's really a continuum of interlocking styles and movements and eras in music); and c) Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines (their editing, not their application). Include whatever else FS editwars and filibuster/OWNs over (I've not pored over the block log, but I imagine others know what those topics are). If FS can learn and demonstrate an ability to get along with people while editing random articles on salamanders and comic books and chemical elements and goat breeds and varieties of red wine and parasites of marine plants and whatever, then lifting of the T-bans could be considered, after a good while. But if the negative behavior pattern simply migrates to other topics, then we'll know it's a lost cause. (Maybe I'm being sentimental, after the irreversible loss of Flyer22 and SlimVirgin this year, who dated back to the 2000s like FS and I do; it's all starting to have an "end of an era" feel too it. Regarding the suspicion that FS actually {{em|wants}} to be blocked, that's possible; it wouldn't be the first time someone engaged in an indef trajectory to get admins to force them to quit WP-as-an-addiction. But it would be simpler for FS to just state "please block me", and then scramble his password, or something to that effect.) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 19:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	*:"]" could be the term of art to refer to it. Or alternatively "Western classical music, broadly construed" (which would de facto include composers). I wouldn't oppose the above per se, but I can't help but feel like changing from "community ban" to "multiple topic bans in most areas of interest to the editor" is an unnecessary complication. ] (] / ]) 01:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	*::Never mind unnecessary complication, most of the behaviors on display transfer readily to arbitrary other topics. ] (]) 05:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	*:::Well, even if a T-ban blunderbuss is only effective, say, 20% of the time, it's at least a chance. But I seem to be outvoted on offering another chance. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 10:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. Despite the fact that at times I agree with Francis in content matters, I feel his near-homicidal level of hostility and bullying, especially in cases like the interminable ceaseless interactions with and hounding of MathSci, indicate that he appears constitutionally incapable of modifying his behavior to collaborative Misplaced Pages norms, even when asked and/or warned and/or blocked repeatedly. It is unfortunate when knowledgeable and often useful editors cannot conform to community-based work, but as DGG once said to me, "People are more important than articles." Not to mention, ], and that includes social competence to be a cooperative and collaborative community member. ] (]) 01:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
	== AIV backlog ==
	Esteemed admins, your attention at ] would be received gratefully. ] (]) 12:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	:] - I'll stop by and go through it. In the future, this should probably be mentioned at ] instead of here. :-) ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 02:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	::{{re|Oshwah}} Any backlog when you posted that will have been an entirely different one to the one I posted about nearly 15 hours before. But thanks anyway! ] (]) 08:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	::{{re|Oshwah}} Having ] I don't think I'll take your advice. ] (]) 19:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::] - Oh wow... I don't blame you... :-/ ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 19:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Hi everyone,
	I'm writing to report an incident involving an IP editor. ] has repeatedly and prolifically made edits inconsistent with Misplaced Pages's policy '''against''' avoiding redirects, at ]. I have reached out to this editor twice to explain the policy to them, and they have continued to edit wikilinks to avoid redirects. They also posted on ] to let me know that they consider this policy "stupid". Not sure what the proper way to proceed is.
	Thanks,
	] (]) 16:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	:Honestly, looking at some of their edits, they are correct. Places like hatnotes and see also sections shouldn't link to redirects, as there's no reason not to use the actually bare article title in places like that. ] (]) 16:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	::I wasn’t aware of that exception, but regardless, the bulk of their edits don’t seem to fit that pattern. ] (]) 16:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	::There is at least one situation where a hatnote or ''see also'' link not only can be a redirect, but should be one: when it's an intentional link to a disambiguation page, and the disambiguation page is at the base name (]). ] (]) 17:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::Another situation is if a hatnote or see-also points at a section of an article. If a redirect is properly {{tl|anchor}}ed, it will remain correct even if the section title is changed or an article split out. It also looks tidier than ]; especially if the section title (e.g. "History") isn't obviously connected to the word or phrase being redirected.
	:::Another is if a direct link might look like a ]. <nowiki>On a DAB page, "], former name of Megacorp International" is clearer to readers than "Piffling Startup, former name of ]" - not so much there, but the natural tendency is for editors to copy the bluelink off the DAB page, resulting in puzzling-at-first-sight links like ], and hatnotes like "Piffling redirects here. For the company, see ].</nowiki>
	:::Adding back (disambiguation) qualifiers is a minor bane of my life. I do a handful every day. If it's a registered user, I can often revert with a polite explanation (or if I've reverted them before, fix manually). If it's an IP, there's no point at all in doing anything other than revert (and check their other contributions for the identical error; -17 is a standard number to look for). ] (]) 18:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	:I've really got to make a template to say this, because I feel like I have to say it all the time. 1) No they probably should not be doing that 2) The appropriate response to them doing that is ''do nothing''. It's such a minor deal that if they wants to avoid redirects, let them. This is the nonest of non-issues. We need a ] page for when people break rules, but where they're not really doing anything wrong. --]] 16:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	::Something should be done if an editor is constantly acting against a Misplaced Pages guideline adding nothing of value, cluttering watchlists and wasting other users' time. It seems it's all this editor has been doing. Perhaps they think what they're doing is valuable and helps, and it's not until this that they'll realize their time can be better spent doing something else. —'']'' (]) 16:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::If the main downside is watchlist clutter, then mass reverting just doubles the problem. Since some of the IPs edits are appropriate (e.g. ''See also'' links shouldn't be redirects), then reverting them creates both watchlist clutter and worse content. ] (]) 16:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::I just listed it as one more. I think that's actually the least of the problems. The main one in my opinion is the constant, and appropriate, reverting that has to be done. —'']'' (]) 17:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	::I'm not sure what part of what I wrote justifies the rudeness of the "Really?" edit summary to your reply, ], especially given that I closed my post with "Not sure what the proper way to proceed is". I didn't make some hysterical post calling for you to ban him—I just pointed to someone repeatedly ignoring well-established policy and asked what should be done... ] (]) 17:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	::{{ec}} If the response is "do nothing" then the guideline should just be removed as pointless. In this case, I don't think that would be a bad thing. But you can frame basically any of the MOS as "not important enough to report someone" -- except that it is important to some people, and arguments between them are why we have so many rules like this. If the rules don't do anything to stop those arguments, they don't serve any purpose. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 17:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::No, it is not pointless. We do want to advise people to not needlessly bypass redirects. The advice is good. The problem is the rush to "punish" people who are doing things we don't like. The solution to everything is not "punish them". The solution is often "just let it go". The phenomenal waste of time, and the amount of damage we do to the community and to ] editors who aren't really doing anything harmful or wrong, when our first response to doing something we don't like is "punish them!", that's a problem. It's fine to have a guideline that says "don't do this unnecessarily". But the solution to every problem is not "punish them". Sometimes, the solution is "tell them to stop, and why to stop, and then if they in good faith disagree, just move on". As noted, the amount of work to ''undo'' these edits is more disruptive than just leaving them be. --]] 17:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::I agree we shouldn't rush to punish, and I'm certainly not making a judgment that this case calls for punishment. But you scolded them for not "doing nothing", not for bringing it to ANI and trying to have them punished. I find that the "get over it, nobody cares" response to someone who took the time to learn our guidelines and try to see them followed is no less problematic and confusing than trying to enforce them to begin with. If a going against one of our guidelines is so unimportant that doing !nothing about them is a negative, then yes, the guideline is pointless and we should get rid of it or downgrade it in some way. Sorry -- pet peeve coming through. I think if we're going to socialize people to understand that guideline is second only to policy in terms of having broad consensus behind it (sufficient to be enforced unless there's a reasonable exception) then when new users who take the time to try to learn those rules (which isn't easy for everyone) turn to the "go-to-admins-for-help-with-a-problem" board, the first response from an admin shouldn't be to dismiss it entirely with instructions not to do anything. Regulars may think of this place as a dealing in punishments, but it's fundamentally a place to turn for help. At very least you can explain, for those who do not have the assumed common knowledge about what's important and what's not, why they shouldn't do anything about something that's reached guideline status here, lest they be left to assume guidelines aren't actually worth learning. (And again, I don't care about this rule at all). .... hmm I started adding a "sorry, pet peeve coming through" and it came through again. I'll shut up now. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 18:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::{{reply to|Jayron32}} Again, point me to where in my original post I wrote "punish them!" Because if memory serves, what I actually wrote was "Not sure what the proper way to proceed is". And for what it's worth, I was under the impression that this was a guideline worth observing based on my observations of the behavior of far more experienced editors like ]. Clearly I was mistaken, but I don't think that justifies snapping at me when a) I didn't call for the IP editor to be hanged, drawn, and quartered and b) very experienced editors continue to operate under the same mistaken impression. ] (]) 18:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::: No, you didn't. You asked for general advice. You then called me rude for giving you my honest opinion. I said nothing derogatory to you or about you, I said that the best way to proceed was to let the matter go. When I gave advice, which I'll note you asked for in an open ended question, your first response to me was to call me rude. I'm not sure what you were looking for, but if you didn't want me to actually answer the question you asked, you should have said so. You could have saved me the trouble of answering of you had made it clear that you didn't actually want honest opinions on how to proceed. --]] 02:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::::{{re|Jayron32}} As I said before, I called you rude for your “Really?” edit summary. I’m not sure what you possibly could’ve meant by an edit summary like that, except something to the effect of “why are you wasting my time with this?” Don’t gaslight me. ] (]) 02:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::::::I apologize for that. The edit summary was rude, and I had not recalled using it, but yes, I did that, and you are correct: I should not have. I apologize for doing so. It was rude of me, you did nothing to deserve that, and I am sorry. My apology comes with no expectation of acceptance, but I offer it nonetheless because I was wrong. --]] 11:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::::::That is quite all right. Thank you for offering your opinion and teaching me the difference between a P and a G. ] (]) 13:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::::::::Sorry, I must ask... What is meant by the second part of your sentence? I don't recognize the reference... --]] 13:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::::::::A '''P'''olicy and a '''G'''uideline. ] (]) 13:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Ah, yes. Should have been obvious. Thanks. --]] 13:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::{{ec}} See ]. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 17:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::I'm down for downgrading this from guideline status or otherwise getting rid of it FWIW. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 18:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	*This is a rule the community has set; it is inappropriate for an admin to be giving some condescending lecture about how OP is in the wrong for reporting it because it's "not a big deal". Reported user has been given a formal, final warning by an administrator, which is appropriate in this case. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	*:What a ridiculous overreaction. ] is ''also'' a rule the community has set, and this "incident" is well short of the level of intransigence that would warrant the wiping of asses with it that's happening here. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 17:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	*::It's not an overreaction in the slightest, nor is it a violation of BITE. The user received two handwritten messages about this last month which were ignored, which is blockable in its own right. IMO it was fairly lenient of Jamie to just issue yet another warning. I'm not sure why you're bending over backwards to pretend like this user is being railroaded for no reason. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	*::: Not to take any position in the dispute, but if the IP is using the mobile version they just do not see the warnings.--] (]) 17:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	*::::You still receive notifications via the mobile version, if you're editing via the ''app'' I believe you do not receive notifications (unless it's been fixed by now), but edits from the app are tagged , which we do not see here. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	*::::: Tnx, this makes sense.--] (]) 19:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	:] is certainly a rule, and you may note that I politely posted on the IP editor's talk page '''twice''', both times explaining myself, before reporting it here. The editor ignored those warnings '''twice'''. What level of intransigence do you think warrants an intervention? ] (]) 17:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	::Refusing to engage others ''is'' a blockable offense. But that should be what we focus on here. Not on the redirect issue. --]] 17:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	::{{ec}} Leaving messages for IPv6 editors is nearly guaranteed not to work, their addresses change too frequently and our software doesn't handle it; don't hold it against them. I admit I don't have a better solution for getting such an editor's attention than bringing it up here, I just don't think this was worth the time. I'll also concede that's ''my opinion''. By the way, if you want to chase the full list of this editor's bypassed redirects, you should be looking at the contribs for {{iprange|2603:7080:123F:ED8D::/64}}. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 17:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::For what it's worth, this IP editor clearly did see my messages, since they replied to them on my own talk page. ] (]) 18:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::They may have been responding to your reverts, which cited the policy in the edit summary. ] (]) 18:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::::Again, we're bending over backwards to make excuses for this editor here. They ''would have'' seen the notifications before they made their most recent edit, which was from the ''same IP address''. It would be no different than if they were editing from a static IP. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	:Ugh. My reply is probably out of place, the thread's a bit all over the place, but my 2d is {{re|Wallnot}} is right, {{re|Swarm}} is right, and {{u|Jayron32}} and {{u|PEIsquirrel}} or {{u|Ivanvector}}, or whatever he calles himself, need to stop bending over backwards to excuse disruption. ] (]) 19:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	*Any solution we have (range blocking) will cause more harm than the status quo. Accepting reality is not excusing disruption. Nothing wrong with asking the question though and I see no problem with the OP. ]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
	*:Range blocking a /64 subnet is akin to blocking a single IPv4 address; it's low-risk and in fact it's the best practice as opposed to blocking a single IPv6 address. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	*I owe {{ul|Wallnot}} an apology - I don't want anyone to be discouraged from reporting what they in good faith see as a problem to administrators on this noticeboard, and I hope that {{ul|Jayron32}} would agree with that sentiment. I disagree with some of my fellow admins on what should have happened here, but that ought not to be made into the reporter's problem. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 13:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Might want to change the visibility on these diffs as Riley is suing over these comments. , . ] (]) 06:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	:To be safe, I've RevDel'd them. ] <small>(] &#8226; ])</small> 06:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	::Thanks. ] (]) 06:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	::] - Wait, I don't understand why these revisions were rev del'd. They don't seem to meet the the criterion for ] or ]. Riley is suing over these comments? Where can I read about this? Sorry, I'm just confused here... :-) ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 02:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::{{Ping|Oshwah}} See . I only RevDel'd the edits because I see no reason to keep content that she's already in legal battle about unless we're providing reliable sources that discuss the case, instead of just parroting the allegedly defamatory statements. ] <small>(] &#8226; ])</small> 02:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::] - I appreciate the response and the clarification. :-) ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 03:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	* Meh. This looks like a ]. There is somewhere between 0% and no chance at all that Riley will prevail in a case about "mere vulgar abuse" (see ]). Accusing someone of being a Nazi and then complaining about the blowback? Bye, Felicia. That said, I can't see the revdels. But please: don't panic, Mr. Mainwaring. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 21:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	== Ruling Party BLP violations ==
	] keeps adding back information sourced to an alleged US diplomatic cable hosted on wikileaks about living persons. This started in the ] article but has moved on to the ] article which hosts a whole list of members sourced to this cable. There is ongoing discussion at ] and ] (the latter started by me) which IMO is leading towards the cable being unreliable although that is also my view so I'm obviously biased.
	I've tried to explain to Ruling party multiple times that as this concerns living persons, the information should stay out until there is consensus about the reliability of the source but they're not getting it. Note that the first two messages on their talk page were about the Sisay Leudetmounsone article, but the last message on BLPN was 8th central committee article. (The 8th central committee article became a problem when they effectively mentioned it on BLPN.)
	IMO a block is justified but I'm fine if someone thinks they can get through to them via discussion. I would suggest a partial block from both the Sisay Leudetmounsone and 8th central committee articles sufficient for now or alternatively the whole article space. It would be good if they can continue to participate in the RSN and BLPN discussions and on the article talk pages. To their credit, they do seem to have stopped in the Sisay Leudetmounsone article for now, although there are 3 diffs, it was over multiple days so they're not close to 3RR.
	-] (]) 08:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	:<p>Note in the 8th committee article, several sources have been added but they do not source the information. An open access version of the journal article is available here and it doesn't have a list of the 10th central committee let alone the 8th. While I don't speak Laotian, a machine translation of the 9th central committee list here also doesn't seem to mention anything about their membership in the 8th central committee. A source from 2002 obviously cannot tell us who was in a committee formed in 2006. </p><p>I'm also fairly confident that the Wikileaks cable is the only source anyone has found for a list of all members of the 8th central committee, since the only reason this started is because there was none but it was desired to show that Sisay Leudetmounsone joined in the 8th. Both me and ] have looked as well, and it seems clear from what Ruling party has said that they too have looked and couldn't find any source for the whole membership. Instead they keep insisting because the information from Wikileaks is supported by sourced information for the 7th and 9th central committees, it must be correct. </p><p>The information sourced to Wikileaks is IMO not particularly contentious, membership in the central committee isn't a secret. The problem is simply one of ] i.e. it's very hard to find sources talking about these older committees. But the fact remains, it does concern living persons and IMO it's not acceptable to use unacceptable sources just because we can't find an RS. As annoying as it may be, we need to keep the information out until an RS can be found. I have explained to them they could use ] and reliably sourced information about the 7th and 9th central committees to provide information about Sisay Leudetmounsone and other members of the 8th. I have also explained to them, as have others, that Laotian sources and other non English sources are fine. Indeed I even suggested looking into Chinese sources. So I'm trying to work with them to help them source the information, as are others. </p><p>] (]) 08:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)</p>
	#Very strange arguments: the 10th LPRP Central Committee is referenced by this http://kpl.gov.la/En/Page/Politic/partyx.aspx
	#you are right regarding the Creak source—its been added by mistake by me. It shouldn't have been there. I forgot to remove it or added it wrongly. Mistakes happen. That source is about the 10th LPRP Central Committee / Congress.
	# lists the members of the 9th CC.. That is.. the reelection column of the 8th CC LPRP article
	#The source from 2006 references the "old" column in the 8th Central Committee article. That is, those that were members of the 7th CC
	To be honest—block me and I'll never come back. If there is one user that should be blocked its Nil Einne. Her bad faith towards me can be seen all over this edit. If she had asked; what does the different references source I could have given her the answer.. But she has never ever asked that question. He/she has been extremely uncivil (as I have I) and has done everything in his/her power to make the discussion between me and her take this direction.
	If she had been willing to discuss, to collaborate and to find a solution I would have been willing to jump on it. But he/she never has. He/she now blames me for the discussion ending this way which is strange because I have written I will respect the outcome of any decision reached by a discussion when the discussion is finished. AS it currently stands he/she wants to block me and force her view on Misplaced Pages before the discussion even closes... --] (]) 08:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	:'''WAIT''' Can we hold off on any action? It looks like Ruling party has finally found a reliable source and while this still doesn't excuse their early BLP violations, per ] the problem may be resolved. ] (]) 09:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	:{{replyto|Ruling party}} to the contrary. I will always respect a consensus. I've said all along you can and should continue discussion even if the information is removed. Keeping the information out doesn't mean the discussion ends. It means the information stays out until we reach a consensus. You've been asking that we keep what I regard as BLP violations while discussion is ongoing which I do not consider acceptable. Ultimately the only way this problem can be resolved is via reaching consensus on the source, or finding a different source the only question is whether we keep the information out or keep it in while discussion is ongoing. No one has ever suggested a final decision is being made by keeping the information out. All that has been said is the correct interim solution, in accordance with our policies and guidelines, is the information stays out until a reliable source can be found. You say I've been unwilling to work with you. Yet I've explained to you in great detail on your talk page how you can go about finding a suitable source . I've also explained how you could potentially use ] . I've also asked you to continue discussion, and indeed even in this very thread, I said I wanted you to be able to continue discussion. I clearly never wanted to shut you out of discussing the issue. The only thing I want you to do was stop adding information when you lacked a reliable source. Since you believe the source is reliable, you are welcome to convince the community of this, although as I've said, 'there's no indication it's wrong' or even 'all indications are it's right' is not an argument well supported by either our policies or guidelines so is unlikely to be given much consideration. In any case, this discussion is probably moot. It seems you've found a suitable source. Great work! That's what we've wanted all along. It doesn't mean we were wrong to insist you find it though. Quite the contrary. We need reliable sources, if a source is not a a reliable source, it doesn't matter if we're fairly confident the information is correct it needs to stay out especially when it comes to living persons. ] (]) 09:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	*Sigh, this is a very simple dispute that would have been solved quite quickly if a couple of people had actually listened to what people were telling them about what a reliable source is and is not. Despite having it explained to them in detail, or being here long enough enough they should know better. Thucydides411 in particular at the RSN discussion linked above is either being deliberately dense or lacks the capacity to deal in anything regarding reliable sourcing. Not particularly bad in general in the wider scheme of things, but absolutely a huge issue when it comes to BLPs. There are only so many times you can explain something to someone in different ways before you have to accept they do not and are unlikely to ever understand. And more to the point, its not other editor's job to do that about our core policies.
	:The sourcing issue was there was no reliable source available for a particular piece of relatively innocuous information. It was (for the time in which the various sourcing discussions at RSN and BLPN were taking place) included on one of the stolen diplomatic cables available on wikileaks. If the cables had been released by the authors/owners as a public document, then it would be a primary source and so useable to the extent primary sources are used (still very little on BLPs). It was not however, it was leaked and hosted on Wikileaks, which in itself is not a reliable source. Where secondary sources (research papers, news orgs etc) have commented on particular cables, we can reasonably use them (the news orgs, research etc) as secondary sources. While some news orgs have said the cables as a group are legitimate, none have commented on this specific cable and we only have Wikileak to trust that this cable is part of the wider group. "Wikileaks includes this as part of the cables, reliable sources says the cables are legitimate, therefore everything in this cable is reliable". This is far too many steps to assume reliability in a normal article, but since the actual potential harm is small, if it were not about living people, it would likely just be hand-waved away. Because it does involve living people, the demands for reliable secondary sources are significantly higher and more vigourously enforced. As a content dispute this is small beans, but Ruling Party and Thucydides411 should be topic banned from BLP's as I have zero confidence they understand ] and if you dont understand that policy, you need to forcibly prevented from editing anything involving living people. ] (]) 09:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	::Topic-banning someone for discussing source reliability on a talk page and at RSN would be an extreme action, and would have a chilling effect on discussion. I haven't attempted to edit the page in question, and I wouldn't edit it without consensus. I think my position on the cables has been reasonable. The US diplomatic cable cache is known to be genuine, so the question is whether or not a list of Central Committee members drawn up by the US embassy in Vientiane can be considered a reliable source. {{tq|Thucydides411 in particular at the RSN discussion linked above is either being deliberately dense}}. From my perspective, the suggestions that the US diplomatic cable we're discussing might be a fake are far-fetched, contrary to all the reporting on the cache (which all describe it as a genuine cache of US diplomatic cables), and frankly are just fantasy. There's no actual question that this is a US diplomatic cable, but there is a question about whether or not that cable is usable as a source.
	::{{tq|"Wikileaks includes this as part of the cables, reliable sources says the cables are legitimate, therefore everything in this cable is reliable"}} I never claimed that everything in the cable or the cache of cables in reliable. I merely said, as countless reliable sources do, that the cache of cables is genuine. Whether or not the claims made in those cables are reliable is a separate question, but the cables themselves are real. I've been trying to redirect the RSN discussion towards the question that is actually interesting - whether the particular cable in question is reliable - rather than the sidetrack (and unreasonable, in my opinion) discussion about whether the cable is genuine. -] (]) 13:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	::I share Only in death’s assessment of the competence of these two editors when it comes to BLP, they either need to demonstrate that they now understand it or stay out of the space. ] (]) 15:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	* In addition to the misunderstanding of BLP policy, there is also a misunderstanding of . ] (]) 16:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	===Proposal ===
	I propose a partial block from mainspace until {{u|Ruling party}} gets it. This looks like someone who is here to ], which is fine, but they need to learn the relative weight we place on Truth&trade; and fact. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 21:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	:{{replyto|JzG}} Blocking me after the situation has been solved seems to be a good idea. No vendetta there. As I said before if you block me I'll never come back. So if you want the Misplaced Pages community to lose another contributor do that. But let bygones be bygones and, of course, if this happens again you can of course block me. This seems childish... --] (]) 08:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	::And no, I'm not here to ] anything. I'm just creating articles that are missing. I'm not trying to change anyone's view on North Korea, Laos or anything for that matter. I'm just creating articles that are obviously missing.... So if you want to block me because of that sure... I don't think many other editors will create articles om missing living people from Laos... --] (]) 08:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:{{re|JzG}} {{u|Ruling party}} has since found RS for both ] and the Central Committee articles (see ]). In doing so, he has aligned himself with the opinion of the rest of the community: WikiLeaks is replaceable by these sources and hence these sources should be the ones used. I do not think it's a matter of not getting the BLP policy. Rather, as we all know, it can be frustrating to spend inordinate amounts of time to go from what we know to be true to what is verifiable in reliable sources. That has only been made more acute by the systemic bias and language aspects of the topic, so frustration is understandable. But this is not the same as not getting or agreeing with the policy. Furthermore, it's been Ruling party's position throughout that sources that have been considered "generally" unreliable at RSN can be discussed, and there is nothing wrong with discussing their use in a specific article. Indeed, this strikes to me as a correct understanding of the BLP policy and something we do all the time. But to reiterate, we now have sources that err on the side of caution when it comes to BLP, and these sources have been uncovered through Ruling party's positive participation in the process, not because of any contempt for policy. (I am not an admin.) <span style="font-family: serif; letter-spacing: 0.1em">–&nbsp;]</span> (] ⋅ ]) 14:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	== Micga's strange moves ==
	This guy has made bold moves and been warned by a number of users. They don't have time to reply. I reverted a number of moves yesterday per a request at the ] but this user has made few other moves today. This disruption needs to be stopped. See ]. Thank you. ─ ] <sup>]</sup> 17:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	: Courtesy pings {{u|Borsoka}}, {{u|Srnec}}, who filed the request at the RMT. ─ ] <sup>]</sup> 17:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	:I've blocked ] for 36 hours. I'm hoping that this will get their attention... ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 18:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	::{{u|Oshwah}}, Thanks, this worked and they replied lol. I've posted them a note that if the behavior doesn't stop once the block ends, they might face an indefinite block for disrupting the project. Thank you ─ ] <sup>]</sup> 20:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::] - No problem! Happy to help! :-) I hope that they remain in communication and that they learn from this. :-) ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 22:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::Thank you for your actions. ] (]) 02:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	== Chicdat's involvement in admin areas ==
	{{u|Chicdat}} has been under a ] from editing admin-related areas. Chicdat made a list of the serious mistakes he made and posted it on his talkpage (archive 3). It has become increasingly clear recently that this self-imposed ban is not enough. Please see the discussion at ]. He blanket restored a number of edits made by a sockpuppet and continued to argue he was a good-faith editor in edit summaries despite obvious evidence to the contrary. In a ], he moved an article against consensus and inserted his own opinion to make a compromise. While it is clear Chicdat has good intentions, I feel that it is problematic that issues like this keep occurring. EDIT: He has also been causing problems outside of admin areas, with wikiproject templates and redirects (see below).]<sup>]</sup> 20:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	:Merits of whether Chicdat should participate in admin areas aside, Chicdat recently expanded/reiterated their voluntary restriction at ]; that scope would include the Kashmorwiki discussions. The only assertion of concern you've linked since then is the closing of a move request on an article within the 'Tropical cyclones' topic area, which Chicdat is an active editor in. I'm not sure I would class this as an 'administrative discussion', but in any case Chicdat has an active and responsive ] who they appear to be able to work with, and if you wish to discuss the merits of their participation in closing move requests I think it would've been better to discuss it with MarioJump in the first instance and tweak the restriction accordingly if necessary, rather than bring it to ANI. (I note that they were pinged , but this ANI was started 10 minutes after without waiting for response.) ] (]) 21:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	::The fact remains, mentor or not, that Chicdat continues to make poor decisions in admin areas and other regions that others have to keep cleaning up. There are more issues, such as these: (breaking over 31000 links on a widely used redirect) and - he redirected a project template and broke multiple parameters on talkpages + he left the articles uncategorized for task force level. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::Well, redirects are a very separate thing, and I wouldn't class that as an 'admin area'. I gather that you're looking to turn the voluntary restrictions into a community ban, but what scope do you think covers all the areas you're concerned about? ] (]) 23:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::Yes, it does appear the issues are more widespread than I initially thought. I personally believe this user should not be closing any formal discussions where consensus must be determined, amongst other things. They should not be moving pages or retargetting redirects without consensus. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::I don't like to be involved in administrative actions lately as it makes me stressed, but bringing Chicdat to ANI at this point of time is counterproductive as they has not, outside of ] and ] (I may have gone too far in here but this is to prevent administrative involvement urges), done anything that can be considered administrative. Chicdat is currently not competent enough for administrative decisions, but as long as I can be active (not busy) and keep an eye on him, they will not disrupt anything and hopefully improve. The worst case scenario for Chicdat is probably a TBAN block which consists of indefinite partial block on Misplaced Pages:, Misplaced Pages talk: and even Talk: spaces but not a community ban, which I consider to be a reach honestly. ''']]]''' 03:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::I know it. One day I will get indefinitely blocked. The day will come. The block button will be pressed. There will be nothing I can do. The editors around me have repeatedly tried to delay that day, and they have largely been successful, but the day is quickly coming. I will end up here again... and again, and again, and again. One day, the majority of editors will vote to block me. I get onto Misplaced Pages. I begin an editing session. And I get that big ugly message saying I am unable to edit Misplaced Pages. So to further delay the fateful day, I have just added another thing to my ban. Also: '''Please don't partially block me from Misplaced Pages:, Misplaced Pages talk:, and Talk:. Then I would have no venue for discussion between editors.''' ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 10:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::::{{ping|Chicdat}} Are you aware of ]? You may want to re-think . ] (]) 11:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::::{{done|Undone.}} ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 13:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::::::I personally think that this is starting to become a bit of a witchhunt, yes {{ping|Chicdat}} made a mistake by closing the discussion on Bawbag and implementing a supervote. However, I don't think it rises to the level of shipping him off to WP:ANI and nor should every time he be shipped here every time he makes a major mistake. I have set up a challenge on ] specifically with him and others in mind and would like to see how he does with it.] (]) 15:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::::{{u|Chicdat}}, if you are seriously concerned that continuing to edit will currently lead to a block, then a possible solution can be stopping to edit for a while, until the situation has changed. Whatever it is. For many editors, their current age is such a temporary problem. If it's more permanent, this approach doesn't work. The only person who can assess and decide in this situation is you, yourself. ] (]) 16:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::::{{re|ToBeFree}} Many editors (particularly the ones I have been in disputes with) have said that I am {{tq|too young to edit Misplaced Pages.}} I disagree. Why, a baby could edit Misplaced Pages if he or she was constructive here! And in response to the other part of your comment, I just – feel unable to not edit Misplaced Pages. I think thousands of other editors think so too. So instead I will follow other editors' suggestions, add Noah's list to my restrictions, and hopefully avoid getting blocked. ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 10:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::::::{{u|Chicdat}}, I have no idea how old you are, and I don't want to know. I'd just like to note that if multiple editors have expressed "too young" concerns and if you are actually young, then they may be right. And yes, a baby could edit Misplaced Pages if they were constructive here. The probability of such constructiveness is correlated with age, and a lack of constructiveness combined with a low age simply "fits the image". So I uphold my advice: Consider stopping to run against a wall. ] (]) 11:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::::::<small>Those colons!</small> I will be very, very, very cautious in the Misplaced Pages: namespace from now on. I will limit my volume of bold edits. I will listen to other editors. I will remain in good standing. I will respect my ban. I will continue to edit Misplaced Pages. ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 11:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	I personally think it would be helpful to Chicdat for the purpose of keeping himself out of further trouble, to teach him so he learns, and to prevent future harm to WP to institute some kind of restrictions (either formal or informal in witness of everyone here):
	#Chicdat should test any edits to template space pages in test cases to see if any problems occur prior to implementing them.
	#Chicdat should not move any mainspace pages and their talk and subpages without consensus.
	#Chicdat should not retarget redirects without consensus.
	#Chicdat should not determine the consensus in any discussions for a period of 3 months while he works with his mentor to go over how to determine consensus and practices doing so.
	#Chicdat should not be involved with sockpuppetry work, except in the case of reverting vandalism caused by sockpuppets. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::'''Comment.''' These sound like reasonable restrictions for anyone who already recognises that they are still learning. There are plenty of other constructive editing tasks that ] is welcome to carry out. ] (]) 10:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::Correct. For instance, nobody has ever given me a warning for adding short descriptions, so I still use Shortdesc helper. ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 11:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:These seem very reasonable, and I would support them as an informal restriction that can be lifted when Chicdat's mentor feels like he no longer needs them. ( I don't think we are quite to the point of an appeal needing to go to AN.) ] (]) 23:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	== IPs changing "British-American" to "British" ==
	This may ring bells. I have noticed a couple of IPs changing "British-American" to "British". {{IPlinks|81.153.77.170}}, {{IPlinks|86.28.105.236}}, {{IPlinks|2A02:C7F:D436:EA00:7580:29B3:3712:3B16}}. Does anyone remember this sort of thing? ] (]) 22:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
	:We had a series of sockpuppets and an IP busily changing "British" to "English" yesterday - this seems like a mirror image. Doesn't seem like the same person. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 01:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	::I love the fact that they insist that gaining another citizenship doesn't change your nationality. Apparently being British and taking American citizenship doesn't make you American, but being American and taking British citizenship does make you British. ] ] 02:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::Hint to the clueless: ] is now an American! ] ] 05:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	== Abusive behaviour by IP editor 24.196.94.122 ==
	The IP editor at 24.196.94.122 has made a contribution to the talk page of ] which involves multiple personal attacks. ] (]) 05:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	:{{u|Bravetheif}} The IP has been warned. If the behavior continues, please report it to ]. ] (]) 10:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	:<small>'''''Moved from AN. ] (]) 12:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)'''''</small>
	Hello there, this issue involves more than one problem so I've brought it up here. This mainly concerns ] and ] who have decided themselves what must be correct, but other users are causing disruption as well. In many conflicts, we have claims from two sides about death tolls. But here in this case neither side is contradicting each other. Of course that doesn't mean both are true.
	But Gianluigi is only taking his own conjectures made in conjunction with the Palestinian statements which are being reported as true. For example when earlier Palestinian health officials stated that 30 Palestinians had been killed . But they never claimed they were all civilians. Gianluigi02 however inserted his own claims that 26 civilians had been killed , basing his claim Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad deaths of 1 commander and 3 commanders respectively so far
	One thing that should be noted that the Palestinian groups have only confirmed prominent deaths ie commanders, they haven't confirmed how many militants or their members have been killed in total. But despite this Gianluigi02 continues to regard that only 4 (now 5 after Israel said it killed another commander) were killed.
	Despite me explaining it to him many times that he's solely relying on Palestinian claims of casualties himself, he claimed again only 4 militants died and without proof claimed identity of 15 dead people (excluding 5 militants, 10 children and a woman confirmed dead) is unknown so far and they are suspected to be civilians . I couldn't find any source for his claim, and it's different than his earlier claim of 26 civilians being dead.
	I later removed the commanders who have been confirmed as dead from the overall toll so people did not confuse it. Then I added that Israel claimed it had killed 18 militants
	But Gianluigi took to reverting me and baselessly claimed that the Israeli source I used (Times of Israel) was false, even though it said it was claim of Israel that 18 militants were killed . Without presenting one thing to contradict it. He also claimed that the death toll of Gazans provided by Palestinian sources is also confirmed by Israelis . I have however not found the IDF or Israeli government saying so.
	There have been other user repeating similar claims against Israeli sources like ], to whom I pointed out that the number of dead Gazans was only based on Palestinian/Gazan health ministry claims and not independent claims . In response he said he has nothing to add beyond what he said .
	By that I assume I he meant that I should add contradictory claims or the death toll being from the Palestinian health ministry . Thing is I pointed out earlier to him that Palestinians didn't contradict Israel's toll (neither Israel has contradicted Palestinians).
	Also I had pointed out that regarding one side's claims as true and the others as false is incorrect way to do things, especially since Gianluigi is himself deciding how many civilians died using only the number of prominent militant commanders confirmed to be killed .
	Later he got in a long-winded argument with others about Israeli sources like Times of Israel and Jerusalem Post being false . Per his claim Times of Israel was making false reports and did not attribute the number of dead Palestinian militants to IsGov. In addition, he says Jerusalem Post was paid by IsGov to smear BDS . This was said by him after I pointed out to another using disputing the number of Israeli injuries, that you have to prove a website deliberately reporting false news to prove it's unreliable, not it just being wrong sometimes .
	Selfstudier a ] article claiming that Israeli government had funded Jerusalem Post's supplement against BDS discreetly, which it claims was revealed a freedom of information request. However as AlexEng pointed out the relationship between JPost's supplement and the State of Israel Ministry of Strategic Affairs and Public Diplomacy was never hidden . Even in the supplement you can see the logo of the ministry on the last page and the ministry's director-general delivering its introduction . Regardless of that it isn't the only independent newspaper to have a government-funded report once-in-a-while.
	Even if we disregard JPost as unreliable, Selfstudier still ridiculously claimed that Times of Israel had made a false claim and didn't attribute the number of dead Palestinian militants in its blog to Israeli government and it had been removed from the article by an editor (which was Gianluigi02 of course) multiple times, in order to discredit the website: , , , .
	However the source article he refers to quite clearly does attribute the number of dead militants to Israeli government : {{tq|Israel says it has killed at least 18 terrorists.}}. Me and AlexEng pointed this out clearly to him even with the direct statement , .
	After this however he ridiculously started claiming that just it didn't attribute it because it said "Israel" and since the editor (Dianluigi) who removed it said it was false he agrees with him . After I pointed out that one editor calling it false is not evidence and saying "Israel says it has killed at least 18 terrorists" is attribution just like "India said x number of people died", he took to calling IDF as disinformatory and stated he believes it is likely ToI's source, but it didn't attribute them directly . Thing is no one said they have to specify directly who was it from. In addition IDF as we know is the military arm of the IsGov, and he was also talking about there being no attribution to IsGov.
	Now regardless of what you think of IDF's reliability, Palestinian sources can't be blindly relied blindly on either. I did say this clearly earlier how GianLuigi02 is using them openly as factual and was using his own conjecture as to what they meant, but Selfstudier has no issue with it .
	I'm not going to describe my whole talk with him since it's long but you can see it for yourself on the talk page.
	I believe these two users need to be temporarily banned from the topic or have it at least told to him not to be biased towards any source, plus not decide on his own what should be correct. The others there probably need a warning too. The appropriate way to be regard either both as reliable or none as reliable and label which claim is Palestinian or Israeli.
	While I don't like to point fingers, it seems clear that there's anti-Israel bias going on, where Palestinian claims are believed and Israeli claims aren't. These two actually aren't the only ones so I think the article needs to be monitored. ] (]) 11:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	:{{re|LéKashmiriSocialiste}} please note that as noted at the top of this page you '''must''' notify involved users if you start a discussion about them. I have notified Gianluigi02 and Selfstudier of this discussion. ''-- ] ] <sup>|</sup> ]'' 12:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::I forgot about the notifying part. Sorry it slipped my mind and I was busy in something else. ] (]) 12:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	::(1) I put a Arab-Israeli DS notice on LKS's talk page; the other mentioned editors have already been notified.
	::(2) LKS has a very interesting talk page, worth reading.
	::(3) This appears to be primarily a content dispute with a disagreement about the reliability of sources.
	::(4) The question of source reliability should be handled at the ]; off hand, I can't see the editors there deciding that ''The Times of Israel'', ''Jerusalem Post'' '''''or''''' Al Jazeera is unreliable.
	::(5) Otherwise, the right place for settling the content dispute is on the article talk page, not here.
	::(6) It seems unlikely that an admin telling a possibly biased editor "Don't be biased" is going to have any positive effect, and also unlikely that anyone is going to be topic banned on the basis of this report, even if everything in it is perfectly accurate and not in itself biased.
	::] (]) 12:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::(7) This should be at ANI, not here. ] (]) 12:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::(8) So I moved it. ] (]) 12:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::: To be honest, I think it should be at ]. I do not think we can take any action using the current format. Unless somebody wants to launch an investigation of course.--] (]) 13:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	I never said that the Times of Israel is spreading fake news. I said however that the IDF is claiming the death of 15 Hamas and PIJ members without proving it. There are no proofs of that. And no, I'm not saying that is false, it can be true that 15 Hamas members are killed by the strikes. However we need proofs, not claims without evidences. For this reason, I added just the death toll (which is at 53 dead now), without specifying how many were civilians and how many were militants. Or at least, now we are specifying those confirmed to be civilians (the 14 children, the three women, the husband of one of the women, five farmers and other civilians killed in cars) and those confirmed to be militants (3 PIJ and 2 Hamas commanders). The identity of the rest of the victims is unknown so far. So we should just update the death toll without specifying the identity until they are proven. ] (]) 13:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	*Another argument for waiting on events to actually have time to be investigated and reviewed before rushing a half-baked article into main space. ]] 13:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	::Actually it's not so simple Tide. Let me quote exactly what you said Gianluigi when you removed that Times of Israel source: "Also, I'm removing that false Israeli source". Anyone can see exactly what you meant. Whether the identity of others is known or not, I put 18 militants dead specifically as Israeli claim . This presents it in a neutral fashion and claims by both sides are allowed, so I don't get why you removed it.
	::This is not content dispute as you clearly have a problem with Israeli claims. Your number of dead (53) is directly sourced from Gaza health ministry : {{tq|Gaza’s ministry of health said the overall death toll since the latest offensive began stood at 53, including 14 children. More than 300 others have been wounded.}}
	::So is Gaza health ministry correct for you but Israel is not? Also you have actually reverted more than once on that article in 24 hours. Compare and , and , and , and . Yes partial reverts also count.
	::Admins please notice this guy is point blank breaking sanctions by reverting to previous versions. He's also cherry-picking which side to use, siding with Gazans over Israelis when we should use both but cautiously. I hope you can punish him now. He has clearly violated the sanctions and rules despite being aware. ] (]) 14:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	::But anyway let's believe your claim that you meant IDF and not Times of Israel. Why does IDF need to prove how many it killed? And how exactly will it prove? Do you expect it to release a list of names? Also why is that you're trusting Gaza ministry of health but not the IDF? You yourself said that the identities of many dead Gazans among the 53 is not known. They haven't clarified who they are. But how do you know they are speaking the truth when they haven't provided a list of everyone's names? This is clear open bias. ] (]) 14:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::I do not understand what you aim to achieve with this, you are arguing about a source, so this seems like a discussion for ]. Perhaps make a post there and consensus will agree on whether the sources are reliable or not? Or are you arguing for sanctions because of a content dispute? ] (]) 18:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::I do not think any of the sources are unreliable. I'm ready to use all sides but mark them as Israeli or Palestine in case they are Israeli or Palestinian government claims. Gianluigi however regards Palestinian claims as definitely true. ] (]) 06:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	Could something please be done about {{u|Gianluigi02}}? He is now attacking other editors by calling their edits "false informations" , and has now (once again) removed neutral sources (that were discussed on the article's talk page ) in order to replace them with Al Jazeera , without giving any valid reason to do so. ] (]) 00:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:Gianluigi is breaking rules, attacking edits of others, cherry-picking his own sources, while engaging in a clear edit-war. Can something be done or are we be to held hostage to what he wants? ] (]) 06:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	::What are you talking about? That user removed the updated death toll of 65, which was confirmed by multiple sources. He said that between 30 and 50 people died, which was not true. ] (]) , 14 May 2021
	:::That's not what your edit had to do with . It was about the number of children killed, changing it from 14 to 16. Another statement you changed it from "35 to 65" to 67 Palestinians killed, that statement wasn't added by JBchrch. You're referring to a previous edit where you changed the Palestinian death to 67, after JBchrch changed death toll from 65 to 53 and of children from 16 to 14, removed Al Jazeera as source because he thinks it's unreliable?
	:::However, he did clearly cite neutral sources for his edit. This 53 death toll was reported by other sources too and dead children as 14 . I'm sure you were aware that was the death toll at one point. A few other sources did refer to the death toll as 65 and dead childdren to 16 , but it's much more likely he missed it and didn't check up the latest news. So you trying to claim you called a person who at most committed a mistake or disputing the number of dead children (which it was actually about) as "false" is a bad-faith behaviour. Why are you attacking people and their edits? ] (]) 09:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	Is this Misplaced Pages not extremely suspect? The content's framing and the mono-centric editorial. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Yes it does come off as slanted towards one side given how Israeli casualties are far more focused upon, even if that may not be the intention. It would need re-editing plus more sourcing for its claims. ] (]) 14:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	'''Uninvolved non-admin''' {{u|LéKashmiriSocialiste}}, first, please be more concise. Second, please be more precise. Instead of long and vague arguments, post diffs showing policy violations. In the absence of such different, I doubt any admin will want to take any action. ] (]) 14:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:{{u|Jeppiz}} I've tried to be as concise while explaining properly. Second I did show diffs, many of them. So I don't know what you're referring to. ] (]) 17:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	::Yes, at that time it was a false information. At that time, 67 Palestinians were killed, and it was confirmed by multiple sources which I added. Those sources were removed by users who then added a lower death toll, which was not true at that time. So, I'm not in the wrong position. I was adding the correct toll with sources. Then, you are saying that I'm saying that other users are intentionally spreading false news. I never said that, I just said that those informations were false, meaning that they were wrong.Then you are saying that those users didn't saw the updated sources. However I added them and were removed. ] (]) , 14 May 2021
	:::Out-of-date information is not "false" information because it was made using reliable sources. You used something that is often seen as an unreliable source in the context of the Pslestinian-Israeli conflict (Al Jazeera). And that said false is incendiary since it can imply deceivement. Btw you don't know how many Palestinians were killed because it could be higher than what was reported. So if you fail to use reliable sources, that's on you. ] (]) 17:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	'''Comment''' I don't want to cause offense but I suggest that this be hashed out on the talk page in the usual way. All of the above has been overtaken by events.] (]) 18:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:I tried hashing it out with you, but the moment you started misleading was when I shouldn't have proceeded more. ] (]) 21:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::You mentioned my name here in your original post. I am still waiting to hear details of any legitimate complaint. Do you have one? If so, please provide appropriate diffs. ] (]) 12:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	::I don't know what are you talking about. The number of Palestinians can be higher, or maybe not. I add what is reported by realiable sources, which I added, not only with Al Jazeera source (which is a realiable source despite you are saying it's not), but I added BBC sources too. Then, when I said 'false, I didn't mean that the source were, but that number was not the real numbee at THAT time. The real death toll was of 65 dead and I added it with multiple sources which were removed for no reason. ] (]) , 14 May 2021
	:::Not reliable sources. You are reporting what is said by Gaza ministry of health. So you don't know what is correct and yet you claim the other is "false" because they merely read out-of-date information. You know the reason your edit was removed, Al Jazeera is not a reliable source for JBChrch . What you're doing is bad faith. ] (]) 21:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	I'm tired of repeating the same things over and over. You accused me of imposing my opinion, but you are the one who's imposing. You say that al jazeera is not a realiable source, while it is realiable. You can say that but I can't say that Times of Israel is not realiable. So what are you talking about exactly? And again, I also added the BBC source. That is not a realiable source too? You are the one who is saying what is realiable and what is not. Then, you are saying that the Gaza ministry of health is not a realiable source. He is the ministry of health of his country, who has those informations also by hospitals and doctors, so is a realiable source. While when I said that the IDF was not reporting any evidence about the toll of the militants killed (which doesen't mean that they were lying or that it was false, but that there were no confirmed evidences), you accused me. And I am the one who is imposing? Am I taking position? Probably, but you are taking position too. I wasted too much time repeating this over and over. ] (])
	== User:43.247.159.146 ==
	I have warned {{IPVandal|43.247.159.146}} sufficiently regarding their odd editing behavior of incorrectly adding spaces before commas. I already had to go through some of the edits and fix all the issues. But, this is an ongoing problem, and seems any type of warnings on their talk pages does no good. Their talk page is full of warnings, with no response from this user, and they've already been blocked for disruptive behavior. They made further edits after my last warning (level 4) (. Essentially, all their edits have to be fixed up by users and they have made no attempt to fix (this very simple) issue. They also consistently add unsourced information to articles by adding specific dates in regards to fictional content, another issue this user has been warned for multiple times going back almost a year. ] (]) 17:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	== User:Man of failures ==
	{{User|Man of failures}}
	Man of failures, a 3 month old user with less than 25 edits is removing content which seems like they don't like with misleading edit summaries mostly to remove content or to add ].
	* Uses the edit summary {{tq|Removed some biases in writing}} while they added more WP:OR.
	* Uses the edit summary {{tq|Removed some bias in the write-up as only the reserved category students and doctors were involved.}} while they add more WP:OR.
	* Removes sourced content in ] citing some IP address to be "invalid ". {{tq|Invalid reference (Invalid IP Id)}}, {{tq|Invalid IP address of citation}}, {{tq|Invalid IP address (Invalid citation)}}. They had removed a lot of content in the article with similar "invalid IP" edit summaries.
	* Removed content backed by a reliable source citing {{tq|Write-up and citation don't match}} in ] , again removes it with an edit summary blaming the reference number as wrong and asks me to show them where the content is a one-page online article {{tq|Show me where this is present in the source. Additionally the reference no is wrong.}} , again removes it with an edit summary {{tq|I can't find it}} while it is ].
	In my opinion, the user is here to remove content which they ] with ] and is clearly ] to to build an encyclopedia. ] 18:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	== ] ]: edit warring/intentionally disruptive edits ==
	] made several disuptive edits in the past few days. He was blocked for 36 hours for edit warring, but has returned and claimed/admitted to have purposely broken Misplaced Pages policies to make a scene, with the intention of pushing a POV (stating that it was "worth it").
	First he edit warred, adding disputed material (then under discussion at ]) at/to the ], ], ], and ] pages while ignoring edit summaries and refusing to discuss. Initially, the first page (Eran Elhaik), SteveBenassi added material, from a source which I believed ]. I tried to explain my reasoning in edit summaries, but he repeatedly reverted me seemingly without engaging with my explanations (after I had asked that he discuss and not edit war and announced that I would start a discussion ]). I then started a Talk discussion pinging him hoping to reach a resolution. He then reverted again. Though another user engaged me in the Talk page, SteveBenassi never did (the issue then went to be discussed at RSN, with me and several others participating, where it continues). He then added the disputed material to another page (]), without ever having engaged in the discussion regarding it (either on the article Talk page or at RSN). I reverted him once there explaining that it was disputed and under discussion and asked him again (as on the other page) to discuss and not edit war. He later added the same disputed material to two other pages,
	] and ] (along with other somewhat controversial material, to the leads), and misleadingly marked those additions on both pages as ("m") for "minor". I reverted those edits (once on each page, again with explanations), he continued to persistently ignore edit summaries and requests/invitations to discuss, despite being asked and warned more than once.
	He then continued to edit war even more at ] and was reverted and reported by ] at the edit warring noticeboard (I had made an earlier report here before that). He was blocked for 36 hours.
	After SteveVenassi's temporary block, I thought my earlier ANI report was no longer necessary, and said as much. But ] informed me that SteveBenassi, far from having erred from an innocent ignorance of Misplaced Pages's policies, as he claimed at ] (here ]), had, by his own admission elewhere, used edit warring and refusal to discuss as a calculated tactic to push an agenda (by purposely "making a scene"). On his own Talk page, SteveBenassi admitted:
	{{tq|"I intentionally made a scene to draw attention to the Ostrer issue, I knew I would be put in wiki-Jail for a day or two, I thought it was worth it, and it worked, Huldra came to the rescue."}} ]
	That was in direct contradiction to another claim he made around the same time that his policy violations had been the of honest unfamiliarity (being "a newbie" and "not knowing how to use Misplaced Pages") (here again, as linked above ]), which since he had been repeatedly warned while at that time, seemed unlikely, and given his admission quoted/linked above, now seems less than dishonest.
	This is troubling and seems to show that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. (knowingly breaking policy because the punishments were "worth it"). This seems to show that he entered Misplaced Pages (or at least that section of it) with a battleground mentality, a lack of good faith, and a ] orientation.
	I initially filed a report here (] In response to the edit warring. Due to this new information, I am filing this new report.
	Any attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. ] (]) 19:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	:And now he has gone right back to re-adding the same edit with the same summary . Hopefully an admin takes a look at this soon as there is no sign that he will stop the tendentious editing. ] (]) 17:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	::Pinging {{reply to|Ohnoitsjamie}}, the admin who issued the block, they should probably be informed. ] (]) 17:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::{{Ping|User:NonReproBlue}} and {{ping|User:Ohnoitsjamie}}, I noticed here ], though SteveBenassi claims he will no longer edit (because he accomplished what he wanted by "making a scene"). But also again states his ]/partisan/] intentions, when he says, speaking of his earlier edit warring, that "I did this for you and Elhaik" (Elhaik being a highly controversial researcher). It is concerning. Not surprisingly he is edit warring again. ] (]) 19:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	== CSD Abuse ==
	{{moved from|]|2=] (]) 20:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)}}
	] has been arbitrarily tagging pages for CSD. While some of these have been helpful, he has been warned twice about false tags and continues to tag pages that blatantly meet ]. Some of these have been good faith, and I don't believe that a total ban is necessary. Is there a way to limit tagging abilities? Thanks in advance! ]] 19:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	:Waiting for a statement from {{u|DJRSD}}. ] (]) 20:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	:] - The only way to "limit" one's ability to tag a page for ] would be to block them. This obviously isn't necessary. I think the best solution here would be to ask that they review and understand what constitutes ], and ask that they take more care and time to review articles before they tag them for ]. :-) ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 23:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
	::Strictly speaking yes, but there are people on ] for CSD-related issues. (No opinion yet on the merits of the individual case.) ]] 01:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::] - Oh, sure there are, but I don't think this situation merits a ban yet. Not by far. I think as a first step, we need to reach out to the user and educate them and ask them to review ] and give the user time to improve before we resort to any further action. :-) ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 02:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:Hi Everyone, and thank you ] for notifying me. I didn't do any CSD tagging arbitrarily. Each speedy is under Wiki guidelines. If i am wrong anywhere, kindly accept my apologies in advance. If you see my previous CSD that were also not wrong, though one user notify me for those CSD tag. ] (]) 05:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	::Thanks for your response {{ping|DJRSD}}. We appreciate that you are acting in good faith here, but from what I see you are making mistakes at ''far too'' great a rate in terms of inappropriate tagging of articles. My suggestion is to slow down, listen to experienced editors who have been here much longer and know the standards, and try to learn to be better. Perfection is not required, but improvement is. While I don't think you need to be sanctions ''as yet'', continued problems could lead to something like a ban on tagging articles for deletion. Please take the advice of others on board, and we're looking forward to your improvement in this area. --]] 17:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::Thank You ], I will follow your advice. ] (]) 01:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	== Welshale and Srodgers1701 ==
	{{Userlinks|Welshale}}<br/>
	{{Userlinks|Srodgers1701}}
	I'd take this to ] but it's urgent and the socking is so obvious that ANI seemed a better fit. See ] where Welshale admits to being Srodgers. This traces to a content dispute at ], in which I removed poorly sourced biographical info per ]. Welshale/Srodgers1701 is now coming after me in unrelated articles (see ]). ] (]) (]) 03:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:{{unrelated}} as far as checkuser evidence goes, but I still blocked the user per ]. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 04:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	== Personal attacks and incivility by ] ==
	* : {{red|"oxbridge dumbasses can't even quote people properly"}}
	* : {{red|"wikipedia dumbasses can't even link things properly"}}
	* : {{red|"‎i know you've based your entire wikipedia career around sucking this guy's cock like an industrial pressure pump ..."}}
	Reported by ] (]) 12:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:I've left a message with the user asking them to stop. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 17:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:: Looking at their username, I would say a "visit" to ] is in order. ] (]) 17:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::No need for a visit - I've blocked them. If someone wants to watch their userpage for responses to this thread that can be copied here, that would be great. ] (]) 17:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	I just got pinged there with : {{red|"... you ran to the mods like a pussy, huh. also, if you'd have any reading comprehension, you'd realize the thing about wikipedia dumbasses was a self-effacing dig at a mistake of my own, you know, the type of thing you tried to pull off and failed miserably at, like a fucking, well, dumbass."}} ] (]) 00:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:I removed talkpage access. ] (]) 02:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	== Legal threat ==
	{{Userlinks|Maje020}}
	I said user's edits as disruptive and warned them. They that the info was based on the Hungarian Misplaced Pages page, so linked them to the BLP policy and ], and reverted their reinstatement for BLP concerns. They undid me and made a somewhat vague threat , saying that they are considering reporting me. That's a clear NLT vio I think. '']]'' 12:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:Thanks, blocked. Any admin may lift the block once they demonstrate an understanding of ] and retract the threats. --] (]) 12:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	::Thanks a lot! '']]'' 12:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:{{tq|"He only speakes Hungarian."}} – What a weird thing to say about a living person in their biography. I will remove that and start a new discussion at ]. ] (]) 14:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:The statement about the language skills that {{u|JavaHurricane}} reinstated (which Maje020 tried to remove) actually was sourced to obviously biased sources. Maje020 was right to remove the statement and JavaHurricane was wrong to reinstate it. I think it's a heated topic and Maje020 got frustrated, which I can understand. {{ping|Yamla}} Maje020 said "you can end up on court to publish lies" (in Hungary, who knows?) and after their first signature (two replies in one edit) "I don't stop delete that lie and I am busy to find the possibility to report you for spreading liese". IMHO we should ] and assume Maje020 wanted to report the issue to the admins. Despite this, Maje020 should probably ] as they appear to be maybe a bit too passionate about this topic. — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> (] or ping me) 04:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:], Maje020 really has to retract ''that'' before they can be unblocked. — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> (] or ping me) 04:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	== ] is malfunctioning ==
	Made edit on very large page (List of Top Level Domains) to make tables collapsible, but cluebot reverted it immediately. Some tables were set to auto collapse, however these were only tables. Also forgot to mark as minor edit since it was a formatting issue, but it still got reverted. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:{{ping|UppercutPawnch}} Is this a systematic problem? If it is, please list the diffs. Otherwise, this is just a plain old false positive. It happens. ] (]) 12:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	::{{ping|pandakekok9}} Yeah it's just a false positive. Didn't read the cluebot message I got on my user page all the way. Sorry, but thanks for reverting for me. ] (]) 12:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	== 46.97.170.0/24 ==
	Individual IPs:
	* {{userlinks|46.97.170.78}}
	* {{userlinks|46.97.170.112}}
	* {{userlinks|46.97.170.19}}
	* {{userlinks|46.97.170.253}}
	Range:
	* {{userlinks|46.97.170.0/24}}
	* Previous ANI report: ]
	* BLPN Discussion: ]
	User appears to be here for the sole purpose of bludgeoning, picking fights and pushing a particular POV.
	* "it is a well known fact that Hungary is, and to some degree always has been a hotbed of right wing populism and nationalist sentiments"
	* "There is no "left" on wikipedia. But if right wingers want to win more edit wars, they should care more about objective facts."
	* "look at the kind of people who make it their business to regugularly defend him. You will notice that all of them are either republican pundits, or alt-right/alt-lite influencers. "
	* "This is what I meant when I said that Babylon Bee is no different from any other right wing disinfo site. Fox, OAN, Newsmax, Bounding into Comics, you name it, they're all the same."
	* "Evidence? You mean aside from every single breadtuber that ever analyzed his ideologies in depth, and aside from the fact that all of Jordan Peterson's fans on youtube are members of or associated with the alt right? I souldn't need to prove what's common knowledge and easily verifyable."
	* "I called Ben Shapiro a far right grifter, because that is what he is."
	* "Also, no mention that her holocaust comments were interpreted as comparing American conservatives to Jews in Nazi Germany"
	* "The point is that putting Peterson's words into the mouth of a skull faced nazi character makes them sound like a villain monologue. But Peterson apologists are too devoid of self awareness to realize that."
	* "We're talking about a newspaper that FIRED a long time employee because he wasn't a trump bootlicker, and prohibited a reporter from covering the George Floyd protests on basis of skin color. I'd be very disappointed if I looked at Misplaced Pages's list of reliable sources and learned that it wasn't blacklisted like Breitbart, the Daily Wire or other right wing trumpist rags." (He is talking about the '']'')
	* "I only brought up Trump because like Peterson, he's a symptom of the same cancer that's destroying modern society. Yes, one had actual political power, and nearly destroyed the country. But people like Peterson are part of the reason there are people dumb enough to actually vote for trump. Their carreer's are uncomparable, but they represent the same toxic far right ideology."
	* "The first paragraph of the section is nothing but right wing pundits flapping their mouths and spouting right wing punditry, and should be deleted entirely."
	Also:
	* Deleting other user's talk page comments. (The deleted comment was right-wing stupidity, but no worse than what 46.97.170.0/24 regularly posts.)
	* Removing sources because "they are agenda driven"
	--] (]) 15:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	::Two things before I address the broader issue: Firstly, my IP cnages periodically and unpredictably, and it's entirely outside my control, so there's no point leaving a notification on one I'm no longer using - it's not likely I will be assigned that particular IP again. Second, I find the last two claims to be unfair. The talk page in question has had several similar comments removed by other users, on the grounds that they are off topic and have nothing to do with the subject. I apologize if I got the wrong impression that this is standard practice. Regarding the sources I removed from ], other contributors CONFIRMED that I had the right idea. You can read it on the talk page.
	::The vast majority of problem lines, quite honestly confuse me. I tried to avoid picking fights ever since last year's incidents. I'd be the first to admit fault if it turns out I wasn't always entirely successful in that regard, but many of my lines presented here don't seem to make sense. My comment on the Gina Carano talk page, regarding her holocaust comments expecially strikes me as out of place, because it's just a near word for word reference to content from the article itself. Some of the stronger opinions are no worse than what registered contributors, including some admins have said. I've read essays on wikipedia that use stronger language. The last ANI report was most certainly justified, seeing as I made baseless accusations of vandalism, and made some rather inappropriate comments. The only thing presented here that comes anywhere near that, when looket at in context, appears to be my comments on the Post-Gazette, which, looking back, definitely feels like something I should not have said. Maybe the trump comment too - that's was a pointless tangent, and the Ben Shapiro one is definitely a BLP violation. I'm going to redact these immediately. There's also that long off-topic argument on Jordan Peterson's talk page, that carried on far too long, but I was not the sole responsible party there, and it was not my intention to go off topic.
	::That's three comments, that are inappropriate, maybe two where I used harsher language than I should have, and one that was probably put here by mistake, because it's a sentence fragment from the article - not my words. I'm not seeing the problem with the rest, however. I wasn't trying to pick fights. I received two warnings in april which I tried to discuss and clarify, but unfortunately I didn't get any responses. Still, it is true that wikipedia isn't a forum, and some of the discussions I involved myself in, did unfortunately go in that direction, which was not my intent. ] (]) 16:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::{{ec}} In my opinion, even if you are unfailingly polite towards other users, expressing your POV with phrases like "far right grifter", "trump bootlicker", "the same cancer that's destroying modern society" and "nearly destroyed the country" shows me that you are more interested in promoting your political ideology than in building an encyclopedia. I am actually sympathetic because I shore many of your opinions about certain recent politicians, but I mostly keep those opinions to myself because they are out of place here.
	:::The other problem I see is ]ING. You don't just express your political opinions. You '''keep''' expressing your political opinions again and again even when it has become clear that the consensus is against you. What I am ''not'' seeing is any hint of compromise or cooperation.
	:::In my opinion, you should be topic banned from anything related post-1992 politics of the United States, broadly construed. --] (]) 17:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::The unregistered editor wrote: "Firstly, my IP cnages periodically and unpredictably, and it's entirely outside my control". No. That is under your control, in that you can register an account. It is only outside your control if you insist on not registering. ] (]) 20:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	::{{tq|Not to mention one of the three users who supported your version felt the need to write that "Carano did not tweet anti-Semitism and transphobia" so no prizes for guessing what their agenda here is.}}
	::{{tq|Let us be real here. Gina Carano is a nobody. Her becoming an alt-right sweetheart for stirring the pot with her idiotic social media posts and doubling down when politely asked to stop is the only reason people even know she exists. Before that she was a failed martial artist who got massively owned in her first real match, and an untalented d-list actress playing silent bit roles where she was cast purely for her size and frame.}}
	:: ]
	::I've only had extensive experience with this editor on the ] article, and in general it hasn't been very pleasant. They have no issue with making BLP violating comments on the talk page, or accusing editors of having an agenda. The two quotes above give, I think, a reasonable distillation of what discussions with them are like. ] (]) 17:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:I've been watching this IP editor for a month or so (since they joined the Peterson article). I raised a concern with their talk page comments on their talk page here ]. I share Guy Macon's concerns. I do think it is a positive sign that they have, after posting here, started removing some of their offending comments (example ]). I also will say I don't see disruption of the article's themselves, just frustrating talk page behavior. My feeling is they are on a fence. If they recognize the issue and are willing to fix the problem I think any additional sanctions would be punitive. However, if they continue I would support some type of Tban. It might have to be an IP range block due to the lack of a named account. It also would be good if they created an account. The combination of aggressive comments and shifting IPs is a problem. Several of the talk pages have similar warnings. ] (]) 17:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	*As with Springee above, I am willing to grant a ''very'' short length of ] given that the user in question appears to be willing to redact their earlier offensive comments and commit to being better behaved moving forward. I'd have considered a ban had they not just done so, and would be willing to consider a formal ban of some sort if the shenanigans continue, however. --]] 17:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	*My initial tendency on this one was to also go for a warning given my assumption this was a new editor and WP is a different environment than most others. However, I'm not sure I agree anymore. Now that I've seen this behavior has gone on for a while and only seems to change when ANI gets involved. I would recommend reading the previous incident report and noting that IP was already on a short rope. I might also be a bit more supportive if the user was making constructive edits otherwise, but that doesn't seem to be the case either. This feels very much like a user who wants a forum and to POV push and thinks they can walk the line on behavior, backing off just shy of getting banned. I'd recommend a Tban as well, but can support a warning if we think that is more prudent. Just a note to future ANI administrators in case this comes up again. ] (]) 19:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:Having just reviewed the earlier ANI, I'm going to suggest a short rope strategy that might not be technically possible. I would suggest range blocking the IP but offering the option to create an account that isn't blocked (is that possible?). If they mess up the account gets blocked and future IP edits can be blocked per EVADE. However, they still have ROPE so they can show that they were listening. ] (]) 20:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	* Thanks {{u|Guy Macon}} for the comprehensive report. I've also seen this IP tendentiously attack BLPs and other editors, so I wasn't surprised when someone reported them to ]. They eerily remind me of the sock who was harassing me when I first started editing. The IP has been warned more than enough times from plenty of experienced editors, so I don't think offering them anymore chances will do any good. I included some additional diffs in case anyone wants to take a peak. ] (]) 00:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	{{Collapse|1=.
	:::::*Calling a BLP a "white supremacist" in mainspace without a source
	:::::*"] is a right wing hack. Of course he's going to read it in a way that makes his side and his people look good."
	:::::*" Gina is C-list actress with no talent, who got the role out of pitty by Favreau whom she put into a difficult situation, playing a replaceable supporting character"
	:::::*" The fact that Gina Carano's idiotic beliefs are shared by half of americans, is exactly why the rest of the world sees americans as stupid"
	:::::*" Let us be real here. Gina Carano is a nobody. Her becoming an alt-right sweetheart for stirring the pot with her idiotic social media posts and doubling down when politely asked to stop is the only reason people even know she exists. Before that she was a failed martial artist who got massively owned in her first real match, and an untalented d-list actress playing silent bit roles where she was cast purely for her size and frame."
	:::::*"Not only is Musk not a scientist, his dangerous lies about COVID-19 has proven that he's a science-denier."
	:::::*"None of these nameless idiots are notable enough to deserve even the slightest mention."
	:::::*"Sanger isn't anyone important. He's just some chud who had ties with wikipedias founders at one point, yet his fellow trumptards are using him like he was an authoritative source on all things wikipedia, when he's little more than a parasite, trying to use the works of pthers to become relevant.his opinion on wikipedia, couldn't matter any less."
	:::::*"Barr's opinion is of course bullshit"
	:::::*"Now, do you have anything meaningful to say or are you just going to talk out of your ass? Everybody with a brain knows what the Alternative Influencer Network means by Red Pill"
	:::::*" Read Mr Ernie's mosta on this talk page. His intention is very obviously to downplay the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh"
	:::::*"Unsigned comment by a trump supporter, not worthy oc consideration"
	:::::*"This is a fluff piece of a right wing pundit. The entire article is promotional in nature, and presents Sowell's views and ideologies without the slightest effort to present the objections of his critics. Considering how contentious his claims about politics, race and ethnicity are (there's even a mention of the race and IQ corellation, a well known white supremacist talking point), it's preposterous to pretend he never got any pushback from high profile academics. Nor is there any mention of his less popular views, such as his climate change denialism."
	:::::*" Mr Ernie has stated ON THIS VERY TALK PAGE, several paragraphs above that he does not believe the allegations against Kavanaugh and claims that they have been proven false. His edit attempted to trim down the section on the allegations, which would've diminished Misplaced Pages's coverage of them. It is obvious that he has an agenda here, and that his edit was in line with thay agenda"
	:::::*"This is wikipedia, not some alt right propaganda outlet. We don't cover irrelevant, politically motivated rumors. I don't understand how anyone could even consider this. On a sidenote, ] has a history or making politically motivated edits to whitewash the GOP. Maybe some of the moderators should investigate him"|2=Additional Diffs}}
	I oppose giving this IP more rope, based upon:
	# The promises given in the previous ANI report and the rope they were given at that time.
	# Their heartfelt belief that anything other than demonizing any person and any source that shows the slightest trace of conservatism is a NPOV violation that must be fought tooth and nail no matter what the consensus is. --] (]) 20:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	*I'm going to agree with Guy Macon here. They were given a chance in the previous AN/I thread and they've gone right back to the behaviour that got them reported in the first place. --] (]) 06:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	I am going to try and address as much of this as possible. I will say this first, I don't have any objections to a topic ban if it's decided that's necessary. The arguments for it do sound convincing. That being said, some of the claims here appear unfair to me.
	*To start off, many of the offending comments being brought up here, are from last year, and have already been a subject of an ANI. I have admitted to wrongdoing then, redacted many of the offending comments, and refrained from further activity on the site for the rest of the year. The comments I made then included actual potentially libellous statements on BLP subjects, personal attacks on other users, including unfair accusations of vandalism, and a couple of minor edits that could be considered vandalism. I do not think any of my recent comments are of that nature, or even close. I have tried to refrain from that behavior, keeping last year's ANI in mind. I don't see the point in bringing those up again.
	*Some of the specific accusations are simply wrong. I have been accused multiple times of calling Coleman Hughes an "alt right grifter", which I did not do. And due to unfortunate wording, my comment to clarify that I was referring to Ben Shapiro, not Hughes, was just used to incriminate me further. Dr Swag Lord brings that point up against me in the above BLP Noticeboard discussion (of which I received no notification for some reason), along with the claim that I also called Jordan Peterson a "nazi supervillain", which is also not true, as was pointed out to him. He began bringing up last years incidents after he and several others with BLP violation complaints against me were told that they don't have a strong case against me. He also seems to suspect me of being someone he had a previous conflict with - I don't know what the basis of this assumption is.
	*On the Jordan Peterson talk page, aside from the one comment I redacted, the only real objectionable thing I did is getting involved in a long thread derailment, when another user tried to debate the contents of two sources, arguing that they were using guilt by association. I understand that wikipedia is not a forum, and I shouldn't have gotten into that argument as far as I did, but I was not the sole responsible party.
	*The assessment that I find anything less than demonization of anyone even remotely associated with conservatism to be NPOV, and that I fight tooth and nail against consensus, strikes me as unfair. Especially seeing as my comments on the Thomas Sowell article seem to be the impetus - correct me if I'm wrong. I understand that my choice of words was far from neutral, but to say I was fighting tooth and nail against consensus, so the article would demonize the subject is an exxagerration. Thomas Sowell is a controversial figure, but his article doesn't reflect that at all. I have also argued that over a quarter of sources are primary and come from the subject himself. If I'm wrong about that, that's due to me misinterpreting ], not the desire to "demonize".
	*Similarly, on the Gina Carano talk page, where I've been the most active, and where the "tooth and nail" remark does apply, I wasn't fighting for the demonization of the subject but over the inclusion of information that was already in the existing sources. I objected to the use of a specific wording, which is only used by one source, and asked for the inclusion of relevant information that was in multiple sources, and was previously part of the article. The only comments I made about on the subject herself, had to do with her notability, and the relative notability of the social media controversy. My comments about users "pushing an agenda" was referring to contributors supporting the exclusion of information based on their own personal interpretation of primary sources, rather than what reliable sources say. This has been already covered in the BLP noticeboard discussion above. Morbidthoughts made correct observations about my comments without me having to defend myself, so I don't see why ScottishFinnishRaddish keep insisting that my only goal is to throw insults.
	*Regarding Squatch347's comments I think it's fair to point out that I have made constructive edits in the past. I know I used a lot of politically charged language, and sometimes go off into unnecessary tangents when giving my reasoning but a lot of the content I have removed have been justified. On How to Be and Antiracist, the consensus was ultimately on my side, and multiple attempts to restore my deletions have been reverted by registered users. I also nominated the article on ] for deletion due to the self-promotional nature of it. I had a rather long and exhausting dispute on the ] regarding the reliablility of some of the sources in the "academic commentary" section. I'm also involved in the discussion on the talk page of the upcoming The Little Mermaid film, regarding an alleged casting controversy, which I don't believe is notable enough to warrant mentioning. I also removed a guilt by association claim from ] and warned of incoming vandalism on that article and on ]. I know this is overshadowed by my annoying habit of getting into unnecessarily long arguments and using language that is oftentimes unwarranted, I just felt the need to point out that I did make constructive edits.
	Now, this is mostly my response to the nature of the claims made against me, not really to the core issue (i.e. frustrating talk page behavior), which I don't dispute. Like I said, if a topic ban is found to be appropriate, I'm not going to object to it. ] (]) 09:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:I'm not seeing where I've said your only goal is to throw insults. Do you have a diff or two of that? ] (]) 11:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	::{{tq|How about this? They're not arguing for inclusion based on sources, recognizing that sources don't support them. It's just complaints and insults about a BLP.}} from the BLPN discussion. It's possible I'm misunderstanding. Notice that the words "racist" and "bootlicker" are in quotation marks. Those are not my words, those are from comments made about the subject as reported by the sources. My argument was that she was being criticised rather than bullied. I was trying to argue for the same wording I brought up again recently but I ended up dropping it because not enough sources justify it. In the case of many other comments I made about Gina Carano personally, I was arguing about how much coverage the controversy should receive in proportion to the rest of the article. I do admit some of it did sound insulting, and not at all neutral, but Morbidthoughts managed to get my intentions without me having to say a single word. Anyway, I'll probably be out for the weekend. I'll see what the decision is when I get back. ] (]) 12:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::{{tq|The problem is, that reliable sources do not touch on this, at least not to an extent that it would be notable. Gina Carano, in spite of some people here insisting otherwise, is nowhere near noteworthy enough for her political beliefs, as insane and nonsensical as they are, to be of any relevance, outside the usual far right echochambers.}} was the diff I linked, which I was commenting on. You yourself said that the sources didn't touch on it and that she was not noteworthy for her political beliefs, then called her beliefs insane. I would say that that specific diff that I was describing was not arguing for inclusion based on sources, recognizing that sources don't support the inclusion and that you were complaining about and insulting a BLP. It also wasn't a comment that your only goal was to throw insults, and to say so is disingenuous as there was clearly a diff attached. ] (]) 12:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::Sorry, I missed that. I can see why people would misunderstand that comment, but that wasn't referring to the controversy. It was referring specifically to her ties to ], which indeed isn't covered by reliable sources. In the first couple of months when this was fresh news, I was expecting some kind of expose from the media, but it never happened. Point is, I was talking about an issue not directly related to the controversy as it was covered by reliable sources. So I wasn't admitting that the things I was arguing for weren't covered by reliable sources, I was talking about something else that I was initially hoping for eventually being included not being covered by reliable sources, if that makes sense. I know it's not obvious, and my wording certainly didn't help. ] (]) 13:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::::Part of the problem, 46.97, is the use of rhetoric such as "as insane and nonsensical as they are" and "far right echo chamber". Your statement without those portions, {{tq|The problem is, that reliable sources do not touch on this, at least not to an extent that it would be notable. Gina Carano, in spite of some people here insisting otherwise, is nowhere near noteworthy enough for her political beliefs to be of any relevance.}} would have been a sufficient comment on the situation; the pejorative and disdainful rhetoric is actually ''distracting'' from what was otherwise a cogent and good point, and many people (including those of us who, in a less formal setting than Misplaced Pages like at a bar enjoying a few beverages together, would likely agree with your analysis) find such asides to be rude and distracting. Regardless of our opinions on the politics of others (such as other users, or the people of subjects we are writing about on Misplaced Pages and discussing), we're still expected to maintain a level of decorum and grant those people (and those around us) a certain level of dignity. Comments like "insane and nonsensical" have no place in such discussions at Misplaced Pages, and people tire of them when you keep using rhetoric like that. THAT is the crux of the problem. --]] 13:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	{{userlinks|Dajo767}}
	I think speaks for itself. ], ], and so on. ] (]) 18:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:Yes, I posted it there not to contaminate the talk page further with our bickering. You obviously cannot be open and discuss without imposing and attempting to dominate ] (]) 18:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC). People can go through the talk section ] and see for themselves the months of feuding which happened. I contacted two wikipedia adminstrators. Twice the article was changed protection. ] (]) 18:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:Like you said speaks for iteself. I had not received any help from the appeals I made to two wikipedia administrators to resolve this dispute. It's all on the talk page ]. ] (]) 19:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:I stand by my words. ] (]) 19:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:I request you further not to place messages on my user page again ] (]) 19:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	: I find it hilarious when you brought up ] because this clearly applies to you concerning your edits on the ]. Check the ] ] (]) 19:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	::{{u|Dajo767}}, You may want to stop posting unless someone asks you a question or you have to refute a point. I am certain you're not helping your case right now. ] (]) 19:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:Looking at Dajo767's edits, edit warring and ] on the article in question, I don't think it's looking good on your edits. And making a blanket statement that you will just outright revert the edits of another edit based purely on who they are, shows that maybe it's you that is not capable of editing in a collaborative manner? In the current edit warring you're doing, TompaDompa asked for more verrification for the claims, and you just blanket reverted them. Someone else restored them and you reverted again. Twice. At this moment the only user I'm looking at for disruptive editing, edit warring and inability to edit in a collaborative manner is Dajo767. ] ] 19:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	::This is just beyond the pale. "And do not forget that he uses misdirection and manipulation - a psychopathic editor - by changing the templates and the reasons for those templates for his own - hence his name is mentioned at the original research template - as a warning to everyone of this user." I'm tempted just to outright block you just for writing that on Misplaced Pages servers. ] ] 19:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	::: If I may respond, you were only studying the recent edits. Looking at these places everything out of context. I urge you to go through the talk page ] ] (]) 19:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Specifically these two talksections that speak about TompaDoma ] and
	::: ] ] (]) 20:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::No. Answer us why you felt that sentence I posted above was an acceptable thing to write on Misplaced Pages about another editor. ] ] 20:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::Honestly, ] you are only making it worse for yourself. After ending up here for accusing a user of psychopatic, you post in defense (?) a case of you calling the same user's drunken and hysterical? You must understand that that kind of language has '''no''' place on Misplaced Pages. As ] already said, the best you can do now is to stop talking (and preferably apologise for the language).] (]) 20:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::::Oh and incidentally I've read those sections. It's quite clear that you are the problem here, not TompaDompa, thank you for drawing our attention directly to that fact and pointing us to the evidence. You clearly are unwilling to accept that you are wrong. Anyone can edit Misplaced Pages articles in accordance with our policies and guidelines, they do NOT need to be experts in the subject. In fact it's often best that they aren't, because we rely on what ] say about the topic, not our own opinion and not our own original research. ] ] 20:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::::Dajo767 I give you one chance now to repond to explain to us why you shouldn't be immediately blocked for ] issues, ], ] and egregious ]. ] ] 20:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	*As the user on whose talk page this was posted, I felt very surprised and then immediately reverted ]'s edit on my talk page; I felt very uncomfortable in particular by the sentence ] also highlight above. I also struggle how anyone can accuse ] of ]. My impression is the opposite; even when I have disagreed with TompaDomba, I have found the user polite, willing to discuss and willing to listen. I see no basis for the accusations against them and feel uncomfortable being dragged into this against my will (by having had it posted on my talk). I would strongly encourage Dajo767 to remove the personal attacks on any other place they may have posted it. ] (]) 20:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	Responding to the question of colloborative editing, this was how the article looked like on 10 February 2021 before TompaDoma started being active. It has content which were contributions by many editors (including TompaDoma's) from their sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=World_language&oldid=1005959032
	and this how the article looked less looked like recently on 11:27, 2 May 2021 , which was purely and 100 percent filled with TompaDoma's own edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=World_language&oldid=1021009442 ] (]) 20:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:UPDATE: In the middle of this discussion, while talking about their edit warring etc, Dajo767 decided, after having been warning about 3RR and given a chance to explain himself on all the above, to revert some tagging on the article because they don't think the unsourced item is controversial. Words quite literally fail me at this point. Despite it being their first offense I believe in light of the above, the talk page comments, the ] and the egregious personal attack that they refuse to defend or apologise for, I have gone straight to an indef. If another admin wishes to review and things it's too hard, feel free to do what you feel is best. But, I just can't. Words fail me right now. ] ] 20:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	::Good block. I've been reading through ] and the intransigence of {{noping|Dajo767}} seems to have been going on for months. I was quite impressed by the patience shown and repeated attempts to educate Dajo by the other editors. ]&nbsp;] 21:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::It's pretty impressive isn't it. ] ] 21:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:In the interest of this moving forward I have actually responded to some of Dajo767's comments on their talk page with some recommendations. Again I will not review the unblock request in order to allow other admins a change to put their viewpoint in. ] ] 11:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	== 206.74.86.194 ==
	* {{iplinks|206.74.86.194}}
	Revdel and block please. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 19:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:{{ping|Malcolmxl5}} did the block and I got the revdel. --]] 22:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	==] and Chauvin Lede==
	{{atop		{{atop
			| result = Protection applies. Appears admin eyes are on the Talk page. ] ] 19:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	| status =
	| result = Indeffed by Rick. No further action required. {{nac}} ] (] / ]) 01:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	}}		}}
			There is currently a content dispute going on at ] involving allegations of a mental health crisis with mulitple IPs involved in a dispute over wether the information is reliable or not. A discussion is underway on the article's talkpage, but in the meantime there is revert warring taking place on the article. The page could really benefit from temporary semi protection. -- ] (]) 18:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Looks like ] got it. ] (]) 19:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	*{{userlinks|Forrestgump420}}
			::{{reply to|DMacks}} Thanks! Yeah. I assume they will also need a third-party closer given the heated nature of the argument. -- ] (]) 19:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	The account Forrestgump420 is a ] who has a crusade about the wording of the lede in ]. The article describes him as an American former police officer. The user insists that there is a grammatical rule about adjective order, and that he should be referred to as a former American police officer. It has been pointed out that Chauvin is still an American, because his conviction does not revoke his citizenship. The user tried to argue at ], which was closed by ]. The user tried to argue at ]. See https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Teahouse&oldid=1021294333#new_editor/seeking_to_clarify_Derik_Chauvin_lead . The user tried to argue at ], which I closed on 5 May at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_206#Derek_Chauvin .
	The user has filed again at ], which is becoming a nuisance. I request a ] against the user on all matters related to ]. If this amounts to a de facto ban, that is what happens to disruptive single-purpose accounts.
	] (]) 20:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	::Also, the editor's edit summaries are a ] against ]. Please revdel them. ] (]) 20:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::I appreciate the thought but their comments hardly rise to the level of revdel. Maybe ironically, the comment of mine that they've repeatedly referred to as a threat was not to make threats. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 23:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	:{{u|Robert McClenon}}, Agree, time for a partial block from that article and talk. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 21:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' topic ban from any mention of Derek Chauvin and also all grammar related nitpicking. ] ] 22:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Proposal''' ] from both Derek Chauvin and Talk:Derek Chauvin, topic ban from all discussions about grammar. This is beyond disruptive. --]] 22:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' Partial block. This is wasting everyone's time. -- ]</b></sup></small></span>]] 23:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Just block them'''. Come on, this is a troll account. Their userpage is a rambling ], they've been editing simultaneously as {{IPrange|2600:1702:2340:9470::/64}} this whole time (courtesy ping {{ul|El C}} regarding that range's multiple blocks), their username may be a ] violation, and probably most obvious of all, they're fighting about being knowledgeable in proper English grammar with comments like "{{purple|for example the word standard generally modifies (describes) the word proper which in turn generally modifies the specific term which is english...as it does in other written languages}}" and have spelled Chauvin's name incorrectly multiple times, including in their most recent repeat DRN request. Block them and carry on. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 23:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	*:Well if you insist...Blocked for NOTHERE. ] (]) 00:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	{{abot}}		{{abot}}
			== Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article ==
	== Civility of editor ] in discussions ==
	{{atop| result = This has probably gone on long enough. I would ask all involved editors to stop trying to use the Drama Boards, including here, AN3, and anywhere else, to resolve disputes that should be handled with a bit of prudence and normal ] venues. Invite new editors to give their perspectives on discussions that are going in circles, avoid ]ing the discussion with repeating one's self over and over, and don't rush consensus building discussions, which take time. At this point, everyone involved has already made every possible point they could make. Let the talk page discussions develop, leave the articles alone for a few days, and see what develops. Most of all, however, we need to stop trying to "win" by taking people to the drama boards, and instead treat eachother (on both sides) with a little more patience. --]] 00:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)}}
	<s>*{{Userlinks|MjolnirPants}}
	*{{Userlinks|MPants at work}} (Some edits were made from this account)
	*{{Pagelinks|Snopes}}
	*{{Pagelinks|Misplaced Pages:Civility}}
			Two users are actively engaged in an ongoing edit war on ], with both {{user13|Counterfeit_Purses}} breaking 3RR , , , and {{user13|Statistical_Infighting}} being right at 3 Reverts
	*{{Pagelinks|Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith}}
			, , .
			This seems to go back to December 9th, with the first editor (Counterfeit) removing it and , on the 17th, , and then being at the above today.
	I brought up on the talk page of Snopes that the content could be improved along with my suggestions for doing so. MjolnirPants disagrees with my suggestions, but the violation is that he is being uncivil and/or failing to AGF while expressing that disagreement.
			] (])
	Several uncivil and/or non-AGF statements he has made are as follows:
			*E/C applied. ] ] 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, please be aware that the ] article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a ''really bad idea''. ] (]) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::@] No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that ] applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? ] (]) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, in my view, ] is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins {{tpq|In principle, all Misplaced Pages articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.}} I believe that Mangione is notable, the evolving article is acceptable, and his name belongs in the alumni list. Many, many "bad people" are listed as alumni in countless school articles, and it is not at all unusual. The only unusual thing here is that the lead of this particular school article lists alumni, and so I have removed them from the lead. ] (]) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. ] (]) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::{{tqq|We don't include all notable alumni in these lists}} Why not? If someone is Wikinotable and went to a Wikinotable school, then they belong in the "Notable alumni" section of that school's page, ] - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::@] I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. ] (]) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See ]. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) ] (]) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? ] (]) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is ]. ] (]) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add ] (in this case). ] (]) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::And a new user, who doesn't understand categories and has no idea Wikidata exists, is relying on the list on the page. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64, yet again ==
	* Suggesting that I have not read the content of the article that I am making suggestions about:
			{{atop|1=Genre warrior sent packing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	**
			{{userlinks|2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued the same behaviour immediately following the end of a 3 month block. See block log and the two previous ANI threads from September (], ]) related to this /64. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|You Could Be Born Again|prev|1264637321|1}}, {{diff|Kites are Fun|prev|1264637435|2}}, {{diff|Heaven/Earth|prev|1264641723|3}}, {{diff|Stars/Time/Bubbles/Love|prev|1264642096|4}}, {{diff|...Sing for Very Important People|prev|1264642646|5}}. ] (]) 20:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	* Implying that I have an ulterior motive:
			:I see the genre warriors are out today. Don't you realise how childish you are? (Not you, ].) ] (]) 20:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	**
			::I thought I was the only one who noticed how many were running rampant today. So exhausting. . . ] (]) 20:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::/64 blocked for six months. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 22:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	* Further uncivil and/or non-AGF statements:
	**
	**
	]&nbsp;✌️ 22:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)</s> (I withdraw this report, but per WP:BOOMERANG if I am going to be sanctioned then go ahead.) ]&nbsp;✌️ 00:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	*If those are your standards for intolerable incivility, you're probably going to have a difficult time working with other people in all aspects of life. --]] 22:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	** That may be true, but I'm not sure if it's relevant to this issue. ]&nbsp;✌️ 22:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	*** You've brought another editor here for santioning for mild incivility. That's not going to happen. Was that less circumlocutionary for you? --]] 23:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	**** If nothing is going to happen then we can just close this discussion. ]&nbsp;✌️ 23:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	*****You know what, I don't think we should. There's some ], as noted below. Let's see where this discussion goes. --]] 23:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	****** I have been careful to avoid violating policy. If that's not good enough for whoever has authority here, then oh well. ]&nbsp;✌️ 23:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	*Note, this editor was '''just''' threatened with a block for an attempt to game ]. I'm not going to get into the meat of the content question at the heart of the issue here, but I will say that this editor's preferred content is the sort of thing many admins might see as a policy problem, itself. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 23:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	**Just to clarify, ] opened this complaint just minutes after being warned for launching ]. They should at the very least be warned about ]. ] (]) 23:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	*** I don't see this as a "forumshop" violation. I reported the potential edit warring to the edit warring noticeboard, and the incivility to here. ]&nbsp;✌️ 23:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	* And that's another example. He thinks that I'm only here to insert policy-violating content in articles. ]&nbsp;✌️ 23:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	** This ANI posting is meritless (if not ridiculous). You should withdraw it to avoid being sanctioned and so as not to waste the community's time. --] (]) 23:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	*** I'm not aware of any policy that I am violating that I could be sanctioned for. Plus, I already give my consent to close this discussion if nothing is going to happen, as stated above. ]&nbsp;✌️ 23:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	**** Please read and follow ]. --] (]) 23:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	***** Ok, but that's not a policy page, so can I be sanctioned for mistakenly not following it? ]&nbsp;✌️ 23:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	* Support a boomerang -- obvious bad-faith filing, a quick review of the editor's contributions suggest they are a net negative to the project. --] (]) 23:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	** Which contributions do you have issue with? ]&nbsp;✌️ 23:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	*This is nonsense. Someone please close this and either warn or block the OP for edit-warring and filing ridiculous bad-faith ANI reports. ] (]) 23:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	** I agree that this report can be closed, but I disagree with blocking me for filing an ANI report. (I disagree that this report was bad faith when I filed it, because I looked for where I could file a report about violations of the civility policy. But now that it's clear that the community believes the behavior of that editor doesn't violate the policy I am ok with withdrawing the report.) ]&nbsp;✌️ 23:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	*This is getting into ] as well as ] territory. And no, please do not ask me a follow-up question. --] (]) 23:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	** But CIR is not a policy so I'm not sure it would be valid to ban me for not following it. ]&nbsp;✌️ 23:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	***] is not a policy. It is a behavioral guideline and editors get blocked for violating it quite frequently. Editors also get blocked for lack of competence routinely. ] ] 23:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	***{{ec}} ] is certainly a blockable offense. {{tq|Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Misplaced Pages... sanctions may have to be imposed.}} --]] 23:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	**** Ok but I've already stated that I get the point. I am already trying to move on and blocking me would not be helpful. ]&nbsp;✌️ 23:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	*****{{U|The owner of all}}, please '''avoid''' (1) adding colons in between bullets when responding to a reply, and (2) adding a line space when responding to bulleted replies. Please check your posts via Show preview" to see that your post has '''only''' ONE bullet, before you click "Publish changes". I've cleaned up your posts once today, and I'm doing it again now. Please don't make more than one bullet visible on your replies. ] (]) 00:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	****** I apologize. All of my replies were created by typing asterisks, but WikEd or one of the other gadgets was changing some of the syntax. I have disabled those gadgets on my account to avoid further issues. ]&nbsp;✌️ 00:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	{{abot}}		{{abot}}
			== User:NoahBWill2002 ==
	==147.161.9.167==
			{{atop|1=NOTHERE blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	{{atop|status = Slow lane blocked|{{nac}} {{Iplinks|147.161.9.167}} blocked by {{noping|Ivanvector}}. In future, reports of this nature are better off at AIV. Regards, ]. (] &#124; ]). 03:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)}}
			*{{userlinks|NoahBWill2002}}
	{{Iplinks|147.161.9.167}}
			It looks like there's a pretty severe ] issue with this user. Virtually every one of their edits has had to be reverted either for adding copyrighted content/, (), or . Lastly and indicates that they're unlikely to learn from any of this. <br>
	Vandalism by user. ] (]) 23:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
			(As an aside, I just blocked them on Commons for uploading non-free files after warnings (and having copyright/the issue with their uploads explained them in detail) and uploading out-of-scope files after warnings.)<br>
	*'''Blocked''' for 60 hours, talk page revoked. In future, you should report incidents of straightforward vandalism to ]. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 23:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	::Thank you. I will keep in mind about ]. ] (]) 23:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)		I think admin action is warranted here. ] (]) 22:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I 100% agree with ] on this. ] appears completely unable to comprehend and/or follow some of the core rules of Misplaced Pages, especially ] and ], despite multiple editors trying to help them understand. The comment that Squirrel Conspiracy , followed by a series of blatant copyright violations, makes it abundantly clear that this editor is not going to change and is not here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::They have only had an account for a few days. It's seems rather soon to proclaim they are "not going to change". The images they were trying to add have been deleted from the Commons, let's see if they can find other ways to contribute to the project now that they can't promote their artwork here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 23:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Given ], I'm not sanguine about their intention to contribute productively. ] (]/]) 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::They added ] grossly inappropriate religious screed to ] on their third day of editing, then they responded to a warning about it with ]. I had hoped they would get the message but just today they made ] non-NPOV edit apparently based on their religious beliefs. Apart from religious edits, apparently the only other thing they've done is add self-produced fan art to a variety of articles. I'm willing to AGF while they learn what are acceptable edits here but I'd like to see some acknowledgement from them that they understand why all their edits so far have been unacceptable. (It would also show good faith if they would clean up the now-broken links in numerous articles now that their fan art has been deleted from Commons, rather than leaving it for other editors to do.) ] (]) 00:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I have indefinitely blocked NoahBWill2002 as not here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 01:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	{{abot}}		{{abot}}
	I think that the diffs should be revdeled. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 17:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			== Vandal encounter ==
	== User:AwesomePro50 keeps modifying/adding OR to "name=" fields ==
			] seems to be a vandal who seems to be ready to start an edit war. I have reverted their disruptive edits, and they have begun to add them back.
	{{userlinks|AwesomePro50}}
			diffs: </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
	This unresponsive editor keeps adding extraneous information to the "name=" fields in infoboxes instead of following the guidance to use common name and/or article title:
			I would have put this at AIV, but I have no clue how to edit source. ] (]) 23:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{not done}} - Not an admin - I hate to be that person but unfortunately you've not sufficiently warned them, They've only received one warning and their edits aren't gross vandalism so this would only be declined by an admin anyway, If they continue I'll report them to AIV, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	also keeps adding OR translations:
			::Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! ] (]) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			== ] mass-creating articles for non-notable or nonexistent places ==
			{{atop
			| result = GDJackAttack1 has agreed to no further creation of the problematic articles. Extant ones being handled via usual channels. No further action needed here. ] ] 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			{{user|GDJackAttack1}} has been mass-creating stub articles for places such as insignificant residential subdivisions and other localities in Alabama and Maryland (]), islands in the Bahamas and Senegal (]), and other insignificant highways and airports around the world. None of these articles are sourced by anything that verifies notability, just databases and maps, which has resulted in at least one article being pointed out as a map misreading and therefore nonexistent community at ]. I can only speculate how many more of these places do not exist and if any of them are ]s.
	Also see for (70? 80?) such edits, still ongoing.
			There are too many of these articles to send through AfD or PROD manually and there is really no point in draftifying them or converting the articles into redirects since we have little proof that these topics are notable or even exist at all. Their ] consists of nothing but notices of their articles being moved to the draftspace, AfD/PROD notices, and messages informing them to be more careful about article creation, yet they have seemingly ignored these messages and have persisted with spamming these stub articles for no clear reason. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#3366cc">]&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</span> 01:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	Despite them about the problematic edits and reverts with explanations by me and other editors they continue making the same edits. ] (]) 23:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
	*I have mass-reverted them. If that doesn't get their attention then a parblock from article space may be the next step. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 00:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			:I will stop creating these articles. ] (]) 01:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	==Large AIV Backlog==
	Any assistance would be appreciated. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #FF7518;padding:1px;">] • ] • 03:42 on May 14, 2021 (UTC)</small>		:I tagged one as '''CSD A7''' to see if that would work. ] ] 01:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{replyto|Bgsu98}} Thank you, I also considered PROD-ing them all but I noticed you have so already. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#3366cc">]&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</span> 02:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	:{{ping|Neutralhomer}} Did, coincidentally.
			:::I think I got all of the ones that that Maryland batch, but I’m sure there are more. ] ] 02:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Please consider changing your signature to use the standard datetimestamp and such that the enclosing small is around only your name and talk page links. I really like the new Reply tool and it doesn't like one or both of those things about your signature. :^) --] (]) 05:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	::{{ping|Izno}} Thanks for your help on the AIV backlog. I don't use the Beta preferences (I'm ''really'' old school), so I just looked at them and I see the issue you are getting. I am going to tinker with my signature and try to make it work with the new Beta features. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #FF7518;padding:1px;">] • ] • 05:54 on May 14, 2021 (UTC)</small>
			== User:Glenn103 ==
	== ]==
			{{userlinks|Glenn103}} has been mass creating unsourced stubs about Cyrillic letters, most of which have been draftified. They've also disruptively edited in the past, such as: <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 01:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	Could someone semi-protect this page please? A block-evading 205.234.53.90 , a sock of of {{U|Bembo Bold}} (]) has been, well, block-evading there for the last four hours. Thanks. --- ] (]) 03:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			:Most of these pages don't even make any sense (eg.: ]). The user also ignores any notice about his articles being moved to draftspace by simply recreating duplicates of them (eg.: ] & ]). Immediate action may be needed. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 07:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	:It's actually getting quite amusing; the one IP 205.234.53.90 has !voted keep something like 11 times now, but I suspect some may be dupes.--- ] (]) 04:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			::Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I have blocked them from article space and page moves, and will leave note on talk page to come here. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 15:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			Honestly, this almost feels like trolling. Their basic procedure seems to be: pick a random Cyrillic letter. Combine it with a random diacritic. Write a short stub on the combination, saying effectively "this letter combination is not used anywhere." The occasional historical mentions ("this combination was used in such-and-such obscure Siberian language") are completely unsourced, of course. (Everything is unsourced.) ] (]) 04:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Excuse me for detracting from the report, but this was your 4th edit, your last edit was in January 2016... how have you found yourself here of all places?
	*Ivanvector has now closed the AFD and deleted the article. I don't know whether salting the page might be in order. ] (]) 05:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			:I mean you might have a point, but wow. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	::That was quite a nasty series of socks. I am still a bit disturbed that they were adding negative material on the "Owen Williams" controversy to the Yukon Arts Centre. It seems like obvious grievance editing. They even came back just now as ], after Ivanvector's block, to restore the "controversy" material again.] (]) 05:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			==TPA for 83.106.86.95==
	*{{ul|Izno}} blocked the new IP, and I blocked the range they're both on; Bembo Bold's block is now indefinite. Salting disambiguated titles is weak, and I'm reluctant to add this to the title blacklist since there seem to be a lot of ]es. There are plenty of editors watching this now: if the page is recreated under this or a different title, please flag it for ] and report it at ]. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 05:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	::Thank you kindly. ] (]) 05:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)		{{atop|1=Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			{{userlinks|83.106.86.95}}
			Could someone revoke TPA for blocked IP, based on ? ] (]) 02:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Lowercase sigmabot III not operating correctly on this page ==
			:Done and revdel'ed, thanks to JJMC89. ] (]) 02:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	{{U|Lowercase sigmabot III}} is missing most of the threads it is supposed to be archving on this board, leaving the board to pile up excessively (which reduces engagement and problem-solving). I don't know how long this has been going on, because I've been on a break from the "drama boards" for some months, but when I checked in today, there were more than 68 threads on the board (when ideally there should be less than 35).<p>The automated archiving on this page has long been set to 3 days -- threads which have not received input for more than 72 hours get auto-archived by the bot. {{U|Lowercase sigmabot III}} made today at 12:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC), but '''it left 19 threads which had had no timestamps in over three days'''. Many of the threads had been stale for a week or more. None of them had DNAU codes.<p>This really needs to be fixed so that admin engagement and problem solving can occur efficiently here and admins are not overwhelmed by a board that is 600,000 bytes long and has over 65 threads. I had to go in and one-click archive the very stale threads myself.<p>I'm posting this here because ANI does not have a dedicated talk page. Also, I'm not sure whether this problem exists on pages other than this one.<p>In any case, this bot needs to be fixed, and/or retired and a new one created if this one has passed its prime. ] (]) 04:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	:It looks like it was working fine the morning of 8 May , and didn't miss any threads, but then it didn't edit the page again until 13 May , where it's ignoring sections that should be archived. ] (]) 05:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	::Hi ], I'm guess you mistyped, because "sections" do not get archived, only entire threads. I agree that the bot was not doing anything at all on this page between May 8 and May 13, so there is a definite malfunction happening by May 8, even though it was operating on other pages between May 8 and May 12: . ] (]) 05:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::This is quite the tangent, but my use of "sections" is correct, I'm pretty sure. (See ].) A section can contain multiple threads, sub-sections, etc. ] (]) 05:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::: Articles have sections. Noticeboards and talkpages -- where editors post and sign their posts -- have threads (see ]), and sections within those threads; sections within threads often get closed prior to the entire thread getting closed, but the sections do not get archived, only the entire thread when it is stale or closed. ] (]) 06:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::::Holding a mouse over the "edit" link for this discussion currently shows a URL that includes <code>&action=edit&section=74</code>. Clicking that link would edit ''section'' 74 on this page. Someone might call this discussion a thread, or a collapsed sub-discussion a section, but that's just because language is hard to pin down and words get used for convenience. Archiving occurs by section using the <code>&action=edit&section=74</code> meaning. ] (]) 07:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:Sigmabot usually does not edit as a result of a) nothing needing to be moved, or b) a blacklisted term/URL being in the source of either the page to be archived or the target archive (rarely a c) Toolforge is down). If it was operating on other pages at that time, then it's probably either a or b. ] (]) 05:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	::It's clear there were threads that needed to be archived between May 8 and May 13; that's how the page ballooned to 68 or more threads. It seems to me that, like all archiving bots eventually do, Lowercase Sigmabot III is malfunctioning and may need to be replaced. That's why over the years we've had so many iterations of the original archiving bot under a handful of various names. ] (]) 06:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::Some of us are chronically lazy so please give the title of, say, two sections which should have been archived but which weren't. ] (]) 07:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::"Indefinite block for User:Sportsfanrob", "User:ListeningBronco", "Pigsonthewing et al.". ] (]) 08:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			== Can you please help? ==
	::::In '''''', Lowercase sigmabot III left out, starting from the top, "Terry Bean", "Co-ordinated off-wiki disruption at Turkish War of Independence", "Film awards WP:NOR from IP range in Georgia, U.S.", "Regarding user Knewdates for bad faith editing and what I see as intimidation Daniel Lee (designer)", "Mikeymikemikey", "Cheesy McGee", and 13 other threads that hadn't been edited in at least three days (most of them hadn't been edited since May 5 UTC). ] (]) 08:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			] got moved from ] (because his middle name might not be John). But the talk page for this person is at ], and the talk page for the disambiguation page is at ]. I don't know what happened to the disambiguation page, and I don't know how to fix this. ] (]) 02:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::It looks like a problem to me. I asked for opinions ]. ] (]) 10:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			:{{done}} Couldn't be moved because the target page had to be deleted; its now fixed. As a note for the future, ] would be a better place for this, since it isn't an 'incident'. That said - ''was'' there a dab page at ] before? - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Thanks to everyone for resolving this. As to the place for this, at some point I was told that "if you're a new user you have no reason to post at ]" or something similar. I appreciate the help. ] (]) 05:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:(edit conflict) I think that the disambiguation page's revisions were merged into the history of the moved page, if I'm reading ] correctly.
			:@], can you confirm what happened/fix this? &ndash; ] (]) (]) 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Actually, WAS that the intention (merging the histories)? I have no idea how this works.
			::Maybe The Bushranger already did all that needed to be done. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 02:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::(edited): There was a dab page with two entries. It is now a redirect from William Swainson to William John Swainson and the direction is now different. The full histories are (merged) restored and visible. PS: I have added a hat-note to the one other (far less notable) lawyer - ] - if there are many more entries to be dealt with then the (currently a redirect) page at ] could be reinstated/used. ] (]) 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::(nac) An intitle search turned up no other William Swainson, so I've tagged {{-r|William_Swainson_(disambiguation)}} (which has no significant history) for speedying under ]. ] (]) 06:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			== POVPushingTheTruth ==
	:The underlying problem is in the wikitext computation library maintained by {{ping|The Earwig}}. Perhaps you could take a look, Earwig?
			{{atop|1=The truth may set you free, but ] will get you blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	:The thread titled {{xt|COVID: SYNTH, BLUDGEON and MEDRS (moved from AE)}} seems to have consumed 31 of the sections below it, up to and including the one titled {{xt|User:SteveBenassi persistent disruptive edits: edit warring, refusing to discuss/engage.}} Sourced from https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1022942665
			] is clearly NOTHERE. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 05:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	:In addition, {{ping|Softlavender}}, I think there are more conscientious ways of reporting this issue and bringing it to my/our attention. Apology accepted in advance.
			:Blocked. -- ] (])| <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added 05:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)</small><sup>]</sup>
	:Thanks. <span style="font-family:Euclid Fraktur;background:#FFF">→]]].&nbsp;<small>(])</small></span> 10:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	::I made no apology and I will make none. My aim was to be conscientious and so I was; I'm not sure why you are ] or have a problem with my report. If a bot that affects so very many users and their on-wiki problems and requests for assistance is not functioning correctly, and has been problematical for several days, I report it as quickly as I can and with as much information as I can. ] (]) 10:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	::In the meantime I've archived that thread, as there's nothing left to do in there anyway, and it was reopened by an SPA to relitigate a content decision. ] (]) 10:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	::Hey Sigma. As you know, this is a known bug and not easily fixed. —&#8239;]&nbsp;(]) 12:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:The first section to not be archived had an unclosed <code><nowiki>]</nowiki></code>. The software probably viewed it as one large block which could not be split, and the block included recent signatures so it wasn't archived. ] (]) 12:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	::So would "post a helpful error message somewhere if large blocks containing section breaks occur" be a useful feature request so we can fix this issue manually the next time it occurs? —] (]·]) 12:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::I think PrimeHunter has it right about what's causing the bug, and it's not what I originally thought. This bug is surprising to me, and I will need to look more carefully tonight. If we're going to teach the bot how to identify misparsed section breaks, it would be easy enough to have it handle the breaks correctly rather than report an error. —&#8239;]&nbsp;(]) 14:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	::That's a fun failure mode.... Keep that in my sigmabot does things pocket. ] (]) 14:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	==108.167.78.36==
	{{atop|status = Many Thanks to Bishonen!|result = {{nac}}: Issue has been quickly dealt with by Bishonen. Once again, thanks! - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #FF7518;padding:1px;">] • ] • 09:39 on May 14, 2021 (UTC)</small>}}
	Could I get a bot or an admin (if there is a tool for that) to do a "mass revert" of this user's edits, please? They are all vandalism, as for "vandalism" and "disruptive editing". Their edits, though, remain due to just how many of them there are. Some admin or bot assistance would be greatly appreciated. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #FF7518;padding:1px;">] • ] • 06:43 on May 14, 2021 (UTC)</small>
	*OK, I'm placing a lot of trust in you, ]! I haven't looked at all the edits, obviously, but I have now rolled back all the ones that were the last in the histories (there's a tool for that), thereby seriously bloating my own contribs history. ] &#124; ] 09:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC).
	:*{{replyto|Bishonen}} I appreciate that trust, I wouldn't have asked for something this major without just cause and a LOT of research on my end. I understand the pain in the butt that caused you and I appreciate your help. :) Thanks! - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #FF7518;padding:1px;">] • ] • 09:11 on May 14, 2021 (UTC)</small>
	{{abot}}		{{abot}}
			== North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion ==
	::* {{ping|Neutralhomer|Bishonen}} While a good number of edits were little more than link additions, some of the edits were legitimate, like ] where the listed URL was replaced with the current one or ] where the reliable source cited notes the station mostly airs Relevant Radio programs. Much more sifting through is needed, and I have already had to restore several reversions. ] (she/her • ] • ]) 17:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::*Hi, ]. See, I was worried this would happen. Still, on balance, considering the number of blocks for vandalism the IP has — most recently, a three-month block — and also considering Neutralhomer's research, the most realistic option seemed to be to use the ]. I've seen your reverts — I get notifications for them — and I was just thinking of posting on your page, to thank you for taking care of the no-good reverts you found, and to discuss the situation generally. ] &#124; ] 18:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC).
			The inclusion of North Korea as a belligerent in the infobox for the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" article has been a point of extensive and protracted discussion since September. A formal Request for Comment (RfC) on this matter ran for several weeks and was closed with a clear consensus to include North Korea as a combatant based on reliable sources and expert analysis. However, despite the closure, the discussion has continued unabated across multiple threads, with certain editors repeatedly rehashing resolved points and questioning the validity of reliable sources, leading to significant disruption.
	==], ], and ]==
	=== Users blanking information at ] ===
			'''Key Points:'''
	A user ] is blanking Reliably Sourced information from the article ], and then refusing to explain why on the discussion page. Edits here and . He/she even threatened to report me for '''adding Reliably Sourced informetion from Time Magazine'''. Attempt at discussion page here.. .
	] (]) 07:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:My reply to the IP is . ] (]) 07:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	::Since ] has been involved with this IP's behavior for as long as I have, I will be notifying them of these threads. ] (]) 07:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			# '''Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:'''
	::: I've been trying to post this for minutes now, but keep getting conflict.
			#* The RfC on North Korea's inclusion was conducted thoroughly, with a wide range of arguments presented by both sides.
			#* The closing administrator, S Marshall, determined there was a clear consensus to include North Korea as a belligerent based on reliable sources and the strength of arguments.
			#* The close explicitly allowed for reevaluation if new battlefield events or sources emerged, but no substantial new evidence has invalidated the prior consensus.
			# '''Ongoing Disruption:'''
			#* Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editors.
			#* This behavior includes undermining reliable sources, misrepresenting their content, and insisting on a higher standard of verification (e.g., requiring firsthand evidence of North Korean combat, which is unreasonable given the context).
			# '''Reliable Sources Confirming North Korean Involvement:'''
			#* Multiple reputable outlets, including the BBC, Reuters, and Pentagon statements, confirm North Korean military involvement and casualties in the conflict.
			#* Experts from institutions like Chatham House and RUSI have explicitly stated North Korea's role in combat, aligning with the community's decision.
			# '''Impact on the Community:'''
			#* The continued disruption consumes editor time and resources, detracting from the article's improvement.
			#* These actions disregard Misplaced Pages's consensus-building principles and guidelines for resolving disputes. This dispute has been ongoing for months, with multiple threads being opened and closed on the same topic.
			'''Request for Administrative Action:'''
	::: It is curious that this editor ] had no problem with the ] article as it was as of September 2020. . Compare that version to the most recent.. We see in Nov 2020 an '''unverified photo''', whereas now there is a verified one. We see in Nov 2020 that even the dates of Esther's active career were wrong, by years. And we see blatant UNSOURCED claims such as ''While Kane never publicly admitted her borrowing, Jones' style—as imitated by Kane—went on to become the inspiration for the voice of the cartoon character ]'' and ''Esther was thus recognized as the original scat-singer who inspired Helen Kane to scat-sing.'' . How about ''One of the main reasons Baby Esther is not remembered is because she was never a feature attraction in Cab Calloway's New York club;'' and ''In addition to adducing Baby Esther's performances,'' That's all BLATANT OR and totally unsourced. Yet, that's what BeyondMyKen wants.
	:::Here's the ] that BeyondmyKen objects to
			I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:
	:::And now someone else has reverted to the blanked version <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			# Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions.
	::::AN/I is not a place where content disputes are settled - article talk pages are where that happens. AN/I is for behavioral problems. You have reported my behavior -- and I have given my explanation for it -- and I have reported your disruptive behavior across the three articles involved. Others will chime in with their opinions, and, if they decide a sanction needs to be be levied (I have asked for you to be topic banned from the three articles, I'm not sure what action you're looking for, since you don't state one) an admin will do so. In the meantime, some editors may comment on the content dispute, but that's not the purpose of this board. ] (]) 08:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			# Discourage editors from rehashing resolved discussions, particularly when arguments have been repeatedly addressed and dismissed.
			# Consider imposing a topic ban or other appropriate measures on editors who persist in disrupting the article with repetitive or bad-faith arguments.
			This matter has been discussed exhaustively, and it is essential to prioritize Misplaced Pages's goals of maintaining a high-quality, well-sourced, and consensus-driven encyclopedia.
	::: The content dispute led to the "behaviour". As noted above, the article was a mess, full of UNSOURCED MATERIAL, OUTRIGHT LIES, and worse. So, finally someone comes along, and tries to make three articles more worthy of being on Misplaced Pages. At which point, people who wanted the articles in their unsourced, fabricated, synthesis manner then started accusing the editor who was tryng to IMPROVE the articles of "disruptive behaviour".
			Thank you for your attention to this matter.
			UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus.
			] (]) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at ] rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I was going to post it at ] but it said: "'''This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of''' ''general administrator interest.''
			::If your post is about a '''specific problem you have''' (a '''dispute''', user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the ''']''' (ANI) instead. Thank you."
			::I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute ] (]) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. ] (]) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. ] (]) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC ] (]) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I think the underlying issue here is that if you use AI to generate text which looks like obvious AI output then readers will wonder "does the end user even have sufficient English to understand what the AI has generated for them?" and "did the end user understand the material prior to deciding to employ AI?". Thus if a user is fluent in English, as you obviously are, it will always be better to communicate in your own voice.
			:::::::At the end of the day, a user making a valid point in their own voice is generally speaking going to be taken more seriously than a user employing LLM output.
			:::::::There are plenty of other reasons for users not to employ AI (see the recent thread here for extensive coverage) but the argument above seems like a good practical reason for fluent English speakers to always prefer using their own voice.
			:::::::You will see from the recent thread that many users here are vehemently against AI use. ] (]) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Dispute Over Edits and Use of British Raj Sources ==
	Is the editor trying to add reliable sources, and remove unsourced attack content "disruptive"? OR is the person REMOVING sourced material, and adding unsourced material the "disruptive" one?
			{{Atop|Content dispute.--] (]) 15:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			Hello,
	::::: Oh, I forgot the best one of all. Blatantly lying about what a ] actually said.
			I’m seeking administrator input regarding a dispute with @] over the content in the the "]" article. The editor removed significant content, citing ] as justification. Here are my concerns:
	::::: This all seems to go back to Robert O'Meally and his book Uptown Conversation: The New Jazz Studies (2004).
			'''1. Misapplication of Policy''':
	The person who created this article(Baby Esther) only used O'Meally as a supposed "source".
			Sitush’s essays are not official Misplaced Pages policy. Content decisions should follow ], ], and ].
	The phrase "Jazz studies scholar Robert O'Meally has referred to Jones as 'Betty Boop's black grandmother.'" was on that article until November 2020.
			'''2. Dismissal of Reliable Sources''':
	--- But what did Robert O'Meally ACTUALLY say"
			The removed content was based on ]-era sources, which are neutral and historically significant. The editor claims these are unreliable without specific evidence or discussion on the article’s talk page.
	From Page 290 of Uptown Conversation:
			'''3. Unilateral Edits and Dismissive Behavior''':
	The climax of the case (a further Ellisonian twist) came when the court viewed archival film brought in by the defense - footage shot in the early days of sound, featuring yet another singer, this time a black cabaret artist billed as Baby Esther, who on film performed a song that contained the heavily debated phrase "boop-boop-a-doop". The Fleischers' lawyers further surprised the court with testimony from Baby Esther's manager, Lou Walton, claiming that Helen Kane and her manager had heard Baby Esther sing in a cabaret in 1928. The point of course was that even if the Fleischers' singer(s) had copied Kane to create Betty Boop, Kane herself, if the evidence could be believed56, was an imitation of black Baby Esther.57 In other words, Boop herself was an imitation of an imitation and had, as it were, a black grandmother in the background.58
			Despite my attempts to discuss the matter constructively, the editor dismissed my concerns as "]" and warned me about sanctions under ] and ], discouraging collaboration.]
	Nice, isn't it? But what was that "if the evidence could be believed"? Editors like Beyondmyken never quoted THAT, did she? Let's see what Robert O'Meally says under those references at the book. After all, he wouldn't put that there, if it wasn't important, would he? And what about # 57 and # 58? Let us turn to Page 295 of the exact same book, by the exact same author.
			'''Evidence''':
	56. Cabarga, The Fleischer Story makes clear that this evidence might very well have been cooked up by the Fleischers to discredit Kane, whom they later admitted to have been their model for Betty Boop.
	57. See Klaus Strateman's Louis Armstrong on the Screen (Copenhagen:JazzMedia 1996), pp. 17-26.
	58. One can only wonder if there was some sort of sideline deal with Mr Walton. Was Miss Esther paid for her presumed loss of revenue?
	In other words, the article stated pretty much the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the RS actually stated. Beyondmyken BLATANTLY LIED AND MISREPRESENTED a ]. It wasn't until I quoted O'Meally correctly that the article reflected the truth, at which point Beyondmyken(and others) started attacking me. For correctly quoting O'Meally, rather than lying about what he had written. ] (]) 08:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' (my last) Those of you who do not wish to go through the diffs and links I posted below of the IP's ranting style just got a good sample of it. Even after being told that this is not the place to discuss content, they spout the above, a very good example of what editors on the talk pages of the three articles have been putting up with since September 2020. I think it's quite obvious that this IP is never going to be able to deal with this subject rationally, calmly, judiciously, and fairly, they will always push their point of view. ] (]) 08:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	::: Simple question: Why did you have NO problem with outright lies, and complete misrepresentations of of RS, for what seems to be eyars, but are now accusing people of being "disruptive" for ADDING RS, and attempting to remove unsourced material? ] (]) 08:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::: Hilarious... the same person who wrote "e, a very good example of what editors on the talk pages of the three articles have been putting up with since September 2020. I think it's quite obvious that this IP is never going to be able to deal with this subject rationally, calmly, judiciously, and fairly, they will always push their point of view." ALSO wrote " but you simply cannot keep attempting to skew the articles in order to have them show that Helen Kane was the precursor to Betty Boop,"
			]
	See? Yet, guess who got blocked? Byebye. ] (]) 09:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	=== ] ===
			'''Request for Administrative Action''':
	Some old controversies just never die down. This seems to be one of them: the influence (or lack of influence) of the entertainer ] on ] and ]. There was a lawsuit about it in 1932 when Kane sued the Fleischer Studios and the defendants brought up Baby Esther.
			1. Review the removed content and the editor’s justification.
	The IP editor 197.87.63.222 has been arguing on the talk pages of these articles since September <s>November 2020</s> that Baby Esther had no influence on Kane. Their position is very pro-Kane and very anti-Esther. They've made these arguments on the talk pages of all three articles, but has never convinced anyone - there has never been anything even close to a scintilla of a consensus for the IP's PoV, yet the IP continues to attempt to skew the articles to his personal PoV.
			2. Ensure that disputes are discussed on the article’s talk page.
	It's time for this to stop. The IP needs to be topic banned from Boop, Kane and Esther and any related subjects. I have no idea if their editing in other areas is problematic, but in this subject area it most certainly is. ] (]) 07:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	: interjection, and my last post here. This person is forcing the idea that "Baby Esther" DID influence Kane. The one source he/she used ,(O'Meally) states that that was NOT the case. And he/she blanked a RS from a 1934 Time Magazine, because it makes his/her claim of "Baby Esther influencing Helen Kane" a chronological impossibility. He/she also makes the Kane vs Fleischer trial all about Esther, when other factors like Gertrude Saunders, Louis Armstrong etc. were far more decisive. ] (]) 13:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:Well, I see he got here first by three minutes. I'll combine the two sections. ] (]) 07:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	::IP has been . ] (]) 07:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::The IP's PoV argumentation:
	:::*Talk:Baby Esther: , from "Article is a lot of hot air" (September 2020) through to the bottom of the page, 15 threads, about 11,000 words. Section titles include "Misunderstanding the judge's verdict", "Plagiarism?", "Is this even Wiki-worthy?", "An odd string of coincidences...or garbage?", all of which are to the point that their PoV is the only possibly correct one.
	:::*Talk:Helen Kane:
	:::*Talk:Betty Boop/Archive 1: Start here, with the first collapsed section <s>because the IP was using socks after being blocked</s> collapsed because the IP was suspected of being a sock, and continue to the end of the page, 4 threads, same arguments.
	:::*]
	:::] (]) 07:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::The thing to note is that the IP spouts on and on and on, and never achieves a consensus. In fact, after a while, their ranting is just ignored. Nevertheless, the IP edits as if they have a consensus. ] (]) 07:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			3. Address the editor’s dismissive tone to foster collaboration.
	::::: But how is ANY of that relevant to you blanking RELIABLY SOURCED information from a contemporaneous Time Magazine? And, do you stand by the ] article as it was in November 2020? ] (]) 07:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::::: have already explained that a number of times: the information is about '''''Helen Kane''''' and you're attempting to add it to an article about '''''Betty Boop'''''. It's ]. '''''Three editors''''' have now reverted your addition, doesn't that suggest to you that you '''''do not have the consensus necessary to add it'''''? ] (]) 07:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			4. Prevent further disruptive edits/vandalism by IP editors (which hasn't happened yet) And from Autoconfirmed users(e.g. @GrilledSeatJet , -) and even from Extended Autoconfirmed users(@]) by banning such editors and putting an extended protection on the Article which I have once put request ] for but it got denied and now the results are as follows.
	::::::: It's about Helen Kane in the context of the Betty Boop trial. By your logic, we can remove any information that's not directly about Betty Boop from the same section then. And I put it in the "Kane vs Fleishcer" paragraph of the Betty Boop article. You have exposed yourself as trying to push a POV now. ] (]) 08:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::::::: Don't be absurd, the trial is obviously relevant. The question is how much material on the trial should be in the article, and what kind. It's clear that you want the ''Time'' material to be in because it strengthens the hypothesis that Kane was the major influence on the invention of Betty Boop, and, in fact, in order to do that you're cherry-picking facts from the ''Time'' article that emphasize points of similarity between them.{{pb}}I understand that you feel strongly about this issue, but you simply cannot keep attempting to skew the articles in order to have them show that Helen Kane was the precursor to Betty Boop, and that Baby Esther was irrelevant. That's your personal viewpoint, which you're allowed to have, but you're '''''not''''' allowed to edit Misplaced Pages in such a way as to have our articles represent you views. ] (]) 08:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			Thank you for your time and attention. I’m happy to provide further information if needed.
	:::: That's YOUR POV. You can add what you want from that article too. It';s Time Magazine. You are the one cherry-picking (and as shown elsewhere, blatantly lying about what RS actually state). ] (]) 08:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			----Best Regards
	::: YOU are the one skewing it. The articles have all been skewed for years. ] (]) 08:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)		--- ] (]) 10:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{Abot}}
			== Nothing to say about me really bot ==
	:::: and we see the REALITY.
			{{atop
			| result = Locked {{nac}}. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 13:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			*{{vandal|WilhelminaBlosse}}
	"I understand that you feel strongly about this issue, but you simply cannot keep attempting to skew the articles in order to have them show that Helen Kane was the precursor to Betty Boop, and that Baby Esther was irrelevant. That's your personal viewpoint, which you're allowed to have, but you're not allowed to edit Misplaced Pages in such a way as to have our articles represent you views. "
			Please delete the user page, block the bot and report to stewards for a global block, as per ]. Thank you! ] (]) 11:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	So, I am attempting to "skew" something "To show that Helen Kane was the precursor to Betty Boop". Well, I'll just quote Professor Robert O'Meally, on page 295 of his book "Uptown Conversation":
			{{abot}}
			== Concern About a New Contributor ==
	" Cabarga, The Fleischer Story makes clear that this evidence might very well have been cooked up by the Fleischers to discredit Kane, whom they later admitted to have been their model for Betty Boop."
			{{userlinks|Kriji Sehamati}}
			Dear Wikipedians,
	That's not me "skewing", that's what a respected sholar says.
			I hope you’re doing well. I wanted to inform you about a new contributor @], despite lacking experience, has repeatedly attempted to vandalize multiple articles. These articles were properly aligned with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines and reviewed by experienced contributors, but he/she seemed unwilling to understand or respect their adherence to the policies.
	As for "and that Baby Esther was irrelevant". We;;, if Esther was relevant, I'm sure Beyondmyken, or someone else, will happily quote from Judge McGoldrick's ruling where he mentions Esther as part of his ruling. Oh, wait, he never mentioned Esther in his ruling.
			I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
	And, as stated, this article was created out of whole cloth in 2014. EVERYTHING it said there was a lie. Everything.
			Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.
	Now, have I been a bit emotional in what I have said on discussion pages? Yes. Have I made disruptive edits? No. Have I quoted what RS says, sometimes even being accused of "plagiarism" for writing EXACTLY what the Rs actually state? Yes. Has Beyondmyken now exposed him/herself as the one "skewing the article"? Yes.
			Thankyou! ]] 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	Simply, it is NOT disruptive to quote from RS to improve articles. sadly for Beyondmyken, the RS showed that what he/she has been pushing for years, even deliberately misquoting sources(such as O'Meally) is not backed up the actual RS. ] (]) 08:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Boomerang'''. But it ''is'' disruptive to edit war against several users, and to ignore consensus on talkpages. I have blocked 197.87.63.222 from ] and ] for 6 months. They have not edited ] recently, but if the disruption should move there, the block can, too. I note the same person has edited as 197.89.10.25 and 197.87.63.7 on the same articles — a huge range — so the articles may need to be temporarily semiprotected if this continues. Note also 197.87.63.222's previous . (The other IPs I mention have been blocked before also). ] &#124; ] 08:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC).
			:"Vandalize" is a very loaded word here with a specific meaning. As far as I can tell, what they've done is nominate 4 articles for deletion, and your has been to accuse them of vandalism, ignoring dispute resolution procedures and making personal attacks – none of which I can see at a glance through their contributions.
	::: For removing unsourced material, for adding sourced material, for removing possible libelous material? And you haven't blocked Beyondmyken? So, he/she can go right back and turn those articles into misinformation, lies, and blatant POV-pushing?
			:Perhaps if you supplied ] of this behaviour, someone would be able to help? If your issue is that they've nominated 4 articles of which you are a major contributor ''and'' are doing so by going through your contributions in order to find articles to nominate for deletion with specious reasons, then this board would be the place to come. If not, then making your arguments for keeping the articles on the AfDs in question would be your best bet.
	So, I'm getting blocked for trying to '''improve''' articles, whereas the people blanking RS, adding blatant mistruths, and lying about what RS actually say are being left untouched? HOW was I the disruptive one? And, if true, how was I the only disruptive one? ] (]) 09:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			:By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. ] (]) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	:{{rpa}}
			:(ec) This is an odd one. As S-Aura failed to provide diffs, I looked at Kriji Sehamati's contribution history. New account (9 Dec) began editing today, created two drafts and made a bunch of edits to those. Then began adding COI tags to articles S-Aura wrote, nominated those articles for deletion, and then left a template on S-Aura's talk page. Really seems to be something weird going on here between those two. (In addition to opening this ANI thread, S-Aura asked for help with basically the same message on the talk pages of Ipigott, Ryan shell, CFA, and BusterD, and S-Aura opened same complaint at AN.) ]&nbsp;] 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::We can always extend the block if you're simply going to be abusive? ] 09:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			::I am concerned that ]’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Misplaced Pages’s guidelines.
			::She seems to lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]. ]] 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::You were asked to provide diffs. You did, almost, but then reverted yourself. Those diffs (well, the ones before those diffs) are just the other user nominating articles for deletion (which is allowed) or tagging them for what they believe to be conflict of interest edits (which is also allowed).
			:::Please provide some actual evidence that the other user is engaging in chronic, intractable behaviour, rather than just not editing how you would like them to. ] (]) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Here are some diffs highlighting her problematic edits. However, I believe that many of her contributions may be in violation of Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. It appears she has specifically targeted me and added the COI tag multiple times to the same page. I would appreciate it if you could review her actions more thoroughly:
			:::: •
			:::: •
			:::: •
			:::: •
			::::and many more
			::::Thankyou! ]] 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. ] (]) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. ]] 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence ''at all'' that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. ] (]) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform. ]] 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Please provide evidence of this. ] (]) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::Please check! ]] 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::The articles that have been nominated for deletion discussion have been reviewed by experienced contributors. These discussions involve articles about judges and lawyers, under ], a valid criterion according to Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. Therefore, the deletion decision was made after carefully reviewing these articles. ]] 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::Honestly it looks like this user, rightly or wrongly, believes you have a conflict of interest and are acting on the basis of that assumption. I would suggest, if you don't have a CoI, talking to them about this and maybe asking why they've come to this conclusion. ] (]) 18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::They have just started targeting my contributions, and I tried to inform her about the situation. However, she is acting as if she knows everything about Misplaced Pages and is dismissing my concerns. ]] 18:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{od}}
			:{{ping|Kriji Sehamati}} hasn't edited since their AfD spree earlier today, let's wait and see what their response here is when they return to editing. ]&nbsp;] 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*We need to stop focusing on the OP's calling this vandalism; it is not. I've changed the header to reflect that. That said, the new user's edits ''are'' problematic and merit scrutiny. As for the UPE stuff, I've removed that post from the OP's Talk page; it's nonsensical coming from a new user and does not merit a response.--] (]) 18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*It is, of course, not vandalism to nominate articles for AFD discussions as long as a legitimate deletion rationale is provided and the article hasn't just been discussed at a recent AFD. However, I don't think it's a good sign when a brand new editor claims to understand all of Misplaced Pages policies and whose first actions are to nominate articles at AFDs. They are almost never an actual new editor, especially when they know how to even set up an AFD or are familiar with using Twinkle on their first day of editing. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:It seems that she is not new to Misplaced Pages and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. ]] 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. ]] 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? ]] 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against ]. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Misplaced Pages. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. ] (]) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively about this exact issue on this same board, which by another editor. This is intentional disruption. ] (]) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::As to the question "Why am I here?", poets and artists have been trying to answer this question for eons. Epistemology is outside the scope of this board, but there are articles about it. Show up to edit if you want to, but expect disagreement from time to time. (That's actually a sound answer to any epistemology question as well.) ] (]) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::Dear @],
			*:::::It means I have been proven wrong, and that user’s contributions have been more focused on me, which is quite insufficient to catch someone’s lie that she is pretending to be new, when in fact she is old.
			*:::::Also, I am not against AfD; I am simply expressing my opinion. ]] 13:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::Dear @],
			*:::::::I am not engaged in paid activities on Misplaced Pages, and she claimed that I am connected with the subject, who is a judge, lawyer, etc. You all should understand that this is not a trivial matter; justice is a very respected position. Making such allegations can escalate court cases. I would like to remind you of the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI case. ]] 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::One thing you need to understand immediately is you should never make another post that sounds vaguely like a legal threat, as you've just done above. ] That intonation is seriously not helping us decide who's right or wrong here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::Okay! ]] 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::I will caution you that this is tiptoeing right up to the edge of ] and you'd be advised to avoid making legal threats. ] (]) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::Dear @],
			*:::::::::I am merely showing that she can potentially do something inappropriate. I am following the guidelines and not making any legal threats. ]] 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::The page of Justice ], who had conducted over the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI court hearing, was also created by me. ]] 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::<del>State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Misplaced Pages with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again".</del> <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. ] (]) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::::Good call, I'll retract the above. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::No, that is not what I am implying. ]] 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::No one has said your contributions are not good. However, it should be noted that a draft being accepted at AfC or a new page having been ] does not guarantee greater scrutiny would not result in a valid AfD nomination. That said, echoing others here it's clear something problematic is up with this user's behavior. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 12:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::You can't both criticize someone for {{tq|lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]}}, and then argue that she is too familiar with the platform to be a newcomer for knowing how to file an AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here knew how to file an AfD before knowing all 14 notability guidelines by heart. ] (] · ]) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::There are detailed instructions on filing an AfD that can be found by googling "how can I get a Misplaced Pages page deleted" - if somebody had some personal reason for wanting to have pages removed it doesn't strain credibility to think that's why they created a WP account and that they just followed the very clear instructions on the appropriate pages.
			*:::In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfD ''process'' but not ''criteria'' that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling. ] (]) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I believe we're entering boomerang territory at this point. Opinions? ] (]) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to ]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. ] (]) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I'd have said close with trout for all if not for creating the second thread at AN/I. Based on that I'd say the OP should be formally cautioned against such antics in the future. ] (]) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::I should have added that I largely hold with Remsense in their position. ] (]) 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::] is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. ]] 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::You need to stop insisting this is definitely the case if you don't have any evidence for it, period. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::S-Aura, how did you make the determination {{tq|User:Kriji Sehamati‬ is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages}}? Please share your process. That's a personal attack, and requires proof to prevent you from being in violation of ]. I've looked at the AfDs and they seem reasonable to me. When you've provided strong sources the article is being kept. So far the jury is out on the others. Both of you seem to be writing articles about obscure living persons who wouldn't normally (by my cursory reading) have a Misplaced Pages article about them because reliable sourcing is not readily found. When I see that, I must suspect COI or undeclared unpaid editing here, but nobody's admitting to it. ] (]) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::S-Aura's continuing to issue personal attacks makes it more difficult for us to just close this (without some form of consequence for the editor making unproven personal attacks after they've been warned repeatedly). ] (]) 15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences. ] (]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Support BOOMERANG''' - I've been uninvoled and have mainly just been watching the back-and-forths, but the personal attacks and ] mindset, such as "questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors", concerns me. Not sure for how long, but I don't think anything longer than a months is appropriate given the circumstances. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 15:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Darkwarriorblake making aspersions ==
	::: How was that a "personal attack" or "abusive"? If 1 person is trying to source information, remove unsourced material, and repeatedly creating new threads on the discussion pages to discuss article content....while another user ignores the discussion pages, blanket reverts without discussion, removes RS material, threatens rather than discusses, and '''lies about what a RS says, to push his/her agenda''', then who is the disruptive one? But what if more than one person does what the latter user does? Does numerical superiority then give free reign to ignoring discussions, adding unsourced material, and removing sourced material, just because there is a very slim numerical advantage? ] (]) 10:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			{{atop|result=The OP says they don't care any more which I'm reading as a withdrawal and the other party says they won't be responding again so I'm closing this discussion. My only comment is that both editors in this dispute should have brought this to the article talk page to talk this disagreement out. I don't know if the differences would be resolved but this is what we advise editors to do when their edits are reverted. Now I just have to get that scene in the movie out of my mind. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			Postscript: Ah, someone just close this, I don't care any more. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			----
			I'm posting here after a particularly underwhelming interaction with an editor in the form of edit summaries. I'll need to provide the context of a brief content dispute which hopefully won't take too long and then get to the point. I'm not asking for anyone to take my side in the dispute.
			'']'' is a widely acclaimed comedy film from 1983, which is also widely acknowledged to have problematic elements by modern standards, including a scene in which the villain of the piece, stuck in a gorilla costume, is locked in a cage with a real gorilla, which is implied to sexually penetrate him without his consent.
	::::: and note his/her original comment. That I'm "very pro-Kane and very anti-Esther". Nope. I was adding NPOV RS, and Beyondmyken didn't like what they said. Period. So who was skewing articles? I just say, look at what they were like(Beyondmyken's preferred versions) before I started trying to edit them, compared to now. Is that "disruptive"? Who was the one who exposed the BLATANT LIE about what respected scholar Robert O'Meally said? Me. How was it alright for a Misplaced Pages article to outright fabricate "evidence" from an esteemed scholar, and falsely claim he wrote something that he never wrote? And how is correcting that being "disruptive"? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:I've issued a PA warning to 197.87.63.222 - this isn't a war that must be won at all costs. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 13:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::: Nobody said it was. I was just asking why trying to Reliably Source material, trying to correct unsourced material, and starting threads on discussion pages is "disruptive". That's not a personal attack. All I want is a clear, straight answer. Is it a personal attack to want something to be explained? ] (]) 13:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::::I just want to note that being "Reliably Sourced" is a '''necessary but not sufficient''' condition to adding text to an article. When adding ''new'' information, the new information needs BOTH be reliably sourced ''and there needs to be consensus that the new information is relevant and proper to add to the article''. You seem to be running into problems with the second part. If you've reached an impasse, invite some uninvolved editors to look into the situation. We've got a dozen or so various noticeboards where you can ask for outside opinions, ] is thataway. ]ing talk pages and repeatedly trying to force a contested change into an article is not a productive way to move beyond an impasse. --]] 13:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	::If you beleive you can skirt a PA block by just saying "other editors" are lying, you're mistaken. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 13:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	::: I have no idea what you're talking about. I demonstrated that people had been inserting false/fabricated "facts" into articles to force a pov. That is beyond dispute. Compare O'Meally's real quote to what the article used to say he said. The problem is that both Beyondmyken and MarnetteD started reverting any similar edits I made, so I was accused of efit-warring. The articles as they stand now have been tidied up substantially. Yet the latest efit war concerns a Time Magazine article from 1934 that other editors didn't like. Read Beyondmyken's first post on this very dispute to find out why. ] (]) 13:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			The article states that ] demurred being cast in the role upon finding that out. for this claim is a ] on ], which contains the sentence
	== New user, claims to be an old user, blanking loads of stuff ==
			: ''Reportedly, Liddy was on board until he got to the part where Beeks .''
			Reportedly ''by whom'' is not mentioned, let alone is there a direct quotation from Liddy. Plus as can be seen the words "becomes a gorilla's mate" are linked to a very poor quality, hand-held video of the scene in question playing on a television. This alone should be enough to raise serious questions about the use of this "source" in a featured article.
			The content dispute began when I changed it like this () with the comment ''Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs'':
	{{userlinks|Gal00n20honm}} is a new account, claims on userpage to be an old user, is blanking loads of stuff, including threads on this page. ] (]) 09:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			{{text diff|Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla.|Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks is raped by a gorilla.}}
			This was reverted () by {{u|Darkwarriorblake}} with the comment ''not what the source says''.
	Same editor as ] from a few days ago. Probably some well-known vandal, no idea if they can be stopped by some edit filter or similar? ] (]) 09:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			After thinking about it a moment I came to the conclusion described above about the quality of the source, and decided that it was better out than in, which is what I should have done in the first place.()
	certainly, and perhaps the accompanying , needs to be revdeled as well? ] (]) 09:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			{{text diff|...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks. Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla. Paul Gleason took the role;...|...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks with Paul Gleason eventually taking the role;...}}
	:Looks like a sock of {{userlinks|Sunholm}}. Have reported to SPI. ] (]) 09:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			My accompanying comment was ''(a) That was the source's voice, not Liddy's. It's called a euphemism. Demonstrable by how it links to a clip of the scene in which a man is raped by a gorilla. (b) Source says "reportedly" for this claim, without evidence. Poor quality source. Removing claim''
	In fact, all their edits need checking for revdel for hoax claims reasons and for spamming of some sites in the edit summaries, and per ]. ] (]) 09:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	* Blocked indef for the time being. ] 09:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:{{userlinks|Blakecowrie0389}} is another. ] (]) 09:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			That was reverted by Darkwarriorblake () with the comment ''Nothing wrong with Indiewire as a source, if there is I'd raise it at ]. Until then, there's a talk page for you to use per ]. Your comments sound agenda driven and therefore not Neutral.''
	== Editor ignoring ] ==
			This is where the reason for me to raise this at this board begins, because that's solidly an example of ]. It came on top of a revert which reintroduced a claim cited to a rumor in a blog post into a featured article, but that's really not my concern, because if the champions of the featured article process have decided that it's somehow acceptable for our "best" content then I'm just going to move on to something else rather than argue.
	Hi everyone. {{u|PeterSweden}} has been repeatedly ignoring ] at ]. In the article lede the subject is described as {{tq|He is a researcher, consultant, and public expert in the cause and spread of zoonotic disease outbreaks like that of ]}}. PeterSweden has been continuously reinserting the word "contested" citing two non-WP:MEDRS sources. On top of this, they have been ]. Relevant diffs:
	* I reverted their change explaining "researchgate.net is not a reliable source for medical claims. See ].":
	* They re-insert their change, adding another non-WP:MEDRS source, accusing me of "censorship, restriction of freedom of speech and manipulation": .
	* I reverted them again and posted to ] making them aware of ] and further explained the importance of WP:MEDRS.
	* They have not responded on their Talk page. Instead, they have again re-inserted their changes: .
	A new editor, they haven't edited any articles other than Peter Daszak. They seem to be unwilling to engage in a reasonable discussion and more like a ] ] interested in ]. ] (]) 10:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:How does WP:MEDRS apply to people when it is designed to apply to biomedical information? With that said, crying censorship is never a good thing and those sources need to be WP:RS, not WP:MEDRS in my opinion. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;">] | ]</small> 14:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	::Whether COVID-19 is zoonotic or not (or contested) is biomedical information, whatever article it is in, so is subject to ]. ] (]) 15:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			There's one final back and forth which was enough to motivate me to post here. First, I reverted that revert (, my only time using the actual "Undo" button today), with this comment: ''a good source doesn't say "reportedly" (ie, spread a rumor), it specifies the origin of a fact. My only "agenda" is with a crap listicle being used as a reference, regardless of who published it. Take it to talk if you want to argue for the continued inclusion of a trash ref in a featured article, or source the claim properly yourself''.
	== Temp block of User:Quantupediholic ==
	I've temporarily blocked {{u|Quantupediholic}} following an out of character edit by in which they dumped several megabytes of signature text into that page together with an intemperate edit comment. They seem to have been a constructive editor until this edit, so I've only blocked them for a short time, with a request for clarification on their talk page. I'm wondering if this might be an account compromise? -- ] (]) 12:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:{{u|The Anome}} Should've asked the user first what was going on before you made the block, and the edit you are talking about I assume was the one made at ]. That's a test page which was going to be reset by a bot anyway. Even though the block is short, I think it was the wrong action to take. ] (]) 14:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:Just want add that a ANI notice needs to be sent out once you file a report, even if you did ping them. I've sent one to Quantupediholic. ] (]) 14:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::::::::{{ping|Jerm}} Thank you; apologies for forgetting to do it. -- ] (]) 15:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	::My mobile phone froze for 2 minutes when I tried open that diff. One of the LTAs has a habit of spamming extremely large edits to the Sandbox, so I won't blame The Anome in this case for thinking something is fishy. ] (]) 14:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::I've just discussed it with {{u|Quantupediholic}}, explaining why I made the block. It doesn't look like they've lost control of their account, so I've unblocked them now. -- ] (]) 15:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			This was reverted - again - by Darkwarriorblake () with the comment '' How are you an admin? "rape played for laughs" is an agenda, this went through FA as is so ] and ] apply. You must go to the talk page, not I. I don't know if you're going through a bad time or something but this isn't how an admin should be acting or communicating with others, up to and including ]''
	== User:KrishnaVastav ==
			At this point it's gone firmly into the realm of knee-jerk reversions, because if Darkwarriorblake took the time to read the article which they've (is this ]? Kind of feels that way), they would get down to the ] section. Which says "some critics have praised the film while highlighting elements that they believe aged poorly, including racial language, the use of blackface, and the implied rape of Beeks by a gorilla", cited to articles in four major publications. Or, you know, even .
	{{User2|KrishnaVastav}} – Continuous disruptive editing on a mass scale (over 90 articles and counting). Keeps sticking "Delhi NCR" everywhere or other location-focused nonsense. Warnings left unheeded, including level-4 warnings. Does not engage in discussion. Temporary block requested. — ]&nbsp;] 12:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			So anyhow regardless of whether the Indiewire source is deemed suitable or not, I'm just wondering what the feeling here is about someone making goofy assertions on the record that another editor has "an agenda" (what agenda could it be?) and may not be emotionally stable, which really doesn't feel like ] at all. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 20:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	:He/she always leaves the edit summary "added content" irrespective of what he/she did. For example, to ] where he/she deleted wikilinks and added a mistake to the punctuation. As far as I can see, the only point to his/her edits is an attempt to build up an edit history in the hopes of becoming as ].<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--] ]</span> 13:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			:Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive.
			:*I've added a second source for the claim. Really this should've been the first option rather than removing the content.
			:*The first summary was, as stated, "Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs". "Rape played for laughs" is a loaded comment and not something said in the article or the source text, so it's a personal opinion, it's not neutral, it's agenda-driven.
			:*When this was reverted, the editor just removed the content entirely claiming IndieWire was unreliable. There is, as far as I'm aware, nothing wrong with Indiewire. I've since found a second source, the Telegraph, which is reliable per ].
			:*The editor ignored WP: BRD when raised, and as an admin they should adhere to policy.
			:*The editor states that they are an admin on their page. Assuming this is true, the aggressiveness of their edits, hyper focus on the single area, and use of words like "crap listicle" seemed out of line with what I, personally, would expect from an admin on Misplaced Pages, certainly someone who has been so for nearly two decades. Perhaps the edit summary wasn't the place to have that discussion but, as stated, they weren't adhering to WP: BRD to start a discussion, and in the interim the article needed putting back to the status quo.
			:*I find accusations of OWNERSHIP often tend to come when people don't get their way. Which is fine. I have plenty of reversions on the page for people adding unsourced content and there are plenty of changes as well. I find someone removing sourced content and me putting the sourced content back to not ''really'' be something you can fling ownership at.
			:*Within the context of the film, Beeks does become the romantic partner of the gorilla, it seemed more appropriate and encylcopedic text than just saying 'rape', and neither source I've added says that either.
			:*Anyways, my edit history shows I'm a massive contributor and helper and it's nearly Xmas, and I don't feel like engaging with this any further, good luck Hex. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Of course you don't, having ignored the actual matter of your conduct that I'm raising here. Your comments about the content of the article are irrelevant. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Hex's position is not wholly supported, although in the entire issue, their toolset is irrelevant. There was no incivility on either part, and an all-out edit war seems to have been averted.{{pb}}Fundamentally the change Hex wanted to make was pure OR; rape may have been intimated—or, as Hex themself admits, implied—but its never overtly stated and is a wholly loaded term. This is the interpretation of an editor, not of secondary sources. If there is a pron=blem with Indywire as a source—currently used in —take it to WP:RSN. If it's disputed that it's a high quality source per WP:FA?, then take it to WT:FAC. Accusations of OWNership are as unhelpful—and as much an aspersion—as accusations of agenda-led editing. In fact, for OWNership, Hex should read the relevant policy: here, it is WP:FAOWN, which not only allows for careful stewardship of featured material, but requires significant changes to the consensus version to be discussed on talk; I don't suppose there's any suggestion that introducing rape—particularly "played for laughs"—wouldn't be a significant addition.{{pb}}Really though, this is an overblown content dispute which should have started with ''one revert'' each, and ended on the talk page. --]'']''] 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:"Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' be a significant addition" - with John Landis, the director. {{talk quote|One of the executives was deeply appalled by a man being sexually molested by a gorilla. And I said you know, it's a joke and it goes by very quickly. But the first preview was very successful and it all went away. ''''}}
			*:Feel free to amend the article on that basis. I'm certainly not interested in spending any more time on it. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			===Followup===
	== user:TrangaBellam ==
			I just want to say that, now that we've had an ANI thread on the subjeect of Gordon Liddy's feelings about portraying the romantic partner of a gorilla, I can die happy.
			While we're on the subject, recites that {{tq|Prior to his departure from the FBI in 1962, Liddy sought admission to various bars.}} I'm curious to know whether this is meant to imply that Liddy had a , and whether this could have had any bearing on the whole gorilla romantic partner situation. ]]
	{{user|TrangaBellam}} slapped a deletion notice on ] () and when enough references and citations were provided, he has been deleting them (). He wants to "talk" and wants to police the article. I have asked him not to remove texts (). It is also strange that he has slapped a notice on me for edit warring, even as he is the other party disputing my edits.. ] (]) 13:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	*I hope that the administrators will discount this report as frivolous. The author, to prove the notability of the article, has been misrepresenting sources and is ] despite multiple requests. I did not delete a single reference but edited the text to comply with ]. ] (]) 13:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	*:I don't know who is right here, but this really just looks like a very young content dispute. I agree with TrangaBellam that you should continue discussion at the talk page, and I'm not sure what Chaipau means when they put "talk" in scare quotes. ] (]) 14:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:: This is not a frivolous charge. {{u|TrangaBellam}}'s cycle of engagement indicates he is not engaging in good faith and is being disruptive.
	::* He flags article for deletion with the note that it lacks notability.
	::* I added references for notability
	::* I then removed the tag for deletion, according to the second step of the PROD process, which says: {{tq|If anybody objects to the deletion (usually by removing the <nowiki>{{proposed deletion/dated}}</nowiki> tag—see full instructions below), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed.}}. The reason being that notability has been established.
	::* {{u|TrangaBellam}} nominates page for deletion.
	::* I continue to improve article
	::* {{u|TrangalBellam}} stands guard, removing referenced and cited texts, along with citations, for improving the article., ,
	::* {{u|TrangalBellam}} now clearly having reverted a number of my edits, notifies me against edit warring and warns me that I may be blocked!
	:: This is disruptive behavior that needs to be checked. Instead of improving the article, the TrangalBellam seems to be pushing a point of view, displaying WP:OWN, and anointed himself as the gatekeeper. This behavior needs to be checked.
	::] (]) 14:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::{{re|Firefangledfeathers}} By "talk", I mean that {{u|TrangalBellam}} is trying to be a gatekeeper here, even as he is pushing to have the article deleted. A gatekeeper more in in the 3O tradition is more appropriate. Surely, he is in the right to verify the citations. But reverting and then calling for a "talk" (aka "proposal for change") is ludicrous. He made his objection later and his objections have been addressed. ] (]) 14:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	* '''Comment''' - We are all gate-keepers here. I am afraid you just need to roll up your sleeves and engage in good-faith discussion. -- ] (]) 17:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	* I am not user Chaipau but User Trangabellam really is far from constructive edit on articles if he did not like certain lines or topic he will act like a police use wikipedia existing laws like a weapon and will delete the article or the section, citing it lack wp:CNG will delete even book source saying its unreliable, he seem to nitpick everything based on his preference, here are some of article he delated recently without any discussion, he even took mythological dieties should satisfy publishing from journal. see this big content deletions ] <sup>]</sup> 17:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	::::: I will just point out that User:Luwanglinux was <u>recently blocked by an administrator for a week</u>, based on my (and ]'s) complaint at a noticeboard. ] (]) 17:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::::: You and kautilya even lobbied to that admin when the admin told me not to revert article again and I did not revert article but you were saying something like this creation of article] is also an indirect edit war, I am really amazed by the way you and Kautilya took the effort to block me. Admin Edjohnston did not reply yet when I asked if I really violate rule revert article or edit war after discussion.] <sup>]</sup> 18:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			== Extremely Annoying situation ==
	== Excalibur26 - please revoke TPA ==
			{{atop
			| result = Blocked for one week. ] (]/]) 01:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			I reverted by ]. They then times for it. One of these was for "being shovel shenanigans" which I took as a ] and informed them of it.
	*{{userlinks|Excalibur26}}
			The rest escapes words for me. See these discussions.
	This user was recently indeffed for treating Misplaced Pages ] for their racist and misogynist opinions, which they inserted directly into several articles, catalogued . Today they are using their talk page to . Please relieve them of their talk page access. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 13:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	*Done. ]] 14:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			]
	== Cheryl Fullerton ==
			] ]
	{{user5|Cheryl Fullerton}}
			they also used a ] to continue to irk me. I hesitated to bring this to ANI, since they seemed new, and I didn't want to bite, but enough is enough.
	Cheryl has mainly been focused on editing ] and ], and caused various disputes, which I summarised in ]. Since then, we've tried to resolve things, including a ]. To cut a long story short, we can't prove Cheryl has a COI with Craig Chaquico, but there seems to be continual disruption, ignoring other people's advice, and just trying to insert a POV into these articles that I can't see anyone else wants.
			] (]) 00:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	I have said before that Cheryl is civil and polite and has tried to learn policies and guidelines, but she has taken up so much administrator time now, than I think our collective patience has run out and we need to do something else. So I am proposing that '''Cheryl Fullerton is topic banned from Craig Chaquico, broadly construed'''. Discuss. ] ] ] 14:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== IP vandalism ==
	* '''Support''' as proposer. ] ] ] 14:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			{{atop
	* '''Support''' as I stated at the COIN discussion, I just am not seeing CF as being able to edit neutrally surrounding Craig Chaquico, and based on her interactions with other editors at various talks and noticeboards, I think Ritchie is quite right. Enough is enough. This has been a time sink for too many editors at too many articles surrounding Chaquico ''for four years now''. ] (]) 14:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			| result = Blocked. {{nac}} <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 03:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' topic ban. This has gone on way too long, and it is crystal clear that Cheryl Fullerton is 100% devoted to inserting Craig Chaquico's idiosyncratic view of the history of Jefferson Starship into Misplaced Pages articles, instead of neutrally summarizing what reliable ''independent'' sources say. ] ] 15:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			}}
	*'''Support''' because the time and patience of constructive editors is Misplaced Pages's most precious resource and Cheryl Fullerton is squandering that resource. I noticed in particular {{u|Ritchie333}} writing at the COI noticeboard yesterday that he {{tq|"ended up dropping out of the discussion through sheer exhaustion"}}. I've never noticed Ritchie being particularly prone to exhaustion, and he could have used the same amount of Misplaced Pages time and energy for ''so'' many much better things. It's totally unacceptable to wear out editors through sheer stubbornness and ]. ] &#124; ] 15:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC).
			This user: ] seems to be on a spree of Vandalism, which they are summarising in the edit summaries as 'reverting vandalism'. Example: ] <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small><sup>]</sup>
	==Can someone remove TPA from this IP?==
	*{{userlinks|70.249.170.51}}
	They've been blocked for six months, but keep spam adding edit requests on their talk page (mostly to ], which is very subtle). &#8209;&#8209;] (]) 14:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	::Done ] ] ] 14:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			:including racist edits summarized as reverting racist texts. Example ] (]) 03:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	==Three rollbacks suffered==
			::The IP is already blocked. To OP: Consider reporting obvious vandalism like this at ]. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	and This despite the fact that twice in the comments I had tried to explain to the user in question that the community has not yet decided that he was right to eliminate my choice of a different headercolor for the athlete's infobox and that indeed a discussion at the project had been, some time ago, opened by me to explain the reasons for my choice to use a common headercolor for a certain category of female athletes. Notified on the user's talk page. --] (]) 15:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on ] page ==
	:"indeed a discussion at the project had been, some time ago" - Really? What discussion? And why are you insisting on enforcing gender stereotypes on WP? Is it always pink for girls and blue for boys? What other views on women do you have? And you're not even consistent in applying this ill-though out idea ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	::Lugnuts you see, the problem is not whether my idea is right or not, but the attitude of those do rollbacks without giving explanations (you did even rollback my ANI notice on your talk page, maybe because there were too many?) --] (]) 16:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::{{small|Uninvolved non-admin}}: Since we're evaluating everyone's behavior, Kasper2006, you also have a habit of not including edit summaries. After a couple of reverts, you started using edit summaries not to justify/explain your edits but simply to say that there aren't any guidelines against it. {{pb}}Lugnuts, since Kasper2006's edits are not "obvious vandalism", do you think it's fair to ask that you provide edit summaries when you revert? {{pb}}I know that this isn't the place for content disputes, but could someone direct me to the best place to build a consensus that these kinds of edits should never happen and that work can begin on undoing them all? ] (]) 16:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	::@], please start using edit summaries and answering queries on your talk page when you've reverted someone. ] (]) 17:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::Unless a conversation has run its course, or in cases such as Kasper who are trying to ] me, I always do. Thanks. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:So you're arguing that "a certain category" of female athlete should have a pink background? My kneejerk reaction is that's mildly offensive on its face, but if you're arguing there's a discussion supporting that, you should provide a link. ] (]) 16:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	::{{ping|Valereee}} I do not see this intention in fact, it is a completely innocent thing ... a simple distinction of gender which among other things, as you know exists in athletics competitions (men do not compete with women) and the utility 'user of Misplaced Pages is to see immediately from the infobox if those records, those results are male or female, among other things it is since 2012 that I assign this headercolor to female Italian athletes. I give you two links, one when ] and the second ]. Explanations that obviously I have not had. --] (]) 16:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::Okay, that's not a discussion. It's a single post by you a month ago which no one has even answered. I don't think you can really use that as an ongoing discussion, but honestly I guess I'm going to involve myself here by !voting at that discussion. ] (]) 17:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	*Just to be clear, the header is misleading. There has been no use of ], a user right that can be revoked if misused, but just the undo button (without a edit summary), which every editor has.-- ] (]) 16:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			] is repeatedly removing information about a recent incident involving a Jewish DJ at ]. They say that it is incorrect information, even though it is sourced. The name also states clearly that this is a company account. Lastly, they have continued this behavior even after being warned on their talk page. ] (]) 03:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	:] that Kasper accused me of wrong-doings. In this case he was making sweeping statements about people's ethnicity/language spoken. That's why I pretty much ignore this user. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::There may be a language issue here. {{u|Kasper2006}}, are you aware that a "rollback" is a particular kind of revert, done with a special tool, that generally is used for vandalism and other bad-faith edits? If an editor is abusing rollback, they can lose their right to use the tool. That's why editors mentioned both here and at the previous complaint by you about Lugnuts that they hadn't actually rollbacked your edits but had instead reverted them. ] (]) 18:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			:User is now editing using ] ] (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	Kasper2006, you've been here long enough to know that it is the responsibility of the person making the change to get consensus for the change if it is challenged. You were bold on that article and changed the colour to pink, it was reverted, but you didn't take it to the talk page you instead just reverted again thereby starting an edit war. <s>And the thread you link to above about making the header pink for female athletes (like seriously?) is quite clear that everyone who responded was against it. You're the one operating out of consensus and you're the one edit warring.</s> Should Lugnuts have used an edit summary and not continued to edit war, most certainly, but you are the one who introduced the change so the onus is on your to take it to talk if you wish to continue to push for the change. Either way, it's quite obvious that making the headers in a female athlete's infobox pink is not supported by the community and would be an incredibly bad look for Misplaced Pages promoting outdated sexist attitudes and inappropriate colour gendering. ] ] 18:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			::This is a content dispute and the article is being actively edited by many different editors. However, no discussion about the disagreements has occurred on the article talk page which is where this discussion should be happening. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	:<small>To be fair, all those responses were made in the last hour or so. ] (]) 18:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)</small>
	::Doh!!!!! Yes you're quite right, I should have spotted that. Sincerer apologies on that front. ] ] 18:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
			That article probably should be speedied as an A7 for not containing any assertions of notability; which obscures that Stationmanagerskidrow appears to have been edit warring on it with an undisclosed COI, and presumably was ]ing as , and if so violated 3RR as well. It's probably best for me not to take administrative action here tonight as I won't be around later/tomorrow to deal with any followups, but something should be done here beyond just saying "take it to the talk page." ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	== ] issues ==
			:The page was longer, but sourced (all but?) soley to the station's site and it's been trimmed down to what it is now. Given the repeated edit-warring by IPs I've semi-protected the page for two days for now. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::] and ] message added . I'm just about to make myself thoroughly ] by seeing what I can do about the ] article. ] (]) 🦘 09:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Insults ==
	The user in question here now has a very substantial sock history at this point, continuing to stalk/harass me across other Wikis.
	For reference...
			I'd like to report an incident related to ]. A person under IP already accused me of being "obsessed". Now someone (possibly the same person) . Please also see . I guess we can always agree to disagree with other people, but this is going a bit too far. Thank you. ] (]) 09:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	Misplaced Pages:
			:Hello, Psychloppos. What action are you seeking to happen here? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	*
			::I have no idea which actions are warranted here. Maybe an admin could leave a message to this IP and this registered user and remind them that they should ] ? It would also be nice to remind them about ] and ]. Saying that I am "fuelled by an unhealthy obsession" or questioning my sanity do not seem to respect those guidelines. ] (]) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	*
			==Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots ==
			*{{Noping|Nlkyair012}}
			This editor has been constantly using AI chatbots to respond and write messages. They are a single purpose account for glorifying the ] caste using unreliable ] era sources, I and several other experienced editors have taken time and effort to respond to their endless queries and ] generated using ChatGPT. They have posted AI generated walls of text on multiple noticeboards such as ] and ] and including here , accusing me of vandalism.
			Despite my repeated requests and even a final warning to them (including a request by {{ping|ActivelyDisinterested}}) they are still continuing to do it. Their messages are repeating the same argument again and again and are frankly just ] that bring up fictitious guidelines or misrepresent the existing ones. Several editors have told them that Raj era sources are not reliable yet they continue to ask for more evidence on why that is the case based on AI generated claims of supposed academic value or neutrality. This is getting very disruptive and taking up valuable contributor time to respond to their endless AI responses which take a few seconds to generate. I have alerted them about ] and ], I would appreciate it if someone could enforce a restriction on this user from at minimum caste area. - ] (]) 13:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	Wikimedia Commons:
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
			:Hello @Ratnahastin,
	Simple English Misplaced Pages:
			:To start with I should admit that I am sorry for all the inconvenience that I may have caused as a result of my actions. It was never my intention to take people’s time or skew the conversation in a certain way. I appreciate the core idea to contribute the thoughts to the Wiki and share it borne in mind the overall rules and policies of this program.
	*
			:I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site. Even when I was using AI for the grammar check or, for instance, to elaborate on some point in the text, I saw to my mismanagement that over the process we probably confused the readers and repeated the same information and thoughts, which I would never wish to happen again. From now on I will ensure that in the future the input which I provide to wikipedia fits the Misplaced Pages standard and is more personal. I will also not write walls of text and will not make assertations that do not have substantiated evidence in sources.
			:As for subjects that concern the Raj and the sources from this period and the discussions we have had it seems that I have gone too far in demanding clarification for the same thing. That being the case, with the understanding that the consensus will be acknowledged, I shall not be inclined to reopen this discussion unless new substantiated evidence is produced. I don’t want to prolong the conversation or bring any more stress.
			:I will strive to learn from my experience to be more productive in my interactions going forward. If there are other limitations or additional rules to which I have to stick to, I will receive them with pleasure.
			:In the same respect, let me specially apologize for the inconvenience and thank all of you for bearing with us. That was why I wanted to remind all of us that we can and should keep collectively improving Misplaced Pages as a resource. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from , although GPTzero said this is human input. - ] (]) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Thanks for the reply sir, I can't explain how frustrated I'm feeling from this morning which this user made me experience <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::The time when I messaged Vikram banafar I was casual not formal and second of all your saying doesn't prove anything "and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style" that's a straight up false accusation and utter nonsensical point and 3rd point being that GPTzero stated that this is a human input then that's an human input end of the question. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses ] than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. ] (]) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Man you still wanna do this? @] also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - ] (]) 14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::You know what I think this is getting to the ] point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. ] (]) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::This ain't getting anywhere <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I really don't understand the problem. Cuz I literally also said many where that yes I used AI but for expanding and grammar correction <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::If this combative approach is your "casual" style, perhaps your use of AI and its over the top politeness was an attempt to mask it. In any case, I think you are ] but for caste glorification given your obsession with a certain sub-caste. - ] (]) 14:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I don't think that's better. ] (]) 15:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Potential vandal trying to start edit war on the page for Frisch's. ==
	Wikidata:
	*
			This user keeps using IP addresses in order to revert creditable information about who makes their tartar sauce. Please look into this user. IP Addresses used were 67.80.16.30, 66.117.211.82, and 216.24.107.180. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	Wikimedia Meta-Wiki:
	*
	*
			== ] inaccurate edit summaries ==
	There may be some others I'm forgetting right now. At this point it seems like there won't be any stop to this. I've now just recently realized I can disable talk page notifications on those other Wikis, so I've turned that off. Other than that, what would the best solution here be? I'm familiar with SPI and stuff but don't really have much knowledge in the LTA area... would an LTA report be justified at this point?... ] (]) 16:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
	== ] ==
			All but 2 of user's edit summaries are "Fixed Typo" when they are in fact partially updating statistical information on the page. Have left multiple messages/warnings on TP, with no response. ] (]) 16:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	There is some suspicious activity going on at that AFD. The article ] was taken to AFD in December 2020, and was kept. Recently, just a few months after the first AFD, it was nominated for deletion again, by {{User|Fractuallity}}, which was an account created solely for the purpose of this AFD and which was soon banned for using a sock account to vote for deletion. According to posts there, there's some brigading taking place on forums like reddit (one example: ), and there are IPs and new accounts that pop up to cast a vote, mostly to have the article deleted. I would like to ask the admins to check the validity of the new nomination, and also please consider joining the discussion, because decisions on such articles should be made by the wider wiki community, and not by offwiki mobilization that apparently is taking place now. ]] 19:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 16:04, 24 December 2024

Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators

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

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Shortcuts

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion Centralized discussion

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Noticeboard archives

Administrators' (archives, search)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164
1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Obvious sock threatening to take legal action

VPN socking blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

IP 2409:40D6:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 range block has been blocked for 6 months. Liz 03:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

This IP range has been socking to edit a wide range of caste articles, especially those related to Jats . This range belongs to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Truthfindervert and has been socking using proxies and VPNs too. Many of which have been blocked. Now they are threatening to take legal action against me "but how far we will remain silence their various optimistic reason which divert my mind to take an legal action against this two User" . - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Just as ignorant as he is known longtime abnormal activation and especially on those of Jat article see his latest revision on Dudi you will get to urge why he have atrocity to disaggregating Jat articles but pm serious node i dont mention him not a once but ypu can also consolidate this User:TheSlumPanda who dont know him either please have a eyes on him for a while 2409:40D6:11A:3D97:D46A:3CB4:A474:99A0 (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

But wait a second as per WP:NOPA i dont take his name either not even so dont even try to show your true culler midway cracker and admin can you please not i am currently ranged blocked as my network is Jio telecom which was largely user by various comers2409:40D6:11A:3D97:D46A:3CB4:A474:99A0 (talk)

Please tell me there's a language issue at play here, and that the IP didn't mention WP:No personal attacks and use a racist slur in the same sentence there... —C.Fred (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's both. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, we linguists don't like anecdotal evidence, but I'll provide some: I (non-native speaker of English, with a linguistics PhD) had to look up all the potential candidates for a slur in that post, and when I did find one it's not one I'd ever heard. However, "crackers" is an insult in Hindi, so I'd say it is most likely a PA, just not the one an American English speaker might understand it as. --bonadea contributions talk 13:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

At least in the South, an American would recognize Cracker as a pejorative. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but the IP user who used the word said they are in India, and their post contains various typical non-native speaker errors. ("culler" instead of "colour", for instance) --bonadea contributions talk 16:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Funny thing is you go far enough south it wraps back around again: Florida cracker - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Observation: the IP just tried to place a contentions topics notice on the talk page of the Dudi article. It's peripheral, and the IP is pretty clearly involved. Is this a bad-faith edit by the IP, or should we just take their suggestion and extended-confirmed protect the page?... —C.Fred (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Is there a Dudi caste? Though I will note there is a lot of overlap between the "Indian Subcontinent" and "South Asian social strata" topic areas. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 21:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

• Noting that this person (Truthfindervert?) has taken to using VPNs. I’ve blocked a couple today. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by User:AnonMoos

The main issue with this editor at the moment is disruptive editing based on continuous abuse of WP:TALKNO and failure to get the point. Issues began when this editor removed 5000+ bytes of sourced material. They did it again and again and again.

Instead of starting a discussion on the talk page of the article, the user came to my talk page to let me know of their opinion of my contributions. When I started a discussion on the talk page of the relevant article, the user edited my signature and changed the heading of the discussion I started according to their POV. When I let them know that this was highly inappropriate according to WP:TALKNO, both in that discussion and on their talk page, they responded on my talk page stating ever since the stupid Misplaced Pages Dec. 2019 encryption protocol upgrade, to able to edit or view Misplaced Pages at all from my home computer, I have to use an indirect method which involves a non-fully-Unicode-compliant tool. I couldn't even really see your signature that way, and so didn't know to try to avoid changing it, which I had never heard of. In any case, they kept reverting the content supported by the reliable source, they also kept attempting to apply their POV to the discussion heading again and again and again. I finally explained that I had sought a third opinion and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, and they went ahead and changed it again anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by إيان (talk • contribs) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The other user in this case is User:AnonMoos? This looks like a content dispute over whether the article is on the English version of a German-Arabic dictionary or the dictionary itself. Secretlondon (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes the is indeed about User:AnonMoos. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violating WP:TALKNO repeatedly even after I explained that I had sought a third opinion and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead and changed it again anyway. إيان (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The heading dispute is between a date heading, and a descriptive heading? that's not really reformulating your entry. Secretlondon (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a conduct issue. إيان (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant." To be blunt, if you don't want editors changing the headings of sections you start, don't use such terrible headings. I definitely recommend you stay away from ANI since changing headings is quite common here. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

‎إيان: I suggest you stop messing around with the section heading since it's a distraction which could easily lead to you being blocked. But if AnonMoos changes your signature again, report it and only that without silliness about section headings, mentioning that they've been warned about it before if needed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I wrote a long and detailed explanation on his user talk page as to why the date-only header is basically useless in that context, but he's still for some peculiar reason fanatically determined to keep changing it back. Frankly, I've basically run out of good-faith reasons that make any sense -- except of course, his apparently unshakable belief that he has certain talk-page "rights", which according to Misplaced Pages guidelines he does not in fact have (outside of his own personal user talk page)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: I don't see a problem with changing the heading but why on earth did you change their signature multiple times ? That is indeed a clear violation of WP:TPOC since the signature was perfectly valid per WP:NLS. In fact your change was far worse since it changed a perfectly valid signature which would take other editors to the contributor's talk page and user page into an invalid one which lead no where. If you're using some sort of plugin which does that, it's your responsibility to manage it better so it doesn't do that ever again especially if you're going to edit talk pages where it might be common. If you're doing that intentionally, I suggest you cut it out or expect to be indeffed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

User:AnonMoos, this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor. Liz 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, AnonMoos stated earlier that the changing of the signature was a unintentional technical issue, due to his use of some "non-standard tool" in accessing the internet . This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g. ). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later . Equally disappointing is the extremely aggressive rhetoric and acerbic tone with which he has been escalating this essentially harmless, good-faith content dispute from the beginning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Misplaced Pages securely. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Should be impossible as it's required to even access the site in the first place according to WP:SECLakesideMiners 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking at his talk page it's been going back to at least 2011LakesideMiners 16:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Guys, I do not deliberately set out to modify signatures, and when it happens, I am not usually aware of doing so. As I've already explained before in several places, since the December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade (NOT 2011!), the only way I can edit (or view) Misplaced Pages at all from home is by an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. To change this, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection, which would permanently disconnect my older computer, which I still use almost every day.

Meanwhile, this thread has been set up so I can't add a comment to it from home without affecting Unicode characters, so I was unable to reply here for 36 hours or so. If I'm silent in the future, it will be for the same reason. AnonMoos (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages uses Unicode characters (UTF-8 encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should not edit. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Misplaced Pages at all unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Misplaced Pages developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Misplaced Pages's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Misplaced Pages from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

...HTTPS was created in 1994, and became an official specification in 2000, not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Misplaced Pages with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web at all, and the security hole that lets you access Misplaced Pages without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is not working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

You unfortunately don't know what you're talking about. New ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL METHODS have been introduced within HTTPS from time to time. I was using HTTPS perfectly happily until December 2019, when the developers arbitrarily ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

And even leaving that aside, as Johnuniq mentions - if you can't edit without corrupting Unicode characters, and by your own admission you don't know when it happens, you shouldn't be editing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

This is probably a reference to when Misplaced Pages started requiring TLS 1.2 (because earlier versions were deprecated). Anyone who was/is still on Windows XP at that point couldn't connect any more. MrOllie (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not talking about when the update happening, I'm talking about how you have known about this issue, and have been getting complainants about it since 2011and are still not taking any steps to do anything about it. What kind of internet connection would not support your PC? What on earth are you even using? Dial-Up? Because that still is supported by even Windows 10. LakesideMiners 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Also, how did you see me saying "this has happened since 2011" as me saying that the update happened in 2011? Can you clarify. LakesideMiners 03:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies. I was extremely tired when I wrote both above. I have striken the date parts. Rest of my comments still stand. LakesideMiners 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

None of this matters

I don't care what tool this guy uses or what his excuse is. If he can't edit without screwing up people's sigs, then he must not edit. AnonMoos shouls consider himself on notice now that if one of his edits messes stuff up one more time, he'll be blocked until he can give assurance that he's come into the 21st century. EEng 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

That's nice -- and also totally inaccurate. I was in the 21st century, and using 2012 tools, up until December 2019, when the developers pitchforked me backwards by arbitrarily imposing HTTPS ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS which my home computer hardware is not able to run. Notice that I had no problem complying with character-set handling -- the problem is with arbitrary ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. AnonMoos (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The century imagery is irrelevant. You have been warned. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

That was six years ago, which is IMO about 3-4 years too long to keep using it as an excuse. Technology changes over time, so whatever this non-standard thing you think you need to do to edit here, it may be time to make a choice. Zaathras (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Misplaced Pages developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... AnonMoos (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

If you have DSL or even DialUp. That still works with modern machines. LakesideMiners 01:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Heck, I am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• The response by AnonMoos to feedback about this problem is bizarre. I don't really care what the excuse or the history behind it. If you are unwilling to edit Misplaced Pages using tools that work in 2024 then you should stop editing. The behavior is completely unnecessary and it seems like you don't understand the disruption. Nemov (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• AnonMoos hasn't really explained in any detail what their technical limitations are. They don't have to, but we can't really give advice otherwise. If as others have suggested their computer can't negotiate TLS 1.2, I'm surprised that they're able to use any websites at all from that computer. Requiring TLS 1.2 is not controversial; Misplaced Pages wasn't doing anything unusual in dropping TLS 1.0/1.1 around that time. Mackensen (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User talk:185.146.112.192

The User talk:185.146.112.192 is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page.

Moroike (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Moroike: It looks like you both are edit warring on Kichik Bazar Mosque. That's not particularly helpful, so you should try to have a discussion on the article talk page as to whether you should include the Talysh language name for the article in the lead/infobox. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. CMD (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@CMD: I am not suggesting that the IP editor isn't being disruptive, but my point is that Moroike isn't making the situation better (using the example of that one article). You can see this by looking at their last 50 contributions where they have mostly just reverted this editor without using a summary. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city of Azerbaijan, Baku. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you? Nuritae331 (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Since this IP user won't stop and is stonewalling, either he/should be temporarily blocked, or all the pages he is POV pushing without sources, should be semi-protected, so that only registered users can edit them. Moroike (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

User engaged in edit warring to remove disputed content prior to consensus

There's nothing actionable in this content dispute, except perhaps trouting the original poster for failing to assume good faith and hounding friendly admins when they try to help. Longtime user User:Sxbbetyy (4.5 yrs, over 5K edits) has made several assertions based on their clear misunderstanding of social norms. In this discussion they've failed to notify the subject (they actually failed to use the subject's name in the OP), they've failed to bring any diffs, they failed to sign their post, and over and over they seem to have failed to assume good faith of their fellow editors. A number of editors including several admins have attempted to talk Sxbbetyy down. Nobody in this discussion seems to agree with Sxbbetyy on the merits, yet Sxbbetyy keeps circling back to their own personal interpretation of policy. The discussion at User talk:Sergecross73, where Sxbbetyy refuses to listen to the admin they asked, gives another example of the problem. Sxbbetyy is reminded that creating a post on ANI puts all their own behaviors up for examination. BusterD (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

Title is pretty self explanatory. Rather than engage in the consensus building process to determine if the disputed content discussed here is problematic, this editor has instead immediately reverted the disputed content. They have been informed of the relevant policies prohibiting this behavior and how it should normally be handled (tagging the content as disputed while the discussion is ongoing) but have elected to instead engage in edit warring to keep the disputed content removed prior to any consensus on the matter. Also important to note that they wish to have the content removed entirely, but have stated that they no longer intend to participate in the consensus building discussion. So this appears to be a WP:STONEWALLING tactic to accomplish their goal of removing the content immediately without a consensus. Seeking admin help to halt this behavior and restore the content with the correct tagging.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sxbbetyy (talk • contribs) 23:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It would help if you named the editor and signed your name to figure out what you are talking about; a noticeboard only works if you give us notice about the subject and what is happening. Nate • (chatter) 23:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The editor appears to be PerfectSoundWhatever, based on the link under the word "this" as well as this notification. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

My apology, this is my very first time making such a post. The other pages o have spoken on seemed to have signed themselves automatically. Will remember this going forward. And yes, that was the user, posted this using my phone so I didn't want to mis-spell their name, just linked instead. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) IMO the best practice is that in the event of a content dispute, the article should be reverted to the status quo of how the article's content appeared before the dispute started, until such a time that consensus is established to re-add it (see: WP:STATUSQUO). It seems like the beginning of the content that is in dispute was added on 18 August 2024, the dispute began a few weeks later on 23 September 2024 and has been ongoing ever since.In this case, since the article existed in a relatively steady state for several months (or even years?) previous to the disputed material being added, I think it'd be wise to leave the disputed content out of the article until the discussion comes to a close. RachelTensions (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I have been seeing this opinion from a few editors and even one admin on how to interpret this article. However, the first few sentences in that section do outright state to avoid reverting the disputed content prior to a consensus. And prior to opening this report, I asked several admins on the topic and got a response that reverting the disputed content immediately is incorrect per WP:STATUSQUO as it bypasses the consensus building process. I was advised that the content should instead be tagged as disputed rather than be outright removed. The offending user was made aware of the relevant policies but has nonetheless engaging in edit warring to keep it reverted, hence this report. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The status quo of an article constitutes implicit consensus (WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS). The person trying to include disputed content in an article despite it not being status quo is the one that could be construed as attempting to bypass the consensus building process, not the person trying to maintain status quo until discussion takes place. RachelTensions (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). Sxbbetyy (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content
Not really, I personally wouldn't define "been there a few weeks" as status quo.I think maybe the other replies to this thread provide pretty good reasoning to take a step back and say "hey maybe I'm the one in the wrong here" instead of talking in circles RachelTensions (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Personally I think the number of contributions since the edit where it has gone unchanged is a more useful metric, especially on low traffic pages such as this one. Regardless, per the policy you cite, there seems to be no official Misplaced Pages stance on what exact criteria are needed for a contribution to be considered the current status quo, beyond it having been unchallenged in subsequent contributions (which is the case here).

As for the rest of your comment, there seems to be a high amount of band wagoning and "Proof by assertion" going on in the rest of this. Or people trying to use this report as an extension of the dispute discussion on the article's talk page. Hopefully more actual admins to chime in on the topic as I don't actually want to waste my time talking in circles.

On that note thanks for actually taking the time and baseline minimal effort to engage in a discussion where you actually support your point and don't just devolve into repeating the same talking points over and over. It's a nice change of pace. Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I am the editor being discussed here. I'll provide a summary of events since the initial statement by Sxbbetyy is misleading.

Myself and the editor had a content dispute at Team Seas (1) and following circular discussion, I stopped engaging since I felt I had laid out my points. Per WP:STATUSQUO, I maintained the state of the article to before the dispute. I requested for a third opinion, which was answered by @BerryForPerpetuity:, who agreed the statement should be removed, albeit for a different reason than mine. I took this 2-1 as rough consensus. I also posted the dispute on two WikiProjects, and have received no response so far. Sxbbetyy reached out to three admins about the matter, @Sergecross73, Oshwah, and Pbsouthwood:. The Sergecross73 discussion can be summarized as Sergecross believing that I haven't engaged in misconduct, and that I have presented a "plausible, good-faith interpretation of SYNTH". Sxbbetyy then accused Sergecross73 of not acting in good faith. Oshwah did not respond to the post on their talk page, but @BusterD: did, essentially agreeing that the sourcing does not back up the claim in the content dispute. Sxbbetyy received help on Pbsouthwood's talk page about responding to a content dispute. And now we're here.

Throughout these interactions, Sxbbetyy has demonstrated a failure to assume good faith, refuses to accept that they may be wrong, and WP:BLUDGEONs talk pages, refusing to let the other editor have the last word. Frankly, this is a massive waste of editor time: it should have been a brief talk page discussion then an RfC. Apologies for all the pings. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 00:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

This summarization in itself leaves out critical context, (such as berry's concern being alleviated and them no longer expressing a desire to remove the content), the specifics of why that conversation with Serge ended the way it did despite my repeated attempts to engage with them in good faith, and the entire discussion with pbsouthwood (who quite definitively explained that the behavior PSW was engaged in was not correct). So I urge all involved to go read those topics to get the correct context through your own eyes and then discuss any concerns from what you see here. That being the case, it seems pretty clear cut imo. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, in no way did I express that I didn't want the content to be removed. I did not receive a notification for your reply, and I wouldn't have engaged either way. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I would leave that material out of the article. Whilst it may not exactly be synthesis per se, it is certainly editorialising ("the removal of that amount of marine debris is of negligible consequence...") unless there is an actual source that says this by making a link between between the two statistics (the amount of waste removed by Team Seas and the rate at which waste is entering the ecosystem). And even then, I would say that such an edit would need to say something like "However, ARandomNewspaper pointed out that ...". Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That is actually no longer the content that is being disputed. If you look at the latest version that got reverted on the article you can see the current version. I had made edits to it precisely because of valid WP:NPOV concerns brought to my attention by PSW. However, their dispute with the content remains with the claim that is is synthesis rather than any other concern. Which they have been thus far unable to obtain a consensus on. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• I have some pretty serious WP:IDHT concerns about the topic starter here. They came to me for help (no idea how/why me, I have no connection to this dispute) and I repeatedly told them I didn't see any misconduct, and then they started attacking me when I refused to agree with them. And now this. This is a very simple content dispute, with a very simple no consensus means no change outcome. I've told them this. It's a disappointing time sink on a rather trivial content dispute. Sergecross73 msg me 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  At no point was he "attacked". I defended myself after he became hostile with me (as anyone can read in our convo, I stated multiple times that I would leave and did not want to be a burden if they didn't want to engage with this, but he made no such objections and continued). Eventually he just became outright hostile and refused to explain their points any further, devolving the conversation into them repeating themselves over and over, its all there to read on his talk page. As for why I contacted him, I wanted to ensure I chose impartially so I just randomly looked at the currently active admins at the time and he was the first one I found. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  The discussion is right here, if anyone wants to look. The "attack" I'm referring to you is your accusation that I responded to you in bad faith. I was not involved in the dispute, have no stance on it, and had no pre-conceived notions about either of you - what in the world would my motivations be for "bad faith responses"? It doesn't make any sense. You simply didn't get the response you wanted, and proceeded to badger me on it. Did I get vaguely irritated when I volunteered my time to review and comment on a dispute I had no stance or interest in, only to get all sorts of sour grapes responses on it? Yeah, sure, but who wouldn't? Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• I'm here from my input at the 3rd opinion request. This is nothing more than a trivial content dispute, I see no reason for this to be at ANI. I somewhat agree with the claim of synthesis, it becomes more susceptible to incorrect information, and from my analysis it seemed like the claim in the disputed content was completely wrong. Two different sources, from two different time periods. My $0.02: The claim of stonewalling is ridiculous, there was ample good-faith discussion based on existing policy and guidelines. This editor does not assume good faith, it appears that he claims that editors disagreeing are acting in bad faith. From him to administrator Sergecross73: "I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith." It seems that he roots his argument based on the editor who removed it rather than the content itself. Very unfortunate waste of time. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly. It's not "stonewalling" that's happening here. PerfectSoundWhatever has discussed at-length at the talk page. They're simply not willing to talk circles indefinitely. And we don't require that of editors. I've urged Sxbbetyy to, rather that spin their wheels arguing with the same person endlessly in a stalemate, to try to get other participants to take part. But they've refused, and instead decided to move their arguing to ANI instead. As I noted to them in one of my last comments to them, if they spent half as much effort in consensus-building as they did complaining and arguing, they could have built a consensus by now... Sergecross73 msg me 17:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Reading any of what I wrote in this dispute shows clearly that is not the case. Also, the quoted sentence is completely taken out of context.

  Here is what was said in the mesaage before that they left out, "Not really the logical conclusion one draws from reading any of what I wrote here, where I asked multiple times for you to explain your reasoning in your replies (instead your response was to repeat yourself without offering further explanation), but if that is what you want to take away from this that's fine by me. I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."

  The message as a whole was replying to was a passive aggressive insult that didn't progress that conversation, hence the response as it was clearly not an example of engagement in good faith.Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, it looks like the participants in the dispute on the Team Seas article are acting as if this report is an extension of that dispute discussion.

This is a report of edit warring to revert disputed content prior to a consensus being reached (there was no consensus prior to the reversion and there still is no consensus, as admitted by PSW themselves in that very dispute and In their latest revert message, no idea why now in this report they are trying to claim that there is suddenly consensus for removal).

This is not a report on the dispute itself, just to make that very clear since those involved are responding as if it is. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You've still got this backward. You need to show a consensus to keep your content in the article, as everyone else has been telling you. WP:ONUS is directly on point, and I'll quote it here: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. MrOllie (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I have tried to inform them of this many times and many ways. I do not know why they cannot wrap their head around the concept. Conceptually, it would be very problematic if we were required to retain every disputed content until consensus ruled it out. It wouldn't be workable. Sergecross73 msg me 19:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing WP:ONUS here...not in the dispute and not here in this report. The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.

I was directly advised by admin Pbsouthwood that the removal of disputed content BEFORE any consensus has been reached is not allowed (save for specific situations, none of which apply to the disputed content) as this bypasses the consensus building process. Here is the talk page where I was advised this. This is echoed with the wording in WP:STONEWALLING and WP:STATUSQUO. Here is the direct quote from the latter, "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." Sxbbetyy (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed. <--- No. This is your problem. What you are saying here is incorrect. Policies say the opposite of this. You are not going to get support at ANI. In fact, the longer you keep going with this WP:IDHT insistence that community practice is actually the opposite of what policies plainly say it is, the more likely it is you're going to find yourself blocked for disruption. Pbsouthwood didn't tell you this either (what he wrote doesn't match what you've been doing), and your initial question did not properly represent the situation at hand. But we can invite him here to see if he actually supports what you're doing here: @Pbsouthwood:, what say you? MrOllie (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

This entire comment serves absolutely zero purpose whatsoever. You're parroting what others have already said with no supporting evidence. Along with throwing in an oddly included threat that is completely nonsensical and wholly unwarranted.

And while I could point out the myriad of ways your claim about what Pbsouthwood said was inaccurate, that would pretty much involve reposting his reply, which is a waste since anyone can already go to his talk page and read it themselves.

So at this point, if you need that admin to come here and tell you what they already said themselves, more power to you. Would save us all a ton of time to get an authoritative answer on this, especially with another admin holding the opposite view point, in spite of the specific policy wording. Sxbbetyy (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

No matter how much you insist otherwise, there does not need to be an established consensus for the removal of content. Drop the stick. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not the one insisting otherwise...this report only exists because an admin told me otherwise. And as I've posted in my previous replies, the wording in the policies clearly support that. Makes me question how many have actually bothered to really read these policies... Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The other admin told you nothing about the removal of WP:SYNTH, which is always appropriate. Back away from the dead horse. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

1. This report is not an extension of the dispute discussion for that article, if you want to involve yourself in that discussion, do so there, do not hijack this report.
2. The disputed content is plainly not WP:SYNTH as I explain on the talk page in great length, with nobody thus far having provided valid examples as to how it is.
3. If you are going to make the claim that any WP:SYNTH concerns warrant immediate reversion without consensus, please feel free to share the quote in the relevant policy that says this. I have not found any such wording and instead found that what is present matches up with what PBsouthwood informed me.

Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Come on, how many people need to tell you you're wrong? Sergecross73 msg me 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

At this point I say that my advice was given without a specific context, and without prejudice. I maintain that it is more collegial and polite to discuss a removal of unsourced but plausible content before removing it, as it can often avoid disputes of this kind, but it is not forbidden to arbitrarily delete content that an editor plausibly considers inappropriate provided the relevant reason is given. It is always the responsibility of the person advocating inclusion to provide a reference when challenged, regardless of the process of challenge.

Some forms of synthesis are acceptable. If a conclusion is logically inevitable based on undisputed factual premises, or is a simple mathematical calculation, we routinely accept claims that may not be specifically stated in a source, but we may require the logic to be explained, as it may not be obvious to the reader.

At the risk of being hoist with my own petard, I also refer readers to WP:Don't be a dick (looks like that essay has been expunged, try Meta:Don't be a jerk). · · · Peter Southwood : 06:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I think many of us used to the mess editors adding unsourced content can create would strongly oppose leaving in unsourced content just because it's plausible. The standard should instead be at a minimum that you believe the claim made is most likely correct and sourceable not simply that it's plausible. Although ultimately such discussions are a little silly anyway. If editors would just add sources rather than leaving it for someone else because they're claiming it's unlikely to be challenged or whatever, there would be a need for others to decide whether to query or remove unsourced content. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I was suggesting tagging with citation needed while you wait a reasonable time for a response, but as we know some of us do not have the patience and just revert. It in not unheard of to know something, but not have a source handy at the time. What is obvious to one may be totally obscure to others. This is acceptable within policy and guidelines. You could start a RfC to have the guidelines changed, but I suspect it would not get through as being a bit bitey. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood : 12:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, what you say is true, that's absolutely an acceptable approach. But that's not really the problem at hand here. The bigger issue is that Sxbbetyy appears to be believe that the alternative approach - reverting per STATUSQUO or NOCONSENSUS - is somehow misconduct, and that's simply not true. They're not arguing about if your approach is valid, they're arguing that its compulsory, and they're attempting to report a user for not following your possible approach, which is completely meritless. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Please do not put words in my mouth. The only reason this report exists is because Peter Southwood advised that this was how I should proceed if the editor participating in this no-consensus reverting continued to do so and was unreceptive to further discussion. (Both are true by admission of PSW themselves). Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that discussion, but you presented the situation to them entirely in hypotheticals that lacks crucial context. You frame PSW as unwilling to engage in discussion but omit the fact that PSW did engage in extensive discussion already. You accuse PSW of edit warring to keep their information in the article, but omit the fact that you're equally guilty of edit warring, as you're responsible for every single counter-revert in the situation. I would think the near-unanimous rejection of this ANI report would indicate that this was not, in fact, a good thing to report. Best case scenario, this is archived with no action, but I'd be shocked if it didn't result in a WP:BOOMERANG. Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why you are attempting to present the entire discussion on that talk page as some sort of proof that PSW was willing to engage in further discussion to halt the behavior this report is about. At no point whatsoever did PSW ever indicate anything like that; if they did this report wouldn't exist as the discussions on your talk page or Peter Southwood's page would have never needed to happen. Not to mention if you take the time to actually read the discussion, you see that most of it is on the specifics of the validity of the WP:SYNTH claim made by PSW, eventually culminating in PSW actually asserting that they will not stop change their position on this and then outright refusing to engage any further.

And now you accuse me of edit warring by citing the entire recent edit history of the page...this isn't fooling anyone who actually bothers to read any of the revert messages and examine the timeline of when they occurred (talk about omitting "crucial context").

Beyond just slandering my character, I don't really see what these kind of spurious claims accomplish. It wastes everyone's time, makes yourself look biased and hostile, and adds nothing to the conversation. Keep things civil please, I really shouldn't have to tell you of all people that basic expectation. Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Wait...are you seriously trying to suggest that, even though you were the only one who reverted him every single time, he was edit warring and you weren't? Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

If you are going to continue to twist words and make false claims immediately after being asked to keep things civil, maybe it would be best for all involved if you just moved on from this conversation. Sad that even has to be stated at this point, it should be a given. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Yet another IDHT response where you try to baselessly chastize me rather than address anything anyone is saying to you. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

What a choice to post this exact type reply to my last message... not to mention the sheer absurdity of it. To claim that I've never addressed anyone's points in my replies is so easily and visibly wrong (literally this entire topic is full of my detailed replies to people's concerns, including this very reply) that it's almost insulting to the rest of the people participating in this or to anyone who even chooses to read that message. It's as if you think nobody can see the rest of this discussion (or even the comments directly above it). Sxbbetyy (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond and my apology for any inconvenience it may have caused. Ive tried to keep it as civil as possible, but there seems to be a very hostile air in this discussion by those with the dissenting opinion. As for how this situation is to be resolved, would it be appropriate to restore the currently disputed content with the appropriate tags (as it is sourced and was the statusquo on the page at the time of reversion)? Or is there something further that must be done here? I'm generally unfamiliar with how ANIs actually function. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Have you considered starting an WP:RFC? The fact is that you made a WP:BOLD addition to the article; someone else objected to it, which means you now ought to seek consensus for your addition. As numerous people have told you, none of the relevant policies and guidelines (WP:ONUS, WP:BRD, WP:QUO, etc) would allow you to make a recent addition the "default" the way you want, but more generally - the problem is that you're trying to dig through policy for something that will make your preferred version the default, allowing you to have it in the article without having to demonstrate consensus for it even in the face of challenges. Even if the policies and guidelines I listed were on your side this would still be a bad way to approach it. You have a conflict, your goal should be to resolve it by making consensus as clear as possible - figuring out what the crux of the dispute is and then, if you can't reach a compromise, holding an RFC to see where consensus lies. Also, I have to point out that just by a quick nose count of people who have weighed in on talk, I'm seeing a dispute that is now three-to-one against you. That is a consensus - not a massive one, maybe an RFC will pull in a bunch of people that say something else, but it doesn't make sense for you to keep demanding a consensus to remove something you added when there actually is such a consensus on talk. You've disagreed with their arguments but they're not obliged to WP:SATISFY you; ultimately if you think your arguments are so strong and theirs are so weak, the only real option for you at this point is to start an RFC and hope that you can demonstrate that there. --Aquillion (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier in the discussion, this report is not an extension of the dispute on that article, nor is that what this report is about. Also, a RFC was already started for the topic about a week or so ago by PSW, but that occurred after he reverted the status quo, disputed content with discussion (repeatedly). As for the rest of your comment, Peter Southwood, an admin, has addressed what is the actual expectation. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

What? I never started an RfC. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I just checked and on 12/9/24 at Serge's talk page you said the following, "Thanks – just wanted to mention I requested comments from WP Internet Culture and WP YouTube about 2 weeks ago."

Did that not actually happen? Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:RFC is a specific process. Asking questions on a couple of Wikiprojects is not an RFC. MrOllie (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

That's fundamentally not what an RFC is. This is getting ridiculous... Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

It's almost like this is the very first time I've ever been involved in this kind of issue on Misplaced Pages before...seriously these kind of replies come off as rude and don't actually say anything meaningful or helpful. Ever since our conversation on your talk page you have made next to no real effort to engage in good faith and I find that highly disappointing to be coming from an admin. And my apology if I offended you at all at some point or if you have just "lost your patience" with me, but I don't see how that gives you the green flag to suddenly disregard WP:Civility. I certainly haven't, in spite of being on the receiving end of this. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I haven't said anything uncivil, I just keep calling you out when you say something incorrect. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Cunningham's Law, is a powerful force, I find it difficult to resist myself. MrOllie (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Request for closure

Despite its large size, the consensus here is quite clear. There's no misconduct here, just standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO and WP:NOCONSENSUS, which is perfectly acceptable. Not a single person has suggested taking any action towards PerfectSoundWhatver. Outside of a a potential IDHT BOOMERANG, there's nothing left to be done here. Can someone close this? Sergecross73 msg me 14:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I second that. If there has been any edit-warring by any party that should be dealt with in the normal way. PerfectSoundWhatever has certainly done nothing wrong, and the OP will get blocked if they don't start listening to people pretty quickly. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. And even that's probably unlikely, as most of the "edit warring" was singular reverts with days or weeks in between. It's far from a 3RR situation at least. Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't think this conversation is going anywhere fast, other than seemingly coming to the conclusion that @PerfectSoundWhatever has done nothing wrong, which seems to be the opposite of what this ANI post was about. There's no edit warring here, and even if there was, it wouldn't be dealt with at this venue. Shut it down! RachelTensions (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

In what way whatsoever is this editor's decision to revert the disputed content during the discussion "standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO"? The literal first words that appear at that link are in bold and say, "Avoid reverting during discussion", followed by a detailed explanation of the actual proper procedure. And to make it very clear what it says, here is the literal first paragraph verbatim: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, {{under discussion inline}} is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

In what way is that your read of the consensus in the discussion above? Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

In what world do you logically come to that conclusion from a message that consist of almost entirely the word for word quote of the procedures described in WP:STATUSQUO, that directly counters the claim you just made? Are you saying it is "against consensus" simply because it presents a viewpoint you don't like and don't want to address? I don't see another reason why you would again twist my words, to the point of lunacy. And this is, once again, despite the fact that all of what has been said is literally within view.

Also, regarding the consensus. Out of everyone that has actually joined the discussion and all the messages sent (~90% of which are either from myself or you Serge), there have been only three people who have actually said anything in support of your interpretation of this. The rest either did not discuss the topic, did not express an opinion, or were Peter Southwood who supported the interpretation of WP:STATUSQUO as stated on its page. Seems like you're just trying to rush a end to the conversation to get the conclusion you want. Sxbbetyy (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying there has been no consensus for anything you're arguing here. Not a single person has supported action against PSW. Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The status quo ante bellum that shouldn't be reverted from is the version without the new content. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Mgtow definition

Editor was pointed to the talk page and then stopped editing. It looks like this was a case of WP:GRENADE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

There are blatant lies in the wiki definition of "mgtow". The goal is accuracy, not "man bashing". Camarogue100 (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Camarogue100, you should discuss this at Talk:Men Going Their Own Way. This noticeboard is for conduct issues, not content issues. Schazjmd (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the definition of MGTOW. Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight is an internationally accepted and used term used by every airplane and airline in the world. Canterbury Tail talk 16:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The cintent is incorrect. Mvto is NOT "misogynistic". There is no "hate" towards women, only avoidance. Camarogue100 (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Camarogue100, you were directed to the talkpage, which includes an FAQ on the term you keep trying to remove, along with extensive discussion. You should start there before just removing sourced content that you don't like. We'll leave aside the absence of required notifications to Black Kite and myself who have warned you for your conduct. Acroterion (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Where do I find the talk page? Camarogue100 (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Camarogue100, I linked it for you in my comment above. Schazjmd (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Camarogue100's removal of material unfavorable to the subject with an edit summary of "typo" indicates to me that they are here to play games, not improve the encyclopedia. Any more disruption should result in an immediate block IMO. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits

Can we please dp something about editors who make unnecessary changes to widely-used modules, and then need to change 400,000 talk pages to get the same result we had before the change? Thanks to this change from last week, which removed the parameter "living" from the bannershell, we now have more than 400,000 pages in Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters. After the "cleanup" by User:Tom.Reding (and perhaps others), we will have the exact same result as we had last week, no new functionality, no new categories, no improvement at all, but a lot of flooded watchlists.

I tried to get him to stop at User talk:Tom.Reding#Cosmetic edits, to no avail. This isn't the first time, as you can see from that discussion. Fram (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

If you want to discuss {{WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell.

As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. Fram (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

"when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries": incorrect. Since you wrongly thought I was making cosmetic edits, i.e. "no change in output or categories", the category was to inform you that they are not cosmetic.

Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. Fram (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". Gonnym (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did not have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. Fram (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

This was discussed in detail on Template talk:WikiProject banner shell. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the |blp= and |living= parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. Fram (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed Cewbot would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Edits like these should always be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. GiantSnowman 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• Is it just me or are talk pages like Template talk:WikiProject banner shell just perpetual WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issues where a very small number of editors (frequently 5 or less) make major changes that affect thousands of articles, all without involving the broader community through, at minimum, places like Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)? Silverseren 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• @Fram, Tom.Reding, Kanashimi, and Primefac: I got AWB working again. If cewbot would take time for making the changes, and if this needs attention soon, then should I file a request for that particular bot task? —usernamekiran (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  The robot is in operation... Kanashimi (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  yay! —usernamekiran (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Augmented Seventh

User:Augmented Seventh is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

You're removing demographic categories and templates by blanking them out; irreligion still deals with religion no matter your argument. That's definitely not compliant with WP:CAT and clearly vandalism. There's no action to take here except that you need to stop removing these categories and templates. Nate • (chatter) 19:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

And you are now required to cite how your edits meet WP:CAT; spamming it in edit summaries is not discussion. Nate • (chatter) 19:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

While doing routine vandal patrol, I came across what seemed to be a hasty and massive removal of content, being done in a very directed and personal manner.

After looking at the persistent removal, and communicating, I restored the well-drawn categories.

Hopefully, this is easily resolved.

Augmented Seventh (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

43*, do not continue to revert these category removals without discussing them first. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

THere is nothing to discuss. The guidelines are clear. What needs to be done is editors need to be familiar with the cat guidelines. We don't discuss whether the sky is blue do we? 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

THey are not well drawn, it was not hasty, it was not massive, and it was not "personal". It was directed because they all had the same issue. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Editors should not blindly revert. They should be required to understand the guideleines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I gave up editing because there were too many problems that the wiki communtity is not sorting out. One of them is treating anon editors as second class wikicitizens.

Another problem is "this is how it is so we are going to leave it like this for years and years" and this is at the expense of the quality of WP.

I can't remember the specific category guideline for the edits I did but is the undoing editors need to look it up. Categorisation is something that a lot of editor do not understand. Go and put a notice on WikkiProoject Categorisation and you will fing that there is support for my edits.

WP could be sooo much better. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone" is an indication you should be trying to do better instead of telling us we should do the same. If you're not willing to actually explain why guidelines vindicate your changes, then being right sometimes isn't enough if you want to make things better. Communication is the process, not something ancillary to it. Remsense ‥ 论 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion is required when other editors ask you questions in good faith in order to resolve present disputes and prevent future ones. Remsense ‥ 论 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Bear in mind this is WP and not social media. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone". 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

No. You brought this here. The WP:ONUS is on you to explain how the guidelines justify your edits, not to say "go look it up". Also How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone" - because that's exactly what you said. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable in many cases to link to a very specific passage of a guideline and expect an editor to understand its meaning as regards a pertinent dispute, but you can't just fail to clearly articulate your argument while also insisting it's vindicated somewhere within the full text of a guideline. Remsense ‥ 论 02:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Content dispute. Bold edits were reverted; next step is discussion, probably at WT:CAT. If there is dispute over interpretation of the guideline you can consider leaving a pointer at WP:VPP. If there are any categories that shouldn't be used at all that can be discussed at WP:CFD. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The content dispute could have been discussed on any of the talk pages. Yet it was brought here first. Conyo14 (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

When a content dispute involves several pages it is often though not always best to centralize discussion. Misunderstanding ANIs purpose and bringing content disputes here is a common and understandable error; best just to point people at appropriate WP:DR when that happens. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Not overly impressed by 43's comments above. But do wish to note that their removal of Category:Corruption from at least one BLP appears to have been correct. The subsequent reversion of that removal is misfortune. Rotary Engine 08:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Unblock request of Rereiw82wi2j

Blocked, blocked, they're all blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

The user Rereiw82wi2j was blocked for blanking talk page discussions. They were removing discussions they participated in with an now-vanished account, for the purpose of removing their username from the talk page(which isn't removed via a vanishing). I believe that per WP:VANISH their vanishing needs to be reversed, am I correct? Do they need to be asked to resume using that account?(if they can) 331dot (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems to need reverting because with their previous account, they only edited one article/talk page and when asked what articles they wanted to edit with their new account, they just mention this same article. That violates the entire principle of a clean start account. Liz 23:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Could we revoke TPA per this? ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I have revoked their talk page access and declined the unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

User has created another account Human82. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Also now blocked. GiantSnowman 16:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

There's also User:ResearchAbility now. win8x (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked by PhilKnight. GiantSnowman 16:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2

• ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has engaged in a lengthy display of disruption. Namely through incessant incivility I have noticed they were previously reported for.

Instances such as ordering IP editors to stop editing articles, hostilely chastising them, making personal attacks in edit summary on several occasions, etc. Users such as @Waxworker: and @Jon698: can speak to their experiences, I'll outline mine.

On December 10, I noticed on the article Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects page several additions were made that didn't adhere to the article's purpose. Zander restored these with an introductory summary rife with bad faith assertions about my intelligence and asserting they'd engage in edit war behavior. For the most part there was an attempt to discuss the issue we had, but ultimately did not see eye to eye. I asserted I'd be escalating the issue to garner more substantive dialogue around it, Zander's response includes a needless "bite me". I made some attempts at engaging the topic at the article's talk page, in addition to WikiProject Film, it was over a week that saw no input. I would go on to state that (at the time) in two days, I would restore the page to it's status quo. I would do so, asking it not to be reverted. Zander reverted anyway, and after another terse interaction, I moved to nominate the article for deletion, finding with the conflicting views of what Unrealized meant, it was too open ended and led to these lists being essentially trivia. Since then, Zander has elected to take an antagonistic approach towards me, making swipes they openly admit add nothing to the discussion threads they're added to, and now that I am putting said comments behind collapsable tables for being offtopic, Zander is now doing the editing equivalent of mockingly repeating me, with edits such as this and this.

This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. Rusted AutoParts 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I've given them a warning for canvassing: - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

And more personal attacks here - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

SPA User:Tikitorch2 back at it on Martin Kulldorff

Hi, all, I'd like some assistance with the SPA User:Tikitorch2, who's been POV pushing on the Martin Kulldorff article since June. A quick view of their extremely short edit history shows that their sole focus is on pushing a vaccine-denialist POV on that and similar COVID-related topics. Started out on the talk page and BLPN, but now they've graduated to edit-warring on the article itself; they were active in June, made a single related edit in October, but now they appear to be back at it. They've already been notified about the CTOP status of COVID-19, and have received an edit-warring warning--to which they were less than receptive. Would appreciate a more permanent resolution, either a COVID-19 topic ban or just an indef considering their SPA status, so they don't just go back into hibernation and then turn up again like a bad penny. (And yeah, given this context, I don't love the implications of the username "Tikitorch2", either.) Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Michael.C.Wright? 173.22.12.194 (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

 Looks like a duck to me. I'm sending this to SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

SPI says unrelated, so might just be generic disruption. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

What are you implying with regard to my username? My edit history has been limited to trying to correct two red flags that stood out so much that I followed the citations when I was searching these scientists who were in the news for censorship. It has been enlightening learning how wikipedia selectively chooses secondary sources but discourages the use of primary sources to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible.

For my two attempted contributions to Misplaced Pages, the two red flags were pretty dramatic to prompt me to check out the citations--Sunetra Gupta's article implied more than 1 in 1000 people in England died from Covid in spring 2020 in an effort to discredit her, which was trivially easy to google as untrue. I corrected that without really changing the overall narrative. The article for Martin Kulldorff...I would probably not have spent time looking at the sources or realized how unscientific Kulldorff's critics were had there not been such superfluous "Wikivoice" editorializing and synthesizing suggesting Kulldorff lied in an essay to the public. Tikitorch2 (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Primary sources are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible because that is original research. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I said. Maybe I am the sock puppeteer! Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

What I am implying is that such a username in the context of an account pushing COVID-denialist rhetoric that flies in the face of the sources and Misplaced Pages policy is not an accident. Anyway, this editor continues to be a drain of editor time and attention. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah an absurd, convoluted, and contrived personal attack. Assuming anyone but you knew tiki torches were present at a political event where someone was killed, why would I choose my username based on that? Tikitorches provide light, warmth, and keep the mosquitos away. I guess its not surprising an editor named writ keeper attacks the editor rather than effectively debating the subject of the edit. Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if it was a personal attack, making one back isn't going to fly here. Knock it off. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Tikitorch2, your edits are being examined at ANI. This is not a pleasant experience, I'll admit. So, it's best for you not to dig yourself into a hole. I know the instinct is to defend yourself but it doesn't help your situation to come out swinging. It's probably to your benefit to address any concerns that have been raised and say no more than that. Liz 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64

Blocked for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued after block expired. /64 has previously been blocked on December 8th for a week due to "Persistent unsourced genre changes", and 2 weeks on September 7th due to addition of unsourced content. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing Movement for Democracy

I've protected the page for 24 hours. @Rambling Rambler and @Hellenic Rebel are both warned against edit warring, including during the course of this discussion. RR, HR, and .82 should follow dispute resolution processes. Further disruptive editing or edit warring after page protection expires will result in blocks. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

User:Hellenic Rebel has been trying for about a month now to put across his own opinion about the party' infobox. An opinion which he cannot back up with any source whatsoever. Although it has been pointed out to him by both the user Rambling Rambler and me, continues the disruptive editing. Ιt is worth noting that although other users made the same "mistake", when the lack of sources to support the addition was pointed out to them, they accepted it and did not continue to try to pass on their own opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Movement_for_Democracy_(Greece)#5/300

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Movement_for_Democracy

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Disruptive_editing....again

diff1 diff2

diff3 130.43.66.82 (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. Since discussing the issue on article talk has not worked, please follow dispute resolution processes, such as seeking guidance at WT:GREECE or WT:POLITICS, or going to WP:DRN. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts taking a look because I've been tagged. While there may be content elements to it I think this has gone into a behavioural issue, namely due to it being a user actively edit warring without providing sources but instead endlessly insisting on edits that are entirely WP:OR. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

It is not a problem of content but of behaviour. His claim is original research, is his own conclusion and is not verified by any source. He knows it, has admitted it, and yet he insists on adding it. 130.43.66.82 (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

(nac) Movement for Democracy is a moderately stable DAB page, with which I have been involved. I assume this dispute relates to Movement for Democracy (Greece). Narky Blert (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Sugar Bear returns with personal attacks

/24 blocked for two weeks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

• 166.181.224.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sugar Bear/Archive

Using the IP range Special:Contributions/166.181.224.0/19, Sugar Bear has returned to Misplaced Pages to disrupt film and music articles. After I recognized this fact and began reverting him, Sugar Bear began a campaign of personal attacks at my talk page, using the IP Special:Contributions/166.181.250.216. Can we get a rangeblock?

There's a decade-plus history of this vandal attacking me, for instance his creation of the username Banksternet. I can spot his contributions quite easily by now. Binksternet (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

.I've blocked the current IP, I may not have time to properly investigate the range right now. Acroterion (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Past disruption from nearby IPs includes the following:

• Special:Contributions/166.182.84.172 was blocked in 2018 and 2019.
• Special:Contributions/166.182.80.0/21 was blocked in 2018 for one month.
• Special:Contributions/166.181.254.122 was blocked in 2020, identifying Sugar Bear.
• Special:Contributions/166.181.253.26 was blocked twice in 2020 for personal attacks.
• Special:Contributions/166.182.0.0/16 was rangeblocked in 2023 for three years. Binksternet (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the current /24 for two weeks, but I see a lot of potential for collateral damage for longer or broader blocks. Acroterion (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Comments by Locke Cole

No support for a block for either party, and filer is fine with closure. Star Mississippi 16:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

Involved: Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) So I honestly think we should both receive a (24 hr) block for our behavior, but bringing it here for that to happen. This started when I posted a list of "keep" votes with no rationale at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 21. Comments made by Locke Cole in response to the list include:

• Sour grapes are over there, in case you're lost.

I replied to this with What?? Voting on an AfD should be policy-based, not just "keep" or "he's too notable". I'm giving evidence to my claim that keep votes were given unnecessarily large amounts of weight when closing this. Yes, I left out the ones with evidence, because that wasn't the point of the list. Again, would you give weight to the five keep votes that just said "keep"? I believe this is the second time I've had to say this to you, but way to WP:ABF.

• Well, you're already violating WP:DRVPURPOSE #8 by casting WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors. Carry on, I look forward to seeing you blocked for being an idiot.

And I replied to this one with Yes, I removed a comment after realizing it violated our aspersions policy. Do you have an issue with that? Feel free to take this to ANI if you want to continue, as it’s clogging up the DRV.

This user has a long history of behavioral blocks, including six civility blocks over a span of nine years. Since this behavior clearly won't be getting better, bringing it here. It's up to y'all to decide if a BOOMERANG should happen, if we should both be blocked, or only one party gets the hammer. :) E_F 02:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the cited comments are in themselves enough to justify a block. I also note that LC has recently suffered a personal loss. Speaking from experience, I can state that when in deep mourning we are not always at our best. That said, I find LC's block log disturbing.-Ad Orientem (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

While I do get that, and I do respect that and am deeply sorry that happened to them, this behavior has been going on since late 2005, and includes an arbitration request, hence why I brought it directly here. Calling me an "idiot" was 100% an NPA vio, and having a personal loss shouldn't excuse that (also speaking from experience with the loss of my mother from Cancer of unknown primary origin in 2014). This is a rare case where I'll say that a block log should give you an idea of whether this behavior will continue. E_F 02:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

bolding policies I've added at the end - I'll just note that every one of the "policies" you linked to (bar WP:ABF, where I'm pretty sure you wanted WP:AGF) goes to Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Which is very useful and well-thought-out, and by all means should be used as a tool at AfD, but is not policy. It's an essay on policy. There's a difference. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay then, per that I've removed the list. The comments still stand though. E_F 03:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• So the OP wants themselves and the other party to receive blocks for incivility? Why don't you just stop being rude to each other? Change your own behavior. Opening this discussion is just drawing attention to a few comments that otherwise would have likely been forgotten. I don't see how this post helps the situation at all. Just do better. And if Locke Cole comes to this discussion, I pray this doesn't devolve into bickering. Let's all just get back to editing productively and not taking shots at each other. Liz 05:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t know, maybe I just thought it’d continue and brought it here, likely too early. Is it possible to close this? E_F 13:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

From what I read from the DRV, it definitely seemed like it got heated, but it definitely seemed to cool down. Trouts for sure, but I don't see why blocks are necessary. As for you, given that you're asking to be punished, you seem to recognize what you did wrong, and you pledge to not continue this behavior. Just change your password for a day or a week and change it back later; I don't think admin intervention is necessarily warranted. guninvalid (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Though as actual admins above have mentioned, their block history is indeed concerning. guninvalid (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User talk:International Space Station0

Just officially closing this discussion as the account involved has been globally blocked. If an editor has Spore on your Watchlist and you see this occurring again, contact your local administrator. Liz 06:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

This user made 500 edits to their user page which were all completely useless (Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system to inflate their edit count) and then once receiving extended-confirmed permissions vandalized Spore (2008 video game) by copypasting another article. Their user page shows them editing and counting to 500. jolielover♥talk 04:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a WP:DUCK, and I just reported to AIV. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Would it be possible to put up some kind of filter to alert for this? Something that…say…catches when more than 25 edits are made in a single space (user space for example) or something that would trip if the edits added less than 5 characters consistently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B32F:11B9:7980:86CC:720C:8B57 (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a filter for this. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=International+Space+Station0&offset=20241222044736, "New account unusual activity" covers exactly this. win8x (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• This account has been globally blocked as an LTA so it shouldn't be an issue. Liz 05:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  At what point is it appropriate to selectively delete their hundreds of edits of nonsense from the page history?

  Or is that just something that isn't done? – 2804:F1...A7:86CC (::/32) (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  If you are talking WP:SELDEL, there is rarely a good reason for it's use at present. If instead you mean WP:REVDEL see WP:CRD and WP:REVDELREQUEST. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  I've gone ahead and revdel'd the lot of them, as cut-and-pasting from other articles without proper attribution is copyvio and thus RD1able. Selective deletion (making the edits go away from the history) is probably not going to happen, if it's even technically possible for an article with almost *9500* revisions (I know I'm not going to try!). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

POV IP editor and 2024 Kobani clashes

Blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

This this IP address engages in BLP and POV pushing with things like this 1 and this 2, and then edit warring and then makes personal attacks like this 3, in a source documenting casualties for all of December instead of the specific date, and then when he is reverted by another editor respond with this. I believe this person is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and also the 2024 Kobani clashes article should potentially be given semi-protection status as it's part of the Syrian Civil War which has discretionary sanctions. Thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh also this. Des Vallee (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours (User talk:88.243.192.169#Block) and pages protected El_C 13:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Promotional content about Elvenking (band)

There does not appear to be an actionable COI here, just an avid fan. Content issues can be handled through the appropriate channels. @Elvenlegions: please be mindful of musical notability and what Misplaced Pages is and isn't for. Star Mississippi 17:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

I noticed a consistent addition of promotional content about an apparently unencyclopedic band, namely Elvenking (band), with articles being also dedicated to each band member (eg. Aydan Baston and Damnagoras) and their unsold discography, which also got a dedicated template ({{Elvenking}}). I also noticed a weird pattern by User:Elvenlegions, which appears to be either a very big fan or in conflict of interests, as well as other accounts apparently created just to support the band (eg. User:Neverbuilt2last). — Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 05:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I am indeed a big fan of the band and am trying to update the band's wikipedia information to make it as accurate as possible so people can learn about the band. I hope this helps support the band and also helps wikipedia readers and users who wish to learn more about the band. Elvenlegions (talk) 06:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• If these musicians are not notable, you can always tag the articles CSD A7. Liz 07:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Understood, Elvenlegions, but Misplaced Pages is not a webhost or a promotional site. If the band, nor its members, nor its discography qualify as notable under the standards we set for musical notability, then the band's fans will have to learn about it elsewhere. Ravenswing 07:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editor on When the Pawn...

User User:Longislandtea has repeatedly removed reliably sourced refs to the genres infobox by removing alternative pop simply because they don't believe it to be correct as the ref is "new" and that the artist isn't that genre. I had sent them two warnings now and also explained that's not how this works, so they decided to add more genres with refs that don't even mention the genres they included. I do not believe this editor is going to cooperate. Pillowdelight (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Pillowdelight changed the genre list of When the Pawn... which originally had been a variation of certain genres: Art pop, jazz rock, art rock, alternative rock, jazz pop, chamber pop, all of which are somewhat accurate and agreed upon by various editors of this page over many years. It was changed to just Alt pop, a genre that is used to describe the newer sounds of pop in the early 2010s with Lorde, Sky Ferreira and Lana del rey. It is not a genre that fits the album hence it has never before user:Pillowdelight been described as such beyond what her poor source says, a Fiona Apple revisit (that is not even about When the pawn.. specifically) from a new, small and virtually unheard of web magazine. Sources such as Rateyourmusic, allmusic and Pitchfork are far more accurate and robust and that's why this album has never been described as alt pop. That genre did not exist at the time of the release of the album. The source needs to be accurate, it is not. It's not an album review, it is a fluff article about Fiona Apple by a small web magazine. It's not even about When the pawn... specifically, it makes no sense. I think the other editors agree, it is inaccurate.

Allmusic and pitchfork are far better sources. I have added both as sources. I didn't change the genre list, I simply changed it back to the genre list that had stood there the longest before user:Pillowdelight changed it a few months ago for the first time, having never touched this page before yet complaining about other editors. Longislandtea (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Longislandtea: I removed the genres because they're unsourced, which I stated in many edit summaries you keep reverting, as well as on your talk page. It doesn't matter that just because you believe a source another user added calling the album alternative pop is incorrect and unreliable because it's "new, small and virtually unheard of" is a ridiculously excuse. Read Template:Infobox album it states — genres must be stated and referenced in the body of the article; personal opinions or original research must not be included. The sources you have added specifically from Pitchfork don't state the genres you've listed. Pillowdelight (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Sources need to be legitimate and relevant. Your source is not relevant and it is disputed. Pitchfork is added because they describe the album as an alternative album several times in the review and the genre category is ROCK. What is alternative and rock? Alternative rock. That is how the album was marketed. You can't cherrypick a single article to make a case for a genre that the album absolutely is not in. I will remove the Pitchfork source, that's fine. There's numerous ones including from Allmusic that clearly state that it is an alternative rock album. The album was even added to Misplaced Pages's page for alt rock albums ages ago. This is very uncontroversial. Just having alternative rock is also lacking; jazz fusion, art pop (the album is already added on the wikipedia page for art pop albums) and art rock are accurate too and have been there for ages but alas! Let's get rid of it all to only serve your opinion. Numerous albums have unsourced genres might I add, but the vast of amount of editors agree to it because they know these accurately describe the album, these are the scenes that the album and artist comes from and sourcing for genres can often times be lacking. In that case, rather than trying to look for BAD sources, it's better to agree with the consensus. In our case, we do have sources. Rateyourmusic has been used as a source for adding art pop, alternative rock, jazz pop, fusion, art rock and chamber pop as genres before. Longislandtea (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's the page for what is considered acceptable sources Misplaced Pages:Acceptable sources (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

Relevance. Sources must be relevant--there must be some reason for the reader to care about what the author has to say. For example, the opinion of a random individual on the presidency of George W. Bush, as published in a letter to the editor of a major newspaper, is not relevant; and thus should not be included--even though it is published, traceable to its author, and given in a reputable publication. Relevance can be imputed several ways--through explicit personal knowledge, through subject-matter authority, through general notability of the author, through demonstrable correlation with the opinion(s) of a large group of people, etc.

A large group of people, the editors of When the Pawn...'s page throughout the years, thousands of people on music reviewing sites and numerous music journalists from legitimate publications do not agree with what this one article you cherrypicked states.

Note that this policy is the minimum standard for inclusion as a reference in Misplaced Pages. Sources may meet this standard and still not be authoritative, reliable, accurate, free from bias, or undisputed. Sources which meet this minimum standard but which fail to meet stricter standards may be used, but should be used with caution. In particular, such sources should be explicitly attributed to their author(s) or publisher(s) in an article's prose (rather than being presented as fact with the author only given in the notes), and disputes considering the source's veracity should be described.

Meaning you can't just add any genre because some random source says it when it goes against larger and more reliable sources as well as it is controversial.

Thank you and please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. Longislandtea (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTVAND. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a personal attack, so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I strike. Longislandtea (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <s>Comment</s> which will make it look like this Comment. Liz 22:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. Longislandtea (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Longislandtea: How is the source considered not relevant and where was this dispute? AllMusic does not call the album alternative rock at all within its article. Rate Your Music is also not a source it's user generated which is against Misplaced Pages. I really wish an admin would comment on this because this is getting absolutely nowhere. Pillowdelight (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's another source describing it as an alternative rock and jazz fusion album

https://www.the-solute.com/the-solute-record-club-fiona-apple-when-the-pawn/

Alt pop is not accurate. If you're so adamant about alt pop, please argue why. It is completely inaccurate and you have one singular source over music journalists and music sites. Allmusic does categorize it as alternative rock, Pitchfork has categorized it as rock since 1999 of its release. There was NO Alt-pop at the time. It still isn't. These are different genres. Art pop is not Alt pop. You edited the page one time in October 2024 only to get rid of the genre list that editors agreed upon to add Alt pop which makes no sense whatsoever. Longislandtea (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I have now added a new source to the genre list. If you have any problems with the new source, tell me. But it's much more accurate this way. It's still sad to see the whole genre list that was originally there, so much more descriptive and fitting, hacked away but oh well. Longislandtea (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Pitchfork's categorizations mean basically nothing. They have ten categories, one of which is "Pop/R&B", and another of which is "Global". By the way, you should just stop caring about this, because sources misclassify genres of music chronically and everywhere you look. Take your passion to RateYourMusic. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

All of this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page (which neither editor has used). Schazjmd (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: I'm awaiting for an admin to respond. This conversation is getting nowhere hence the reason why I brought it here in the first place. I've tried to explain to the user on their talk page along with this entire thread and it's getting nowhere. @The Bushranger: you left a comment but could you please share your opinion on the dispute? Or possibly ping an admin who's familiar with music if this isn't your area of familiarity? Pillowdelight (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

There was no reason to bring this conversation here. I talked to you directly but go no real reply or any arguments despite adding sources and explaining why it's not an Alt pop album. I've explained to you well enough. Please stop trying to get admins to ban me simply because I (and other editors) recognize that the genre list that you got rid of was far more fitting. There's a new genre list now with sources but it is not Alt-pop. The album was already added to the wikipedia album pages for Alternative rock and art pop. I'm familiar with these genres and Fiona Apple specifically to know that it's accurate hence why the genre list has been that way for years. If you're adamant about sources, there is a source. Accusing me of not sourcing should be considered a false accusation at this point. Not all sources are equal either and I've tried explaining that to you. Longislandtea (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Pillowdelight, you were given good advice which is to have this discussion on the article talk page which neither editor has posted at yet. This is a content dispute. If no action has been taken yet by an administrator, it's likely because they don't agree with your statement that action needs to be taken. Liz 22:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Thank you Liz. Pillowdelight (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant sources and unnecessary changes to genre list on When the Pawn... (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

On October 22 2024, User:Pillowdelight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) changed the genre list that has stood in place for years and has been a variation of the same variety of genres: Art pop, art rock, jazz, alternative rock, jazz rock, chamber pop and jazz pop. Across the biggest music sites, this is what the album is described as. The user changed it to Alt pop using a single irrelevant and unreliable source. The album is not described as such anywhere else. The user is going against the general consensus. Sources have now been added to the genre list and I don't feel as though that would mean I'm breaking any rules. The user is threatening to get another editor banned because they're uncooperative with how us other editors feel the genre list should look like. It's an album that has been categorized as rock by Pitchfork at the time of its release and was added to rock charts when released too. Here's how the genre list has looked over a long period of time, without much controversy from editors not readers: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1178937091 from 2023

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1049316366 from 2021

Thank you. Longislandtea (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Why do people have to argue about what genre music is rather than just listening to it, and hopefully enjoying it? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. Longislandtea (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

This is neither here nor there, but I thought albums are generally sorted in alphabetical order by band name or the musician's last name.

Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or my information is incomplete. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. Longislandtea (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

If we were going to list musical genres "accurately," we wouldn't bother at all. Except in very broad strokes ("rock," "punk," "Baroque," etc), so many of these horribly subjective "genres" are made up by bored media writers and bands that hate the notion of being The Same As Everyone Else. Get ten people to listen to ten different tracks of heavy metal, and you won't get as many as a third of them agreeing on any of them on the doom/grudge/dark/death/Goth/Viking/sludge/*-grind/*-core/etc etc etc spectrum. Beyond that, arguing whether any given artist is "that genre" is very highly subjective. (Hell, I've sung Baroque, classical, folk, rock, ethnic, shape note, so many genres I can't readily count.) Ravenswing 15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Bunch of racist IPs/account

Sent packing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

Article: Anti-Turkish sentiment

• GREEKMASTER7281 (talk · contribs)
• 112.202.57.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 186.154.62.233 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Beshogur (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Named account indeffed, IPs blocked for 72 hours each. GiantSnowman 14:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Urgent need for page protection on BLP

Protection applies. Appears admin eyes are on the Talk page. Star Mississippi 19:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

There is currently a content dispute going on at Kay Granger involving allegations of a mental health crisis with mulitple IPs involved in a dispute over wether the information is reliable or not. A discussion is underway on the article's talkpage, but in the meantime there is revert warring taking place on the article. The page could really benefit from temporary semi protection. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks like User:Schwede66 got it. DMacks (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@DMacks: Thanks! Yeah. I assume they will also need a third-party closer given the heated nature of the argument. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article

Two users are actively engaged in an ongoing edit war on Gilman School, with both Counterfeit_Purses (talk · contribs · logs · block log) breaking 3RR 1, 2, 3, 4 and Statistical_Infighting (talk · contribs · logs · block log) being right at 3 Reverts 1, 2, 3.

This seems to go back to December 9th, with the first editor (Counterfeit) removing it here and here, again on the 17th, 18th, and then being at the above today.

Awshort (talk)

• E/C applied. Star Mississippi 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Counterfeit Purses, please be aware that the Luigi Mangione article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a really bad idea. Cullen328 (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that WP:NOTNEWS applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Counterfeit Purses, in my view, WP:NOTNEWS is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins In principle, all Misplaced Pages articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. I believe that Mangione is notable, the evolving article is acceptable, and his name belongs in the alumni list. Many, many "bad people" are listed as alumni in countless school articles, and it is not at all unusual. The only unusual thing here is that the lead of this particular school article lists alumni, and so I have removed them from the lead. Cullen328 (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz removed Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

We don't include all notable alumni in these lists Why not? If someone is Wikinotable and went to a Wikinotable school, then they belong in the "Notable alumni" section of that school's page, Q.E.D. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@The Bushranger I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See Category:Lists of people by school affiliation. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) Narky Blert (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is WP:OR. Narky Blert (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add Category:Gilman School alumni (in this case). Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

And a new user, who doesn't understand categories and has no idea Wikidata exists, is relying on the list on the page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64, yet again

Genre warrior sent packing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued the same behaviour immediately following the end of a 3 month block. See block log and the two previous ANI threads from September (1, 2) related to this /64. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I see the genre warriors are out today. Don't you realise how childish you are? (Not you, Waxworker.) Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I thought I was the only one who noticed how many were running rampant today. So exhausting. . . Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

/64 blocked for six months. Acroterion (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User:NoahBWill2002

NOTHERE blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

• NoahBWill2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It looks like there's a pretty severe competence is required issue with this user. Virtually every one of their edits has had to be reverted either for adding copyrighted content/derivative works, adding their own art to Fan art (and then doing it again after being warned), or adding personal opinion to articles. Lastly this comment is quite inappropriate and indicates that they're unlikely to learn from any of this.
(As an aside, I just blocked them on Commons for uploading non-free files after warnings (and having copyright/the issue with their uploads explained them in detail) and uploading out-of-scope files after warnings.)
I think admin action is warranted here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I 100% agree with The Squirrel Conspiracy on this. User:NoahBWill2002 appears completely unable to comprehend and/or follow some of the core rules of Misplaced Pages, especially WP:COPYVIO and WP:NPOV, despite multiple editors trying to help them understand. The comment that Squirrel Conspiracy highlighted, followed by a series of blatant copyright violations, makes it abundantly clear that this editor is not going to change and is not here to build an encyclopedia. Opolito (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

They have only had an account for a few days. It's seems rather soon to proclaim they are "not going to change". The images they were trying to add have been deleted from the Commons, let's see if they can find other ways to contribute to the project now that they can't promote their artwork here. Liz 23:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Given this comment, I'm not sanguine about their intention to contribute productively. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

They added this grossly inappropriate religious screed to Babylon on their third day of editing, then they responded to a warning about it with more proselytizing. I had hoped they would get the message but just today they made this non-NPOV edit apparently based on their religious beliefs. Apart from religious edits, apparently the only other thing they've done is add self-produced fan art to a variety of articles. I'm willing to AGF while they learn what are acceptable edits here but I'd like to see some acknowledgement from them that they understand why all their edits so far have been unacceptable. (It would also show good faith if they would clean up the now-broken links in numerous articles now that their fan art has been deleted from Commons, rather than leaving it for other editors to do.) CodeTalker (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked NoahBWill2002 as not here to build an encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Vandal encounter

This IP seems to be a vandal who seems to be ready to start an edit war. I have reverted their disruptive edits, and they have begun to add them back.

diffs:

I would have put this at AIV, but I have no clue how to edit source. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done - Not an admin - I hate to be that person but unfortunately you've not sufficiently warned them, They've only received one warning and their edits aren't gross vandalism so this would only be declined by an admin anyway, If they continue I'll report them to AIV, Thanks, –Davey2010 23:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, –Davey2010 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

User:GDJackAttack1 mass-creating articles for non-notable or nonexistent places

GDJackAttack1 has agreed to no further creation of the problematic articles. Extant ones being handled via usual channels. No further action needed here. Star Mississippi 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

GDJackAttack1 (talk · contribs) has been mass-creating stub articles for places such as insignificant residential subdivisions and other localities in Alabama and Maryland (example), islands in the Bahamas and Senegal (example), and other insignificant highways and airports around the world. None of these articles are sourced by anything that verifies notability, just databases and maps, which has resulted in at least one article being pointed out as a map misreading and therefore nonexistent community at this AfD. I can only speculate how many more of these places do not exist and if any of them are phantom settlements.

There are too many of these articles to send through AfD or PROD manually and there is really no point in draftifying them or converting the articles into redirects since we have little proof that these topics are notable or even exist at all. Their talk page consists of nothing but notices of their articles being moved to the draftspace, AfD/PROD notices, and messages informing them to be more careful about article creation, yet they have seemingly ignored these messages and have persisted with spamming these stub articles for no clear reason. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I will stop creating these articles. GDJackAttack1 (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I tagged one as CSD A7 to see if that would work. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bgsu98: Thank you, I also considered PROD-ing them all but I noticed you have so already. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I think I got all of the ones that that Maryland batch, but I’m sure there are more. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Glenn103

Glenn103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been mass creating unsourced stubs about Cyrillic letters, most of which have been draftified. They've also disruptively edited in the past, such as: ''']''' (talk • contribs) 01:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Most of these pages don't even make any sense (eg.: Draft:Yery with tilde). The user also ignores any notice about his articles being moved to draftspace by simply recreating duplicates of them (eg.: Draft:Tse with caron & Tse with caron). Immediate action may be needed. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... ''']''' (talk • contribs) 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked them from article space and page moves, and will leave note on talk page to come here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, this almost feels like trolling. Their basic procedure seems to be: pick a random Cyrillic letter. Combine it with a random diacritic. Write a short stub on the combination, saying effectively "this letter combination is not used anywhere." The occasional historical mentions ("this combination was used in such-and-such obscure Siberian language") are completely unsourced, of course. (Everything is unsourced.) Oddwood (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me for detracting from the report, but this was your 4th edit, your last edit was in January 2016... how have you found yourself here of all places?

I mean you might have a point, but wow. – 2804:F1...57:88CF (::/32) (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

TPA for 83.106.86.95

Done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

83.106.86.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone revoke TPA for blocked IP, based on ? LizardJr8 (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Done and revdel'ed, thanks to JJMC89. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Can you please help?

William Swainson got moved from William John Swainson (because his middle name might not be John). But the talk page for this person is at Talk:William John Swainson, and the talk page for the disambiguation page is at Talk:William Swainson. I don't know what happened to the disambiguation page, and I don't know how to fix this. Oholiba (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done Couldn't be moved because the target page had to be deleted; its now fixed. As a note for the future, WP:AN would be a better place for this, since it isn't an 'incident'. That said - was there a dab page at William Swainson before? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for resolving this. As to the place for this, at some point I was told that "if you're a new user you have no reason to post at WP:AN" or something similar. I appreciate the help. Oholiba (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that the disambiguation page's revisions were merged into the history of the moved page, if I'm reading Special:Log/Shyamal correctly.

@Shyamal, can you confirm what happened/fix this? – 2804:F1...60:4C25 (::/32) (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually, WAS that the intention (merging the histories)? I have no idea how this works.

Maybe The Bushranger already did all that needed to be done. – 2804:F1...60:4C25 (::/32) (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

(edited): There was a dab page with two entries. It is now a redirect from William Swainson to William John Swainson and the direction is now different. The full histories are (merged) restored and visible. PS: I have added a hat-note to the one other (far less notable) lawyer - William Swainson (lawyer) - if there are many more entries to be dealt with then the (currently a redirect) page at William_Swainson_(disambiguation) could be reinstated/used. Shyamal (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

(nac) An intitle search turned up no other William Swainson, so I've tagged William Swainson (disambiguation) (which has no significant history) for speedying under WP:G14. Narky Blert (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

POVPushingTheTruth

The truth may set you free, but WP:THETRUTH will get you blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

User:POVPushingTheTruth is clearly NOTHERE. C F A 05:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. -- Euryalus (talk)| — Preceding undated comment added 05:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion

The inclusion of North Korea as a belligerent in the infobox for the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" article has been a point of extensive and protracted discussion since September. A formal Request for Comment (RfC) on this matter ran for several weeks and was closed with a clear consensus to include North Korea as a combatant based on reliable sources and expert analysis. However, despite the closure, the discussion has continued unabated across multiple threads, with certain editors repeatedly rehashing resolved points and questioning the validity of reliable sources, leading to significant disruption.

Key Points:

1. Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:
   • The RfC on North Korea's inclusion was conducted thoroughly, with a wide range of arguments presented by both sides.
   • The closing administrator, S Marshall, determined there was a clear consensus to include North Korea as a belligerent based on reliable sources and the strength of arguments.
   • The close explicitly allowed for reevaluation if new battlefield events or sources emerged, but no substantial new evidence has invalidated the prior consensus.
2. Ongoing Disruption:
   • Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editors.
   • This behavior includes undermining reliable sources, misrepresenting their content, and insisting on a higher standard of verification (e.g., requiring firsthand evidence of North Korean combat, which is unreasonable given the context).
3. Reliable Sources Confirming North Korean Involvement:
   • Multiple reputable outlets, including the BBC, Reuters, and Pentagon statements, confirm North Korean military involvement and casualties in the conflict.
   • Experts from institutions like Chatham House and RUSI have explicitly stated North Korea's role in combat, aligning with the community's decision.
4. Impact on the Community:
   • The continued disruption consumes editor time and resources, detracting from the article's improvement.
   • These actions disregard Misplaced Pages's consensus-building principles and guidelines for resolving disputes. This dispute has been ongoing for months, with multiple threads being opened and closed on the same topic.

Request for Administrative Action:

I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:

1. Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions.
2. Discourage editors from rehashing resolved discussions, particularly when arguments have been repeatedly addressed and dismissed.
3. Consider imposing a topic ban or other appropriate measures on editors who persist in disrupting the article with repetitive or bad-faith arguments.

This matter has been discussed exhaustively, and it is essential to prioritize Misplaced Pages's goals of maintaining a high-quality, well-sourced, and consensus-driven encyclopedia. Thank you for your attention to this matter. UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus. Rc2barrington (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at WP:AN rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. Liz 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I was going to post it at WP:AN but it said: "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest.

If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Thank you."

I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute Rc2barrington (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. Axad12 (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. Liz 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. Simonm223 (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. Axad12 (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC Rc2barrington (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the underlying issue here is that if you use AI to generate text which looks like obvious AI output then readers will wonder "does the end user even have sufficient English to understand what the AI has generated for them?" and "did the end user understand the material prior to deciding to employ AI?". Thus if a user is fluent in English, as you obviously are, it will always be better to communicate in your own voice.

At the end of the day, a user making a valid point in their own voice is generally speaking going to be taken more seriously than a user employing LLM output.

There are plenty of other reasons for users not to employ AI (see the recent thread here for extensive coverage) but the argument above seems like a good practical reason for fluent English speakers to always prefer using their own voice.

You will see from the recent thread that many users here are vehemently against AI use. Axad12 (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Dispute Over Edits and Use of British Raj Sources

Content dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

Hello,

I’m seeking administrator input regarding a dispute with @Ratnahastin over the content in the the "Kamaria Ahir" article. The editor removed significant content, citing User:Sitush/CasteSources as justification. Here are my concerns:

1. Misapplication of Policy:

Sitush’s essays are not official Misplaced Pages policy. Content decisions should follow WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:VERIFIABILITY.

2. Dismissal of Reliable Sources:

The removed content was based on British Raj-era sources, which are neutral and historically significant. The editor claims these are unreliable without specific evidence or discussion on the article’s talk page.

3. Unilateral Edits and Dismissive Behavior:

Despite my attempts to discuss the matter constructively, the editor dismissed my concerns as "AI-generated" and warned me about sanctions under WP:GSCASTE and WP:ARBIPA, discouraging collaboration.Check here for the warning

Evidence:

Diff of my original version

Diff of their first edit

Diff of their second edit

Ratnahastin talk page

Request for Administrative Action:

1. Review the removed content and the editor’s justification.

2. Ensure that disputes are discussed on the article’s talk page.

3. Address the editor’s dismissive tone to foster collaboration.

4. Prevent further disruptive edits/vandalism by IP editors (which hasn't happened yet) And from Autoconfirmed users(e.g. @GrilledSeatJet , -Their Diff) and even from Extended Autoconfirmed users(@Ratnahastin) by banning such editors and putting an extended protection on the Article which I have once put request (please find it here) for but it got denied and now the results are as follows.

Thank you for your time and attention. I’m happy to provide further information if needed.

---

Best Regards

--- Nlkyair012 (talk) 10:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Nothing to say about me really bot

Locked (non-admin closure). C F A 13:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

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

Please delete the user page, block the bot and report to stewards for a global block, as per m:NTSAMR. Thank you! 81.2.123.64 (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Concern About a New Contributor

Kriji Sehamati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dear Wikipedians,

I hope you’re doing well. I wanted to inform you about a new contributor @Kriji Sehamati, despite lacking experience, has repeatedly attempted to vandalize multiple articles. These articles were properly aligned with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines and reviewed by experienced contributors, but he/she seemed unwilling to understand or respect their adherence to the policies.

I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.

Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.

Thankyou! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

"Vandalize" is a very loaded word here with a specific meaning. As far as I can tell, what they've done is nominate 4 articles for deletion, and your response has been to accuse them of vandalism, ignoring dispute resolution procedures and making personal attacks – none of which I can see at a glance through their contributions.

Perhaps if you supplied evidence of this behaviour, someone would be able to help? If your issue is that they've nominated 4 articles of which you are a major contributor and are doing so by going through your contributions in order to find articles to nominate for deletion with specious reasons, then this board would be the place to come. If not, then making your arguments for keeping the articles on the AfDs in question would be your best bet.

By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

(ec) This is an odd one. As S-Aura failed to provide diffs, I looked at Kriji Sehamati's contribution history. New account (9 Dec) began editing today, created two drafts and made a bunch of edits to those. Then began adding COI tags to articles S-Aura wrote, nominated those articles for deletion, and then left a possible UPE template on S-Aura's talk page. Really seems to be something weird going on here between those two. (In addition to opening this ANI thread, S-Aura asked for help with basically the same message on the talk pages of Ipigott, Ryan shell, CFA, and BusterD, and S-Aura opened same complaint at AN.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I am concerned that User:Kriji_Sehamati’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Misplaced Pages’s guidelines.

She seems to lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

You were asked to provide diffs. You did, almost, here but then reverted yourself. Those diffs (well, the ones before those diffs) are just the other user nominating articles for deletion (which is allowed) or tagging them for what they believe to be conflict of interest edits (which is also allowed).

Please provide some actual evidence that the other user is engaging in chronic, intractable behaviour, rather than just not editing how you would like them to. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Here are some diffs highlighting her problematic edits. However, I believe that many of her contributions may be in violation of Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. It appears she has specifically targeted me and added the COI tag multiple times to the same page. I would appreciate it if you could review her actions more thoroughly:

•

•

•

•

and many more

Thankyou! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence at all that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of this. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Please check! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The articles that have been nominated for deletion discussion have been reviewed by experienced contributors. These discussions involve articles about judges and lawyers, under WP:NPOL, a valid criterion according to Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. Therefore, the deletion decision was made after carefully reviewing these articles. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Honestly it looks like this user, rightly or wrongly, believes you have a conflict of interest and are acting on the basis of that assumption. I would suggest, if you don't have a CoI, talking to them about this and maybe asking why they've come to this conclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

They have just started targeting my contributions, and I tried to inform her about the situation. However, she is acting as if she knows everything about Misplaced Pages and is dismissing my concerns. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kriji Sehamati: hasn't edited since their AfD spree earlier today, let's wait and see what their response here is when they return to editing. Schazjmd (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• We need to stop focusing on the OP's calling this vandalism; it is not. I've changed the header to reflect that. That said, the new user's edits are problematic and merit scrutiny. As for the UPE stuff, I've removed that post from the OP's Talk page; it's nonsensical coming from a new user and does not merit a response.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
• It is, of course, not vandalism to nominate articles for AFD discussions as long as a legitimate deletion rationale is provided and the article hasn't just been discussed at a recent AFD. However, I don't think it's a good sign when a brand new editor claims to understand all of Misplaced Pages policies and whose first actions are to nominate articles at AFDs. They are almost never an actual new editor, especially when they know how to even set up an AFD or are familiar with using Twinkle on their first day of editing. Liz 19:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  It seems that she is not new to Misplaced Pages and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against User:Kriji Sehamati. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Misplaced Pages. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. BusterD (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively created a second thread about this exact issue on this same board, which was reverted by another editor. This is intentional disruption. BusterD (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  As to the question "Why am I here?", poets and artists have been trying to answer this question for eons. Epistemology is outside the scope of this board, but there are articles about it. Show up to edit if you want to, but expect disagreement from time to time. (That's actually a sound answer to any epistemology question as well.) BusterD (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Dear @BusterD,

  It means I have been proven wrong, and that user’s contributions have been more focused on me, which is quite insufficient to catch someone’s lie that she is pretending to be new, when in fact she is old.

  Also, I am not against AfD; I am simply expressing my opinion. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. Remsense ‥ 论 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Dear @Remsense,

  I am not engaged in paid activities on Misplaced Pages, and she claimed that I am connected with the subject, who is a judge, lawyer, etc. You all should understand that this is not a trivial matter; justice is a very respected position. Making such allegations can escalate court cases. I would like to remind you of the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI case. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  One thing you need to understand immediately is you should never make another post that sounds vaguely like a legal threat, as you've just done above. Seriously. That intonation is seriously not helping us decide who's right or wrong here. Remsense ‥ 论 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Okay! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I will caution you that this is tiptoeing right up to the edge of WP:NLT and you'd be advised to avoid making legal threats. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Dear @Simonm223,

  I am merely showing that she can potentially do something inappropriate. I am following the guidelines and not making any legal threats. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice. Remsense ‥ 论 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  The page of Justice Subramonium Prasad, who had conducted over the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI court hearing, was also created by me. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Misplaced Pages with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again". Remsense ‥ 论 13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. BusterD (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Good call, I'll retract the above. Remsense ‥ 论 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  No, that is not what I am implying. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  No one has said your contributions are not good. However, it should be noted that a draft being accepted at AfC or a new page having been patrolled does not guarantee greater scrutiny would not result in a valid AfD nomination. That said, echoing others here it's clear something problematic is up with this user's behavior. Remsense ‥ 论 12:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  You can't both criticize someone for lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, and then argue that she is too familiar with the platform to be a newcomer for knowing how to file an AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here knew how to file an AfD before knowing all 14 notability guidelines by heart. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  There are detailed instructions on filing an AfD that can be found by googling "how can I get a Misplaced Pages page deleted" - if somebody had some personal reason for wanting to have pages removed it doesn't strain credibility to think that's why they created a WP account and that they just followed the very clear instructions on the appropriate pages.

  In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfD process but not criteria that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• I believe we're entering boomerang territory at this point. Opinions? BusterD (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to drop the stick. Remsense ‥ 论 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. BusterD (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'd have said close with trout for all if not for creating the second thread at AN/I. Based on that I'd say the OP should be formally cautioned against such antics in the future. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I should have added that I largely hold with Remsense in their position. BusterD (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  User:Kriji Sehamati‬ is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  You need to stop insisting this is definitely the case if you don't have any evidence for it, period. Remsense ‥ 论 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  S-Aura, how did you make the determination User:Kriji Sehamati‬ is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages? Please share your process. That's a personal attack, and requires proof to prevent you from being in violation of WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. I've looked at the AfDs and they seem reasonable to me. When you've provided strong sources the article is being kept. So far the jury is out on the others. Both of you seem to be writing articles about obscure living persons who wouldn't normally (by my cursory reading) have a Misplaced Pages article about them because reliable sourcing is not readily found. When I see that, I must suspect COI or undeclared unpaid editing here, but nobody's admitting to it. BusterD (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  S-Aura's continuing to issue personal attacks makes it more difficult for us to just close this (without some form of consequence for the editor making unproven personal attacks after they've been warned repeatedly). BusterD (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences. BusterD (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks. C F A 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support BOOMERANG - I've been uninvoled and have mainly just been watching the back-and-forths, but the personal attacks and VESTED mindset, such as "questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors", concerns me. Not sure for how long, but I don't think anything longer than a months is appropriate given the circumstances. E_F 15:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake making aspersions

The OP says they don't care any more which I'm reading as a withdrawal and the other party says they won't be responding again so I'm closing this discussion. My only comment is that both editors in this dispute should have brought this to the article talk page to talk this disagreement out. I don't know if the differences would be resolved but this is what we advise editors to do when their edits are reverted. Now I just have to get that scene in the movie out of my mind. Liz 05:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

Postscript: Ah, someone just close this, I don't care any more.  — Hex • talk 22:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

---

I'm posting here after a particularly underwhelming interaction with an editor in the form of edit summaries. I'll need to provide the context of a brief content dispute which hopefully won't take too long and then get to the point. I'm not asking for anyone to take my side in the dispute.

Trading Places is a widely acclaimed comedy film from 1983, which is also widely acknowledged to have problematic elements by modern standards, including a scene in which the villain of the piece, stuck in a gorilla costume, is locked in a cage with a real gorilla, which is implied to sexually penetrate him without his consent.

The article states that G. Gordon Liddy demurred being cast in the role upon finding that out. The citation for this claim is a listicle on Indiewire, which contains the sentence

Reportedly, Liddy was on board until he got to the part where Beeks becomes a gorilla’s mate.

Reportedly by whom is not mentioned, let alone is there a direct quotation from Liddy. Plus as can be seen the words "becomes a gorilla's mate" are linked to a very poor quality, hand-held video of the scene in question playing on a television. This alone should be enough to raise serious questions about the use of this "source" in a featured article.

The content dispute began when I changed it like this (diff) with the comment Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs:

−

Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla.

+

Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks is raped by a gorilla.

This was reverted (diff) by Darkwarriorblake with the comment not what the source says.

After thinking about it a moment I came to the conclusion described above about the quality of the source, and decided that it was better out than in, which is what I should have done in the first place.(diff)

−

...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks. Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla. Paul Gleason took the role;...

+

...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks with Paul Gleason eventually taking the role;...

My accompanying comment was (a) That was the source's voice, not Liddy's. It's called a euphemism. Demonstrable by how it links to a clip of the scene in which a man is raped by a gorilla. (b) Source says "reportedly" for this claim, without evidence. Poor quality source. Removing claim

That was reverted by Darkwarriorblake (diff) with the comment Nothing wrong with Indiewire as a source, if there is I'd raise it at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. Until then, there's a talk page for you to use per WP:BRD. Your comments sound agenda driven and therefore not Neutral.

This is where the reason for me to raise this at this board begins, because that's solidly an example of casting aspersions. It came on top of a revert which reintroduced a claim cited to a rumor in a blog post into a featured article, but that's really not my concern, because if the champions of the featured article process have decided that it's somehow acceptable for our "best" content then I'm just going to move on to something else rather than argue.

There's one final back and forth which was enough to motivate me to post here. First, I reverted that revert (, my only time using the actual "Undo" button today), with this comment: a good source doesn't say "reportedly" (ie, spread a rumor), it specifies the origin of a fact. My only "agenda" is with a crap listicle being used as a reference, regardless of who published it. Take it to talk if you want to argue for the continued inclusion of a trash ref in a featured article, or source the claim properly yourself.

This was reverted - again - by Darkwarriorblake (diff) with the comment How are you an admin? "rape played for laughs" is an agenda, this went through FA as is so WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD apply. You must go to the talk page, not I. I don't know if you're going through a bad time or something but this isn't how an admin should be acting or communicating with others, up to and including WP:EDITWARRING

At this point it's gone firmly into the realm of knee-jerk reversions, because if Darkwarriorblake took the time to read the article which they've reverting changes to for years (is this ownership? Kind of feels that way), they would get down to the critical reassessment section. Which says "some critics have praised the film while highlighting elements that they believe aged poorly, including racial language, the use of blackface, and the implied rape of Beeks by a gorilla", cited to articles in four major publications. Or, you know, even search Google for "Trading Places gorilla rape".

So anyhow regardless of whether the Indiewire source is deemed suitable or not, I'm just wondering what the feeling here is about someone making goofy assertions on the record that another editor has "an agenda" (what agenda could it be?) and may not be emotionally stable, which really doesn't feel like assuming good faith at all.  — Hex • talk 20:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive.

• I've added a second source for the claim. Really this should've been the first option rather than removing the content.
• The first summary was, as stated, "Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs". "Rape played for laughs" is a loaded comment and not something said in the article or the source text, so it's a personal opinion, it's not neutral, it's agenda-driven.
• When this was reverted, the editor just removed the content entirely claiming IndieWire was unreliable. There is, as far as I'm aware, nothing wrong with Indiewire. I've since found a second source, the Telegraph, which is reliable per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
• The editor ignored WP: BRD when raised, and as an admin they should adhere to policy.
• The editor states that they are an admin on their page. Assuming this is true, the aggressiveness of their edits, hyper focus on the single area, and use of words like "crap listicle" seemed out of line with what I, personally, would expect from an admin on Misplaced Pages, certainly someone who has been so for nearly two decades. Perhaps the edit summary wasn't the place to have that discussion but, as stated, they weren't adhering to WP: BRD to start a discussion, and in the interim the article needed putting back to the status quo.
• I find accusations of OWNERSHIP often tend to come when people don't get their way. Which is fine. I have plenty of reversions on the page for people adding unsourced content and there are plenty of changes as well. I find someone removing sourced content and me putting the sourced content back to not really be something you can fling ownership at.
• Within the context of the film, Beeks does become the romantic partner of the gorilla, it seemed more appropriate and encylcopedic text than just saying 'rape', and neither source I've added says that either.
• Anyways, my edit history shows I'm a massive contributor and helper and it's nearly Xmas, and I don't feel like engaging with this any further, good luck Hex. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course you don't, having ignored the actual matter of your conduct that I'm raising here. Your comments about the content of the article are irrelevant.  — Hex • talk 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Hex's position is not wholly supported, although in the entire issue, their toolset is irrelevant. There was no incivility on either part, and an all-out edit war seems to have been averted.Fundamentally the change Hex wanted to make was pure OR; rape may have been intimated—or, as Hex themself admits, implied—but its never overtly stated and is a wholly loaded term. This is the interpretation of an editor, not of secondary sources. If there is a pron=blem with Indywire as a source—currently used in 1000s of articles—take it to WP:RSN. If it's disputed that it's a high quality source per WP:FA?, then take it to WT:FAC. Accusations of OWNership are as unhelpful—and as much an aspersion—as accusations of agenda-led editing. In fact, for OWNership, Hex should read the relevant policy: here, it is WP:FAOWN, which not only allows for careful stewardship of featured material, but requires significant changes to the consensus version to be discussed on talk; I don't suppose there's any suggestion that introducing rape—particularly "played for laughs"—wouldn't be a significant addition.Really though, this is an overblown content dispute which should have started with one revert each, and ended on the talk page. --SerialNumber54129 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  "Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' be a significant addition" - here's an interview with John Landis, the director.

  One of the executives was deeply appalled by a man being sexually molested by a gorilla. And I said you know, it's a joke and it goes by very quickly. But the first preview was very successful and it all went away.

  Feel free to amend the article on that basis. I'm certainly not interested in spending any more time on it.  — Hex • talk 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Followup

I just want to say that, now that we've had an ANI thread on the subjeect of Gordon Liddy's feelings about portraying the romantic partner of a gorilla, I can die happy.

While we're on the subject, our article on Liddy recites that Prior to his departure from the FBI in 1962, Liddy sought admission to various bars. I'm curious to know whether this is meant to imply that Liddy had a drinking problem, and whether this could have had any bearing on the whole gorilla romantic partner situation. EEng

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

Extremely Annoying situation

Blocked for one week. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

I reverted this edit by this IP. They then trouted me multiple times for it. One of these was for "being shovel shenanigans" which I took as a PA and informed them of it.

The rest escapes words for me. See these discussions.

on my page

On theirs

they also used a second IP to continue to irk me. I hesitated to bring this to ANI, since they seemed new, and I didn't want to bite, but enough is enough.

Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

IP vandalism

Blocked. (non-admin closure) C F A 03:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

This user: user:76.67.115.228 seems to be on a spree of Vandalism, which they are summarising in the edit summaries as 'reverting vandalism'. Example: 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrainman (talk • contribs) 02:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

including racist edits summarized as reverting racist texts. Example irisChronomia (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The IP is already blocked. To OP: Consider reporting obvious vandalism like this at WP:AIV. – 2804:F1...57:88CF (::/32) (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on Radio Skid Row page

User:Stationmanagerskidrow is repeatedly removing information about a recent incident involving a Jewish DJ at their station. They say that it is incorrect information, even though it is sourced. The name also states clearly that this is a company account. Lastly, they have continued this behavior even after being warned on their talk page. Pyramids09 (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

User is now editing using User:159.196.168.116 Pyramids09 (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and the article is being actively edited by many different editors. However, no discussion about the disagreements has occurred on the article talk page which is where this discussion should be happening. Liz 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

That article probably should be speedied as an A7 for not containing any assertions of notability; which obscures that Stationmanagerskidrow appears to have been edit warring on it with an undisclosed COI, and presumably was WP:LOUTSOCKing as this IP, and if so violated 3RR as well. It's probably best for me not to take administrative action here tonight as I won't be around later/tomorrow to deal with any followups, but something should be done here beyond just saying "take it to the talk page." ⇒SWATJester 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The page was longer, but sourced (all but?) soley to the station's site and it's been trimmed down to what it is now. Given the repeated edit-warring by IPs I've semi-protected the page for two days for now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:USERNAME and WP:COI message added here. I'm just about to make myself thoroughly WP:INVOLVED by seeing what I can do about the Radio Skid Row article. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Insults

I'd like to report an incident related to this discussion. A person under IP already accused me of being "obsessed". Now someone (possibly the same person) suggests that I may need psychiatric help. Please also see this comment. I guess we can always agree to disagree with other people, but this is going a bit too far. Thank you. Psychloppos (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Psychloppos. What action are you seeking to happen here? Liz 09:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea which actions are warranted here. Maybe an admin could leave a message to this IP and this registered user and remind them that they should assume good faith ? It would also be nice to remind them about Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Saying that I am "fuelled by an unhealthy obsession" or questioning my sanity do not seem to respect those guidelines. Psychloppos (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots

• Nlkyair012

This editor has been constantly using AI chatbots to respond and write messages. They are a single purpose account for glorifying the Kamaria Ahir caste using unreliable WP:RAJ era sources, I and several other experienced editors have taken time and effort to respond to their endless queries and WP:SEALIONING generated using ChatGPT. They have posted AI generated walls of text on multiple noticeboards such as WP:RSN and WP:DRN and including here , accusing me of vandalism.

Despite my repeated requests and even a final warning to them (including a request by @ActivelyDisinterested:) they are still continuing to do it. Their messages are repeating the same argument again and again and are frankly just hallucinations that bring up fictitious guidelines or misrepresent the existing ones. Several editors have told them that Raj era sources are not reliable yet they continue to ask for more evidence on why that is the case based on AI generated claims of supposed academic value or neutrality. This is getting very disruptive and taking up valuable contributor time to respond to their endless AI responses which take a few seconds to generate. I have alerted them about WP:GSCASTE and WP:ARBIPA, I would appreciate it if someone could enforce a restriction on this user from at minimum caste area. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Ratnahastin,

To start with I should admit that I am sorry for all the inconvenience that I may have caused as a result of my actions. It was never my intention to take people’s time or skew the conversation in a certain way. I appreciate the core idea to contribute the thoughts to the Wiki and share it borne in mind the overall rules and policies of this program.

I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site. Even when I was using AI for the grammar check or, for instance, to elaborate on some point in the text, I saw to my mismanagement that over the process we probably confused the readers and repeated the same information and thoughts, which I would never wish to happen again. From now on I will ensure that in the future the input which I provide to wikipedia fits the Misplaced Pages standard and is more personal. I will also not write walls of text and will not make assertations that do not have substantiated evidence in sources.

As for subjects that concern the Raj and the sources from this period and the discussions we have had it seems that I have gone too far in demanding clarification for the same thing. That being the case, with the understanding that the consensus will be acknowledged, I shall not be inclined to reopen this discussion unless new substantiated evidence is produced. I don’t want to prolong the conversation or bring any more stress.

I will strive to learn from my experience to be more productive in my interactions going forward. If there are other limitations or additional rules to which I have to stick to, I will receive them with pleasure.

In the same respect, let me specially apologize for the inconvenience and thank all of you for bearing with us. That was why I wanted to remind all of us that we can and should keep collectively improving Misplaced Pages as a resource. Nlkyair012 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style, although GPTzero said this is human input. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply sir, I can't explain how frustrated I'm feeling from this morning which this user made me experience Nlkyair012 14:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The time when I messaged Vikram banafar I was casual not formal and second of all your saying doesn't prove anything "and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style" that's a straight up false accusation and utter nonsensical point and 3rd point being that GPTzero stated that this is a human input then that's an human input end of the question. Nlkyair012 14:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses which are better at detecting LLM outputs than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Man you still wanna do this? @Zanahary also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way Nlkyair012 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

You know what I think this is getting to the WP:NOTHERE point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

This ain't getting anywhere Nlkyair012 14:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I really don't understand the problem. Cuz I literally also said many where that yes I used AI but for expanding and grammar correction Nlkyair012 14:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

If this combative approach is your "casual" style, perhaps your use of AI and its over the top politeness was an attempt to mask it. In any case, I think you are not here for building an encyclopaedia but for caste glorification given your obsession with a certain sub-caste. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. Nlkyair012 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's better. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Potential vandal trying to start edit war on the page for Frisch's.

This user keeps using IP addresses in order to revert creditable information about who makes their tartar sauce. Please look into this user. IP Addresses used were 67.80.16.30, 66.117.211.82, and 216.24.107.180. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JrStudios The Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Nadeem asghar khan inaccurate edit summaries

All but 2 of user's edit summaries are "Fixed Typo" when they are in fact partially updating statistical information on the page. Have left multiple messages/warnings on TP, with no response. Spike 'em (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards